Post New

FOTOW @chadbourn.bsky.social
Looks like the meeting with Zelenskyy was a good one. Trump now backs Ukraine's 1991 borders instead of offering up Crimea to Putin.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not? Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like "a paper tiger." When the people living in Moscow, and all of the Great Cities, Towns, and Districts all throughout Russia, find out what is really going on with this War, the fact that it's almost impossible for them to get Gasoline through the long lines that are being formed, and all of the other things that are taking place in their War Economy, where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that! Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act. In any event, I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!

DONALD J. TRUMP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Lambo: After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.

Yeah, I guess Dope1's going to have to set aside that "Zelensky doesn't have the dudes, the guns or the money" shtick now that Trumpedo has changed the tune to Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that!

But I still wanna' know who wrote that. No way Trumpedo wrote any of that.

But I still wanna' know who wrote that. No way Trumpedo wrote any of that.

I reread it and I agree, it's too well reasoned and written for Trump. And Dope has to deal with:

1. after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia,

2. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option.

3. Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years

4. look like "a paper tiger"

5. Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble

Dope's usual method is to go silent, post about anything but that for a bit, then come back full of BS and braggadocio.

Here's hoping Putin is on good health and finances and htis ends up in Paris.

And the S an P 500 is burned on a bonfire.

Looks like the meeting with Zelenskyy was a good one. Trump now backs Ukraine's 1991 borders instead of offering up Crimea to Putin.

iirc, many of the "rare earth" deposits, that Lord Trump wants to make a profit off of, are in eastern Ukraine. Probably Putin would not offer him a big enough cut, so he flips to backing Ukraine. He'll continue on this path, until zukking up to Putin looks more profitable, again.

Steve...HBTT

After their Kirk meltdowns I’ve snoozed most of the libs here. I’ll check in on them from time to time

But let’s talk about this. I’ve said all along that Trump wants to make a deal to get to peace as soon as possible and the Alaska summit was Putin’s off ramp. A chance for him to end the war right now and maybe get something for it.

What people here aren’t grasping - because they can’t - was that Trump today took that off the table. He basically signaled to Putin, “I tried to get you to come to the table…now, good luck”.

Students of history - of which this board has almost none - will remember what Bill Clinton told Yasser Arafat after the latter rejected BC’s offering.

This feels similar.

The ball is in the Euroloser’s court. If they want the war to end, they need to join the US in sanctioning the crap out of India and China. It’s that simple.

Oh, and Trump said something else today. He said go ahead and shoot down Russkie planes that violate NATO airspace.

Trump today took that off the table.

It was never ON the table. That was a Spankee wish for a pink unicorn.

Spankee had Putin when they were face to face. He blew it--as weak wannabe leaders usually fail.

So, NOT a surprise for anyone who recognized it (which you did NOT).

Oh, almost forgot.

Unless something changes the strategic calculus Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw Putin out.

Astute minds would ask what kids of changes in the strategic calculus would alter thing. Alas.

The ball is in the Euroloser’s court. If they want the war to end, they need to join the US in sanctioning the crap out of India and China. It’s that simple.

Simplistic view. Euro has Hungary and Slovakia who will buy gas, etc, for power, from Russia and Euro doesn't have the ability to tell them no. Trump knows this, so he gives that as an ultimatum, because he knows they can't do it. It's not real. It's just posturing. But take a look at
Trump. He played tariffs on India and he admitted that India just ignored him and did some things with Xi. We need India in our orbit, not Xi's.

Now this. what's he done? We have to wait and see if this foray into sanity is real.

Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw Putin out.

Brer Putin socked the tar baby in the nose and now he’s stuck.

Sure, Zelensky may lack the means to kick him out.

But that’s not the only way to skin Brer Bear.

Zelensky is Brer Tar Baby.

What people here aren’t grasping - because they can’t - was that Trump today took that off the table. He basically signaled to Putin, “I tried to get you to come to the table…now, good luck”.

One little thing about that. Lord Trump was talking about the Europeans buttressing Ukraine, and Europeans shooting down Russian aircraft that infringe their airspace. He's talking a good game about Ukraine retaking everything the Russians now occupy, presumably including Crimea, but he has not proposed to Congress any additional supplies to Ukraine to help make that happen.

From the Google net sifter:

As of September 2025, Donald Trump's administration has not proposed any new, direct U.S. military aid for Ukraine that would be funded by the American government. Instead, it has established a new mechanism for providing military assistance, with NATO allies footing the bill for U.S. weapons.

The new military aid framework

In July 2025, the Trump administration and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte announced a new weapons delivery system for Ukraine. This model operates on the principle that NATO allies send weapons from their own stockpiles to Ukraine, and the U.S. then sells replacement arms to the allies.
Key details include:

European funding: Under this "pay-for-play" system, NATO countries are responsible for financing the U.S. weapons. In September 2025, Reuters reported that the first aid packages under this plan were approved, potentially amounting to as much as $10 billion in weapons.

NATO coordination: NATO is leading the effort to coordinate what Ukraine needs and what member states can provide, with the U.S. supplying the backfill.

And now, the US has stepped back from bidding on a new contract for Denmark, saying the US needs all it's material for itself. My takeaway is Trump has decided he can't get an easy Nobel for "solving" Ukraine, so he's walking away, and looking for other adventures.

Steve....HBTT

But that’s not the only way to skin Brer Bear.

And that’s been my point all along. The Europeans need to help change the overall calculus.

But do they have the resolve?

"Oh, almost forgot.

Unless something changes the strategic calculus Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw Putin out.

Astute minds would ask what kids of changes in the strategic calculus would alter thing. Alas." - Dumbass Dope

A 300 post thread explaining it to him in simple terms and Dumbass Dope still cannot figure out that the way for Ukraine to win back all of their territory doesn't involve kicking Putin and him armies out. It involves Russia voluntarily leaving because it gets too expensive and domestically cumbersome to keep holding the territory they have taken.

Dope, you still haven't addressed the five points that directly contradict your summation of the Ukraine War, and support 1PG's summation. So now you have to do an about face - by not mentioning the five points listed, insulting folks, and talking about something else - which you are doing now - with BS and braggadocio. You won't even address that Trump deliberately put up the demand of not buying any Russian gas because he knew full well that his buddies, including Orban, were buying gas from Russia and Euro couldn't do it, as a way for him to walk away.

You were dead wrong in your discussions with 1PG. 52% OF American now favor supporting Ukraine and even more favor giving them weapons. Are you going to change your tune now and no longer be a surrender monkey?

The Europeans need to help change the overall calculus.

The overall calculus doesn't need to be changed for Ukraine to win, nor is there anything the Europeans can really do to change it in any material way.

Secondary sanctions won't change the direction of the war. We've already seen that with the U.S. and India. The U.S. imposed whopping big sanctions against India to try to get them to stop buying Russian oil. They didn't stop buying Russian oil. Instead, the sanctions had the opposite of the intended effect. India promptly moved closer into the Sino-Russian sphere of influence, publicly cozying up to Putin and Xi in a pointed show of increased alignment.

Europe imposing sanctions against China and India would have the same effect - or rather, the same unintended consequence.^^ Neither India nor China would stop trading with Russia in response to the sanctions. Instead, they would simply tighten their economic and diplomatic bonds with each other. And the damage to the EU's economy from the sanctions would make it harder for them to continue their economic support for Ukraine.

The current overall calculus provides a good chance for Ukraine to win the war, but painfully slowly. If there were measures that could speed that up, it would be good to implement them. However, there aren't really any such measures on offer. Secondary sanctions won't work.


^^Note that the EU almost certainly can't do this. They cannot impose sanctions without unanimity among the member states, and Hungary would almost certainly refuse to approve them.

And that’s been my point all along.

No it hasn't been Surrender Monkey.

The overall calculus doesn't need to be changed for Ukraine to win, nor is there anything the Europeans can really do to change it in any material way.

That’s certainly an opinion to have.

That’s certainly an opinion to have.

Yes. And it's the one most supported by the facts.

The U.S. imposed significant - massive - secondary sanctions on India. It did not have the intended effect. Rather than ceasing imports of Russian oil, India took affirmative measures to demonstrate their alignment with Russia - and China, which is another massive "own goal" given the Administration's ostensible prioritization of China as the preeminent global threat. Russian oil exports to India continue, unabated.

And Russia won't keep doing this forever. If they can't ever conclusively defeat the Ukrainian forces, they will eventually leave. Ukraine, as the country that was invaded, doesn't have that option. Even if they can't ever win, they don't have the choice to leave. Invaders have the choice to give up and go home, the invaded countries do not. Historically, this asymmetry has often resulted in the invading country eventually deciding that their best option is to leave once they conclude they are unable to conclusively defeat the opposing forces. Because even if the other side can't ever defeat them on the battlefield, the invaded country will keep fighting until they lose. And as long as Ukraine is fully supported by NATO, Russia can't ever conclusively defeat them.

So Ukraine can win, but it will take a long time for them to win. And there's nothing that can really speed it up in a material way.

That's deeply unpleasant. It points to a long, protracted conflict that may take many years to play out. But simply because the situation is horrible doesn't mean that there's a magic bullet out there that can change the situation. There's not. If Ukraine is to remain free, we're looking at many years of fighting. It can't be changed by secondary sanctions.^^


^^And again, even if everyone in the EU actually thought secondary sanctions would work, Russia's allies in Hungary would be able to block them.

And Russia won't keep doing this forever. If they can't ever conclusively defeat the Ukrainian forces, they will eventually leave.

Assumption on your part. This only works if the cost of keeping what they’ve taken exceeds the benefits. So far that’s not the case.

If Hungary is the problem, address Hungary.

You’re essentially laying out the case why the EU is completely useless, btw. Eventually there will come a day when the West needs to make a unified front against the totalitarian powers of Asia…and the paperwork that holds the EU won’t allow that to happen.

And, since Lord Trump cannot take Russian oil off the market, by punishing those who buy it, what is plan B for the enrichment of the oil companies? Take Iranian oil off the market? Take Venezuelan oil off the market?

Wiki oil exporters:

Russia 4.78Mbpd

Iraq 3.7Mbpd

US 3.6Mbpd

Iran .9Mpbd

Venezuela .48Mbpd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

Recall, Rant #1 stated that the invasion of Iraq was to take Iraqi production offline, as Saddam was about to apply to the UN to have sanctions, which limited Iraqi exports, removed. Taking both Iran and Venezuela off line would have a minor impact on global oil markets, compared to taking Russia out of the market, but it's better than nothing.

Steve...HBTT

Assumption on your part. This only works if the cost of keeping what they’ve taken exceeds the benefits. So far that’s not the case.

It's not a "moment in time" calculation. Russia will make an assessment not just of what the costs are today, but the future costs throughout time. As is frequently the case, the invading country presumes that it will be able to eventually defeat the opposing forces conclusively. If they fail to defeat the opposing forces for a long enough period of time, that presumption is no longer valid - and they have to reassess the costs and benefits. Russia is still in the "we can still beat Ukraine" phase of assessment. That will eventually change, if they are unable to beat Ukraine for while longer.

If Hungary is the problem, address Hungary.

How?

You’re essentially laying out the case why the EU is completely useless, btw.

It's not useless. It's just not made for this particular purpose. The EU isn't itself a country made up of constituent states (like the U.S.). It's a collection of countries. Those countries have delegated a fair amount of power over their financial and economic systems to the EU (for example, erasing import/export boundaries within the block) - but they have not delegated nearly as much authority over foreign policy. It's an economic union, not a foreign policy or military union.

It's not a "moment in time" calculation. Russia will make an assessment not just of what the costs are today, but the future costs throughout time. As is frequently the case, the invading country presumes that it will be able to eventually defeat the opposing forces conclusively. If they fail to defeat the opposing forces for a long enough period of time, that presumption is no longer valid - and they have to reassess the costs and benefits. Russia is still in the "we can still beat Ukraine" phase of assessment. That will eventually change, if they are unable to beat Ukraine for while longer.

Certainly. But you're not taking into account your own analysis of the situation.
Thus far, despite some sanctions, Putin has been able to fund his war by selling oil to China and India. According to you, it's not possible for the West to make a unified front via sanctions in such a way to impose enough costs on China/India to lessen that flow. So there's...nothing...that's going to change the economic or strategic calculus as Putin doesn't care how many soldiers he throws away.

It's not useless. It's just not made for this particular purpose.

So if it can't defend itself without being held hostage by one of its least important members (note that Hungary is also in China's pocket) then it's useless.

It's an economic union, not a foreign policy or military union.

An economic union that can't act in unison against what it determines as an existential threat. Or are you going to start arguing that the Europeans don't view the Russians as an existential threat?

Thus far, despite some sanctions, Putin has been able to fund his war by selling oil to China and India. According to you, it's not possible for the West to make a unified front via sanctions in such a way to impose enough costs on China/India to lessen that flow. So there's...nothing...that's going to change the economic or strategic calculus as Putin doesn't care how many soldiers he throws away.

No - because what he's doing is not sustainable over the long term. He's not fully funding the war by selling oil to China and India. He's partially doing so, but it's nowhere near enough. So he's also draining the economy of most of its savings. They've run down their reserves from about $120 billion before the war down to around $30 billion. He's able to do this for the short run, and can stretch it out perhaps as long as into next year. But it's not sustainable over the very long run.

Russia is facing a critical challenge to its war effort in 2025: The nation is quickly running out of cash, with financial reserves potentially running out before the end of the year, one European economist estimates.

Anders Åslund, a Swedish economist who's a former fellow at the Atlantic Council, has said liquid reserves in Russia's National Wealth Fund could be depleted by the fall of this year.

That spells trouble for the nation's military efforts in 2025, he said, given how heavily Russia has relied on its wealth fund over the past several years.

Liquid reserves in the wealth fund have been drawn down from $117 billion in 2021 to $31 billion as of the end of November, Åslund noted.

Yet, according to its 2025 budget, Russia is on track to spend a record $130.5 billion on defense this year.

"The most critical shortage, however, is budget financing, as Russia's last liquid reserves are likely to run out in the fall of 2025," Åslund wrote in an op-ed for Project Syndicate that was published Tuesday. "Budget cuts will then become necessary. In the meantime, the war economy might also require price controls and rationing — the old Soviet sins. As the risk of a financial crash rises, Russia's imperiled economy is about to pose serious constraints on Putin's war."

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-wea...

Because he has authoritarian control over the entire economy, he can start consuming parts of the economy to continue funding the war past the point where a "normal" government could. IOW, rather than trying to borrow money from domestic sources to fund the war effort, he can just seize stuff. But there are massive costs to doing that. It will basically wreck the free market part of the economy, create massive stagflation and reduction in living standards for all Russians, and require partially (perhaps significantly) going back to the Soviet-style command economy. Even Putin may not be willing to go there.

So if it can't defend itself without being held hostage by one of its least important members (note that Hungary is also in China's pocket) then it's useless.

An economic union that can't act in unison against what it determines as an existential threat. Or are you going to start arguing that the Europeans don't view the Russians as an existential threat?

Again, it's not a foreign policy body. It's not an organization that's intended to "defend" itself from foreign threats. It's a finance, trade, and economic organization. NATO is the military and foreign policy body that was established to defend against existential threats. The EU is an economic, financial, and trade union. It's supposed to be somewhat separate from the military/foreign policy functions of these countries.

Whether you like that or not (and honestly, both the conservative and the MAGA position has generally been more towards the BREXIT/nationalist opposition towards a stronger EU) doesn't change the facts. EU sanctions against Russia have already probably been implemented to the greatest degree possible, except for perhaps the hail mary they're trying to do to cut of Hungary and Slovakian oil imports. Secondary sanctions are not on the table.

Dope: Astute minds would ask what kids of changes in the strategic calculus would alter thing. Alas.

! Why don't you just wait for Trump to change course and then defend that? That way you could be right, but we'd miss your 60 post long defense of the wrong position.

Send lawyers, guns, and money! :)

After Brexit I wonder if the EU will want the UK's military help in a conflict. Or the UK's relationship with the USA during a conflict with Putin.

Or will they tell Brexit UK to shove it and look to Sweden to pick up that slack.

LOL


AFTER ALL, President Obama- the Ugly American Bully warned the UK that they go to "back of the queue" if Brexit happens.

EU sanctions against Russia have already probably been implemented to the greatest degree possible, except for perhaps the hail mary they're trying to do to cut of Hungary and Slovakian oil imports. Secondary sanctions are not on the table.

Exactly - useless. Can't do anything more than they already are.

Except...send us more money for weapons.

You and I have differing views on how the Ukraine wins, let's just leave it at that.

This only works if the cost of keeping what they’ve taken exceeds the benefits. So far that’s not the case.

Yes, it is the case, even now. Russia is slowly sliding in a protracted conflict that it cannot win and costs it more than it gains right now. but it can last out a couple of years before making the decision to leave.

You and I have differing views on how the Ukraine wins, let's just leave it at that.

Fair enough.

If you don't mind my asking, why do you keep referring to the country as "the Ukraine"? It's just "Ukraine."

If you don't mind my asking, why do you keep referring to the country as "the Ukraine"? It's just "Ukraine."

My Ukrainian mentee (who is from Kharkiv and had to bust her ailing father out of the country and still has family under fire) refers to it that way.

The EU isn't itself a country made up of constituent states (like the U.S.). It's a collection of countries. Those countries have delegated a fair amount of power over their financial and economic systems to the EU (for example, erasing import/export boundaries within the block) - but they have not delegated nearly as much authority over foreign policy. It's an economic union, not a foreign policy or military union.

Astute, intelligent people understand this.

I don't know Dope's reasons, but saying "the Ukraine" reflects the Russian/Putin way of demoting Ukraine to a mere territory, and denying its sovereignty:

https://theconversation.com/its-ukraine-not-the-uk...

Both the Russian and English languages make subtle distinctions between territories that are politically delimited and territories that are not. In Russian, people refer to events happening “na Ukraine” or “v Ukraine.” Russian language teachers usually explain the difference between “na” and “v” as the respective difference between “on” and “in.” One places the ketchup “na” the table and puts it away “v” the refrigerator.

Things get a little more complicated when describing larger spaces. In Russian, a person is “na” an unbounded territory, such as a hill, but “v” a bounded territory that is defined politically or institutionally, such as a nation-state. This distinction between unbounded and bounded territories holds even when English speakers would universally use “in.” So a person is “na” the Caucasus (“in the Caucasus”) but “v” Germany (“in Germany”).

English makes this distinction not with different prepositions but with the definite article “the.” English speakers use “in” before the name of a politically defined unit such as a nation or a state, and “in the” for a territory that is not politically defined. Hence, “Last week I was in Kentucky,” or, “Last week I was in the Bluegrass region.”

“Last week I was in Ohio” is fine, but if I turn to a friend and say, “Last week I was in the Ohio,” she might reasonably think I was in the waters of the Ohio River, on a cold swim.

There are exceptions, but these are the general principles that bind speakers of Russian and English.

The distinction is critically important for the sovereignty of the Ukrainian nation-state, suggesting as it does that Ukraine is either a bounded nation-state – like Germany – or a region of Russia with amorphous borders – like the Caucasus. This is why, in 1993, Ukraine’s government asked Russia’s government to abandon the Soviet-era practice of referring to Ukraine as “na Ukraine” and use only “v Ukraine.” The na construction is, however, still widely used in Russia.

To a Ukrainian worried about the nation-state’s territorial integrity, that little word “the” might suggest that the speaker does not much care whether Ukraine is an independent state. Like it or not, and intentionally or not, the language a person uses reflects their political positions, including their position on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.

lapsody,
you are so right.

do not confuse avoiding being associated with putin as a loser, with sincere action for ukraine.

do not confuse trump boosting sales for the american military-industrial complex (who were overwhelmingly gop supporters) with actual backing for ukraine.

do not confuse having an allied sanction strategy with actually having any allies that trust you.
in fact, do not confuse calling something a strategy with anything viable.

do not confuse a speech full of cheap talk with actually damaging putin's war economy.

finally, do not confuse a mean tweet as something that cannot be fixed by a perfect private meeting\call with putin himself.

"After Brexit I wonder if the EU will want the UK's military help in a conflict. Or the UK's relationship with the USA during a conflict with Putin."

So far it appears that both LOLJedi and Dumbass Dope do not understand the difference between NATO and the EU. They both have posted in this thread as if they were the same while obviously being confused by concepts (such as Brexit) that have nothing to do with defense.

My Ukrainian mentee (who is from Kharkiv and had to bust her ailing father out of the country and still has family under fire) refers to it that way.

My Ukrainian friends call it Ukraine, and are rabidly anti Putin. One is a polyglot and has taught English around the world. My favorite is that he taught Chinese English while living in the Philippines and had 15 to 20 minute lessons on the internet, earned $100 an hour doing it and would segue into videos and take breaks. He used to get paid $150k annually by middle Eastern countries and taught in schools. Those days are gone he says. He wrote a book on how to do it.

His parents are internationally known artists whose work is found all over. I've seen their work and it's impressive - his father was an excellent sculptor.

Oh, I forgot. I never once thought of him, or anyone else , as my mentee.

My Ukrainian friends call it Ukraine

Good for them.

Oh, I forgot. I never once thought of him, or anyone else , as my mentee.

And...? What's your point?

Oh, I forgot. I never once thought of him, or anyone else , as my mentee.

And...? What's your point?

🤔 🤣 🤣 🤣

I don't think a lot of Americans understand the American government, much less Euro governments, treaty organizations, economic unions, etc., and, after all, there are a lot. The Euros have it better because each country is the size of a state and has a different government, so they get familiar with a lot of different governments. They're also stuck in the EU, so they get to know that. Russia is like Mexico - right next door. Americans can live insulated lives if they want to and don't encounter a whole lot. Sometimes by necessity.

Felcher: 🤔 🤣 🤣 🤣

All rightie, then. <click>

See ya.

All rightie, then. <click>

See ya.

You funny.

You ain't smort, but you funny.

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.