>> That an aggressor nation can walk into another country's sovereign territory and annex it with the blessing of a sitting US president is a disgrace.
They did that first in 2014 under Obama, and again under Biden. The current situation has no criteria for an end - it's an endless conflict. Trump is going to move towards resolution of that and the fighting.
There's still quite a bit of Europe that Russia wants to plunder for resour... I mean... influence. All of Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics, the Balkans - anywhere that used to be a part of the Warsaw Pact - is a target.
Appeasing Putin now will likely see another military action in the next decade, especially if the US significantly reduces or totally ends its commitment to NATO.
To be fair, the US has done nothing but harp on its allies in the organization to increase their g_ddamn defense spending for the better part of three decades now, and only some of them have truly taken it seriously since 2022. Even if spending levels are increased now, it won't have enough of an effect to see battlefield dividends for several years, if not at least a decade. The end result is that the US will be the security backstop for a Europe that has taken American willingness to get into a possible thermonuclear war for granted, in the face of more Russian incursion, no matter how poorly handled that incursion might be.
The UK and France also have nukes. I'm not sure about the UK, but France at least would shield NATO and EU with the nuclear umbrella even if the US leaves NATO. Finland, Romania and Poland might want to ask France if it minds sharing.. ideally before the alliance gets so weak that Putin decides to test our resolve.
> France at least would shield NATO and EU with the nuclear umbrella even if the US leaves NATO
This is absolutely not the case. The French nuclear arsenal is controlled separately to the joint NATO command and the French have traditionally made it very clear it is for the protection of France, not NATO. Indeed France left NATO for years partly over this and only rejoined in 2009.
Macron has opened discussions about a "pan-Europe" nuclear shield, but be very clear: if Russia was to use battlefield nuclear weapons in say Poland, there is no expectation that France would respond. There is an expectation that NATO would respond (or there was last year.. who knows if NATO is reliable now?)
sucks to be Poland or Finland then, I guess. some tactical nukes ought to soften up whatever conventional forces are defending Warsaw and Helsinki. maybe Trump can meet with Putin in Saudi Arabia again to broker some peace accords.
...seriously, if I were Finland I'd be looking at starting a sovereign weapons program.
IIRC the UK and France have enough nuclear weapons to decimate an industrialized economy. The UK also shares some of its nuclear weapons program with the United States through the servicing of its Vanguard class submarines at King's Bay, GA.
They do not have enough to create an exchange that could wipe out human society, which is the deterrent that the US brought to bear.
If you are Vladimir Putin, with enough infrastructure to possibly protect yourself and your ruling class from an attack of 120 warheads, but not 1700, your calculus for the use of nuclear weapons - particularly the tactical type, of which Russia has many - changes considerably if the people with 1700 warheads are no longer going to use them against you.
I think that's an overoptimistic judgement of the fate of Ukrainians left stuck under Russian control. Russia doesn't even care about its own people dying.
This is not unlike saying that rape ceases to be rape when the victim stops resisting.
We have every reason to think that "ending the war" under Chief Cheeto will mean "capitulate to the aggressor," and Russia has already shown its eagerness to commit genocide against Ukraine and eradicate it culturally.
So he is indeed complicit. The unacceptable terms he wants or likely will suggest (and the unacceptable manner in which he pursues those terms, by negotiating without Ukraine's involvement) -- essentially Ukraine's surrender -- amount, by corollary, to a justification of further Russian aggression when Ukraine rejects them.
> Utter nonsense. He's trying to end the war. That may not happen on terms that make you happy, but people will stop dying which is quite the opposite of what you said
I was going to say just like Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler - but realised that would be grossly unfair on Chamberlain as he never tried to exploit Czechoslovakia for half of its mineral resources.
He is trying to "end the war" on terms that enrich himself, in vainglorious pursuit of a Nobel peace prize, and in a way that will almost inevitably result in a wider conflict very soon. Please don't pretend this is about "people will stop dying". That is utter nonsense.
Putting aside every instinct I have to join the choir voicing every issue I have with blaming the victim and cozying up to the agitator, or to challenge your charitable view of Trump's motivations...
I'm genuinely interested to hear your take on the likely and potential repercussions of rewarding Russia/Putin for their aggression. What makes you confident that they won't reasonably perceive this outcome as tacit permission to start coming for other territory?
Putin loves working off maps from the 1800s. Finland, for example, is a likely future target.
Not to be hyperbolic, but there's a good reason you aren't supposed to negotiate with terrorists.
I have no confidence at all. In fact, preventing further Russian aggression might not be Trump's goal to begin with. After all, Trump did say he would encourage Russia to invade a country that didn't pay its due.
>What makes you confident that they won't reasonably perceive this outcome as tacit permission to start coming for other territory?
Putin has approximately zero interest in territories and annexations. The entire war with Ukraine is exclusively a reaction to the Maidan in 2014, an attempt to prevent something similar in Russia.
Talks about "rewarding Russia" - is literally Putin's propaganda to hide his complete failure. There is no reward, the whole current situation in which Putin put himself, when his authority and influence is lower then ever - was planned as a short two week campaign with no downsides.
> Putin has approximately zero interest in territories and annexations.
Frankly, that's just horseshit.
He annexed Ukraine. He's taken territory in South Ossetia. His actions in Ukraine are a response to the lack of international community stopping him in his prior expansionist plays, and he will continue to push the boundary until he is stopped. Accepting Putin's claims about his motivations at face value is the height of naivety.
