> Just look at how today the USA tried to hand over land of Ukraine to Putin
Was it the land that Russia currently controls and Ukraine is very unlikely to retake? There's a spectrum between ideological behavior and pragmatic behavior. If Ukraine gives up this land and achieves peace, maybe it's worth it. I'm not suggesting it definitely is but at least the US is trying to negotiate or find some sort of solution, even if it's not going well.
In retrospect the US should have prepared for war and been willing to fight to uphold what was agreed to with Russia but that would have been a hard sell.
> So, no more support to that crazy country.
Nah Europe will still support it. Nothing will change there. But if you want things to change, we can completely withdraw from NATO, move bases back from Europe where we see fit, and un-sanction Russia while no longer providing support to Ukraine in any fashion and no longer sell weapons to Europe. That would be a disaster for Europe, which is why I tend to think comments like this are either ignorant, or pro-Russia/Iran/China with the intent to further inflame whatever tensions exist.
At this point there is no diplomatic solution, it certainly isn’t gonna come from taco. He’s just looking for a distraction from the Iran debacle and everything else that has gone on or has gone wrong with his administration.
This is Russia's second violation of the Budapest Memorandum. We know Putin will simply ignore another treaty when he feels like. We also know the US under the current administration is "negotiating" in bad faith (via the president's son-in-law) and will do even less when the next treaty violation occurs.
No we don’t know that the current administration is negotiating in bad faith. That’s your opinion and one that doesn’t really reflect how the world of diplomacy and interactions between nation states work. Why would you waste time and money when any deal in which would be negotiated in bad faith requires Ukrainian participation?
Second, yes the Budapest Memorandum was violated. Why didn’t the other parties do anything or immediately declare war on Russia besides just the United States?
Here’s a better question though: why didn’t the EU do something when Russia violated it? Is your gear ready? Are you ready to deploy to the front lines? Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
Can you honestly say with a straight face that you believe Jared Kushner is in Moscow negotiating in good faith with Putin with respect to Ukraine? Especially given his lack of experience and multiple corruption accusations and investigations. And that Trump has illegally withheld Ukrainian assistance in the past and stopped it in the future.
Given that Trump's "peace plan" is essentially for Ukraine to give up even more territory and partially disarm - decreasing the size of their military and giving up long-range weapons... and there's no such provisions for Russia to do anything of the sort. The plan all but sets up Russia's next invasion of a weakened Ukraine.
The US didn't declare war on Russia. The EU isn't a party to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine, US, UK, and Russia are with China and France giving separate assurances.
> Can you honestly say with a straight face that you believe Jared Kushner is in Moscow negotiating in good faith with Putin with respect to Ukraine?
I can't say anything other than what is officially reported. Everything else is a conspiracy theory. While I definitely agree with you that he's inexperienced, who exactly from Europe is flying to Moscow and attempting to negotiate? You can't just sit here and say the US isn't trying just because you don't like the folks that were sent.
> Given that Trump's "peace plan" is essentially for Ukraine to give up even more territory and partially disarm - decreasing the size of their military and giving up long-range weapons... and there's no such provisions for Russia to do anything of the sort. The plan all but sets up Russia's next invasion of a weakened Ukraine.
Ok so then you don't want to see any attempt at negotiation and just want to see the war continue? The problem is you're playing ideological games when we need to figure out a pragmatic solution. I don't think Ukraine should give up territory it controls, for example, but if it has to give up some territory that it has little chance of taking back for the sake of peace maybe it should do so. Unless you are willing to go to war with Russia you need to figure something out.
> The US didn't declare war on Russia. The EU isn't a party to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine, US, UK, and Russia are with China and France giving separate assurances.
So what? You want the United States and United Kingdom to go to war with Russia now? I don't know what citing the Budapest Memorandum is accomplishing here other than attempting to further drive division between western allies.
> Why didn’t the other parties do anything or immediately declare war on Russia besides just the United States?
I pointed out the fallacy of your statement. The US didn't declare war on Russia. And the fact that the EU isn't a party to the Budapest Memorandum, so they're not supposed to be defending Ukraine from Russia.
Now, you're saying that the we should ignore the Budapest Memorandum and negotiate in good faith with a tyrant like Putin that never negotiates in good faith. And violates agreements without thinking twice. And that somehow sending a fraudulent "negotiator" like Kushner is somehow a good thing and the US acting in good faith.
Also:
> I can't say anything other than what is officially reported. Everything else is a conspiracy theory.
The actual reporting by multiple news organizations contains far more factual details than anything 'officially' released by a convicted fraud and adjudicated rapist. Or his sycophants.
> Second, yes the Budapest Memorandum was violated. Why didn’t the other parties do anything or immediately declare war on Russia besides just the United States?
The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
> Here’s a better question though: why didn’t the EU do something when Russia violated it?
The EU isn't party to the Budapest Memorandum.
> Is your gear ready?
It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over.
> Are you ready to deploy to the front lines?
We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
> Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
About 500 million Europeans are living in a NATO state. For them, if war came to them (which it has not yet done so!), the answer is "Article 5". We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
It's almost like you think, as the Russians keep claiming, NATO was never really a mutual defence treaty, but a way for the USA to be stronger.
That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
"Divide and conquer, baby. Isolate the big scary army from all their allies who are also their industrial suppliers and FOBs!"
> The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
Other Western parties, I should have written.
Wikipedia list of parties to the Budapest Memorandum: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Russia, United States, United Kingdom
Oh look, Germany, France, Poland, Finland, they are not on that list. And yet, still supply more support to Ukraine than the US government is currently supplying.
> The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction.
Well the US and UK rushed munitions. But aside from that it just makes Western Europe culpable for failing
> It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over. We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed throughout Europe. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
Not really
> We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
If the military presence, continued training exercises, continued well, functioning of NATO means you now don't trust us, then why are we there? You don't trust us, we could just turn on you any moment! Your belief does not reflect reality.
> That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
You're the one saying "we don't trust you" "you don't support Ukraine" etc. and neither of those are true. You're purposefully driving divisions when none need exist.
> But aside from that it just makes Western Europe culpable for failing
Of Western Europe, one nation was party to the Budapest Memorandum.
That one party is the UK.
> You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed throughout Europe. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
Zero of which are currently fighting Russia.
Despite what Russian propaganda claims about this war, NATO is not a belligerent, therefore the USA is not a belligerent.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand this. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> > > Why are 600 million Europeans asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 180 million Russians?
> > This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
> Not really
Yes really.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the front lines and belligerents, and that NATO isn't on that list. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> If the military presence, continued training exercises, continued well, functioning of NATO means you now don't trust us, then why are we there? You don't trust us, we could just turn on you any moment! Your belief does not reflect reality.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed in and around Greenland in direct response to the attempt by your president to, and I need to emphasise this, ILLEGALLY ANNEX IT LIKE PUTIN IS DOING TO BITS OF UKRAINE. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> You're the one saying "we don't trust you" "you don't support Ukraine" etc. and neither of those are true. You're purposefully driving divisions when none need exist.
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the problem and that your president has been purposefully driving divisions when none need exist. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
You may not take that seriously, we did. If you can't understand that, we (personally) are done.
What I can't work out, and don't care to, is how much of this is you treating the USA like it's the only power that matters and everyone else can be disregarded (common failing in all nations), or if you're actually here to push the Russian efforts to cause America to needlessly isolate itself from, and outright alienate, its allies.
Like, least you could do is admit that the Greenland crisis is a serious crisis that drove a wedge between us, that needs to be resolved. If the USA can't bring itself to admit that, it's going to be full of people very surprised allies rapidly (as fast as slow moving ships of state can) stop being allies when you threaten to take their territory.
And that actually taking it means war.
Real, hot, war.
I don't know which is better, you having a normal level of nationalist myopia (which would mean a lot of Amis think like you, leads to high risk of hot war), or you being an agent (actively manipulating opinions, leading to aforementioned).
> Of Western Europe, one nation was party to the Budapest Memorandum. That one party is the UK.
So what? The US and UK should go to war with Russia while, what, Europe does nothing? Not going to happen. Maybe the US and Uk shouldn’t have been the only ones to sign on.
> Zero of which are currently fighting Russia.
Right… because they are providing deterrence against Russia. The US is doing that. Without American forces Russia takes further action, possibly invading the Baltic states or worse.
You seem to be confused about the point that was established.
> Yes really.
Nuh uh!
> You may not take that seriously, we did. If you can't understand that, we (personally) are done.
Ok! We are done. I now support the US withdrawing from NATO and would like to bring our troops home except where it benefits us to the degree we so choose.
We should lower energy prices and remove sanctions and no longer target Russian shadow fleet tankers.
We should also pursue further accommodations with China with respect to Taiwan since we know Europe is cozying up to China (your words, enjoy! [1]) and fighting an all-out war to save one tiny island without any support from Europe seems like a bad idea. That’s what you are advocating for.
> Like, least you could do is admit that the Greenland crisis is a serious crisis that drove a wedge between us, that needs to be resolved. If the USA can't bring itself to admit that, it's going to be full of people very surprised allies rapidly (as fast as slow moving ships of state can) stop being allies when you threaten to take their territory. And that actually taking it means war. Real, hot, war.
In America (sorry if that’s triggering) we pass from one crises to the next every 10 minutes. I disagreed with the President's actions and rhetoric, as did the Senate which shut him down there. Totally uncalled for. On the other hand he (as he was with NATO) is right to point out this European territory which is a matter of American security also needs to be much more strongly defended. Saying “you Americans can put whatever troops you want on the island” is bullshit - it’s not our territory. Europe needs to defend it to a level we find acceptable.
There is no chance that Europe would fight a hot war against the United States over Greenland (and it would lose decisively and embarrassingly) but it’s always curious to me how Europeans seem so confident and eager to fight America but are so tepid when it comes to Russia who is actually on your doorstep. Maybe get your priorities straight yea? Maybe wake up a bit and stop being so delusional about the current state of the world. China is eating your manufacturing base and Russia is at your doorstep and while Trump is a dumb ass you are focusing way too much energy, criticism, and sensationalism over him while ignoring real, tangible threats.
> Was it the land that Russia currently controls and Ukraine is very unlikely to retake? There's a spectrum between ideological behavior and pragmatic behavior. If Ukraine gives up this land and achieves peace, maybe it's worth it. I'm not suggesting it definitely is but at least the US is trying to negotiate or find some sort of solution, even if it's not going well.
It wasn't the US's decision to make, certainly not without having talked to Ukraine.
And right now, well, this war will continue until one of them runs out of money. The EU currently appears to consider Ukrainian sovereignty in this war to be in their own national interests, so they will keep funding it. Who will support the Russian economy in the same way?
> Nah Europe will still support it. Nothing will change there. But if you want things to change, we can completely withdraw from NATO, move bases back from Europe where we see fit, and un-sanction Russia while no longer providing support to Ukraine in any fashion and no longer sell weapons to Europe. That would be a disaster for Europe, which is why I tend to think comments like this are either ignorant, or pro-Russia/Iran/China with the intent to further inflame whatever tensions exist.
You, and many like you, really need to stop thinking Trump's behaviour is something that can be easily undone. You write to suggest dissenting voices are pro-China: Trump's actions have already forced many in the EU to consider the USA to be a bigger threat than China.
This isn't us liking China, we think poorly of their human rights record etc., it's just that the USA has fallen that far in our eyes.
Just to make it specific: Which city do you live in? I want you to imagine it getting actually, literally, nuked by French or British missiles in response to the USA doing what Trump keeps saying he'll do to Canada or Greenland.
Actual nukes.
I hope that will stay imagination.
Trump has a lot of levers he could pull that would be de facto acts of war besides annexing allies like he says he wants to. Ordering all the tech companies to stop providing services overnight, even that might do it given current dependencies.
The Ukraine is not gonna give up because that taco in the White House says so. And if he has any levers, he certainly doing a terrible job one distraction after another.
> And if he has any levers, he certainly doing a terrible job one distraction after another.
I think you may have misunderstood, my point about levers was there's may ways for him to *start* a war with everyone else in NATO, potentially without even realising that's what the lever would do.
Starting such a war is inherently him "doing a terrible job".
> It wasn't the US's decision to make, certainly not without having talked to Ukraine.
Didn’t suggest it was, but at the end of the day it’s the US who is the partner at the table who can make the biggest difference and bringing Ukraine in to the room with Russia will just result in conflict and no hope of figuring things out diplomatically. Of course any deal that the US attempted to broker would have to be agreed to by Ukraine as well. Everyone understands this.
> , and many like you, really need to stop thinking Trump's behaviour is something that can be easily undone. His actions have already forced many in the EU to consider the USA to be a bigger threat than China.
Ok then we should do what I mentioned. It’s over. Is the EU ready to abandon Taiwan? Because if not, and let’s not ignore the G20 statement nor Germany hemorrhaging jobs and pretend the EU is cozying up to China. The US can just do the same and partner with China if it decided to.
> I hope that will stay imagination.
It won’t because it’s hyperbole that can be casually discarded.
> Trump has a lot of levers he could pull that would be de facto acts of war besides annexing allies like he says he wants to. Ordering all the tech companies to stop providing services overnight, even that might do it given current dependencies.
Nah he can’t do that. Tone down the imagination and sensationalizing
> Didn’t suggest it was, but at the end of the day it’s the US who is the partner at the table who can make the biggest difference and bringing Ukraine in to the room with Russia will just result in conflict and no hope of figuring things out diplomatically.
How? The US no longer supplies military aid to Ukraine. They're not a partner at all, let alone the one "who can make the biggest difference".
> Ok then we should do what I mentioned. It’s over. Is the EU ready to abandon Taiwan? Because if not, and let’s not ignore the G20 statement nor Germany hemorrhaging jobs and pretend the EU is cozying up to China. The US can just do the same and partner with China if it decided to.
That's not even a coherent argument.
> It won’t because it’s hyperbole that can be casually discarded.
If you don't take it seriously enough to prevent it, your city gets nuked.
> Nah he can’t do that.
Legally, or de-facto? Because legally he shouldn't be currently exchanging missiles with Iran. Legally the White House should be intact. Legally the Epstein files should've been release. Legally he's got 34 felony convictions for things he wasn't allowed to do. Legally he couldn't do the big tariffs he announced. Legally they had no right to go after Anthropic when the company refused to let their software get used for military stuff. Legally, his "I declassified them with my mind" claim was nonsense and he should've had a ten year sentence for that alone.
Not only do we not trust him, we don't trust you, and I mean personally you but also collectively you, to hold him back.
You, personally, are an avatar of the problem us Europeans see with America, because you don't seem to understand how seriously we take this.
Please, for the love of wherever you call home, take this seriously. You write as if this will all blow over and things will return to normal, but this can only happen if you recognise fault.
> How? The US no longer supplies military aid to Ukraine. They're not a partner at all, let alone the one "who can make the biggest difference".
At a minimum the US still provides intelligence to Ukraine and maintains (and has increased) sanctions on Russia. Actions against both Venezuela and Iran negatively affected Russian shadow fleet operations which were funneling money to Russia to continue its war. Iran provides military support by selling drones, at a minimum. The US also maintains a significant military in presence to defer Russia from opening new fronts. In the last couple of weeks the director of the CIA met with Russian counterparts in an attempt, at least as alleged, to provide information to Russia to get them to come to the negotiating table. Your suggestion that the US isn’t a partner is your opinion but is not reflect in reality.
> That's not even a coherent argument.
Sure it is
> Legally, or de-facto?
Either. Don’t mistake my comments for supporting Donald Trump. I didn’t vote for him and think he belongs in jail over Jan 6 at a minimum. But I’m also not going to tolerate these asinine “what if France nuked my hometown” comments nor other similar sensationalized rhetoric.
> In the last couple of weeks the director of the CIA met with Russian counterparts in an attempt, at least as alleged, to provide information to Russia to get them to come to the negotiating table.
Giving away intel is the exact opposite of supporting Ukraine.
Most of the other stuff you list was the USA's (or Trump's) own interests; Iran was more of an Israeli interest.
That said, keeping the Iran conflict warm is now also now a direct interest of everyone else that the USA has threatened, because it locks up your materiel, depletes your munitions, and lowers the morale of your personnel. As the Trump admin has already threatened military force against the USA's allies, that list is rather long.
> Sure it is
Mate, one of them wasn't even a coherent sentence.
Fundamentally, if you're an American isolationist government tearing down all the connections with the EU, we all know you're going to deal with the other big trading bloc that is China, or you will go bankrupt, because you are not an autarky.
But if you want to have good trade relations with the EU, and want the EU to not have good relations with China, you need to stop enabling the proven dishonest warmonger in the White House, who is giving us a choice between someone who has threatened military force against us (i.e. himself) or China, because we are also not an autarky.
It is not an argument to say "oh I guess we'll deal with China too". Yes, you will. This is not relevant. It is not an argument to say "but Germany's jobs". Yes, big issue due to car manufacturing, USA (big export market) tariffs, and Chinese competition (worldwide). This is also not relevant: *Your president threatened military action against one of us, and tariffs against anyone who helped defend the target*.
> But I’m also not going to tolerate these asinine “what if France nuked my hometown” comments nor other similar sensationalized rhetoric.
If you don't care, you don't care: I'm just giving you the consequences of not stopping him from sending the military into our territory to annex it. The consequences will include war on US soil, just like the consequences to Russia trying it with Ukraine were war on Russian soil. And Ukraine managed to hit the capital city of a nuclear power despite, similarly to our ally Canada, not having any nukes of their own.
You say Trump should be in jail? Great.
*Make that actually happen*.
And make sure the next apple isn't from the same rotten barrel:
Right now, if he resigned or was incapacitated *today* and didn't make it to the end of his term, it would still take an entire Presidential term from a decent president just for our trust in the USA to rise to about the same low level we have for China, who are "only" threatening the sovereignty of someone else we like to do business with but aren't that closely allied to (plus human rights abuses), and one or two decades of hard work on your part to get back to the level of trust we had in 2024.
Keep him around long enough to screw up the relationship more, that becomes three decades if the USA (him or successor) were to somehow force Ukraine to capitulate to Russian expansionism.
Ignore this, sit on it, brush it aside? Well, he came back after Jan 6. We can't trust you until you actually sort yourself out.
Your, personally your, suggestions to withdraw even harder are the opposite of sorting yourself out. That threat itself is a reason to distrust the USA.
Think of it this way: if you were a drunk, this would be an intervention.
Your (personal) responses have been like facing an intervention and saying "oh if I can't drink around you, I just won't invite any of you over for drinks! I'll have new drinks buddies! You've been listening to China too much! If you drink with China instead of me, I'll drink with China too!"
Meanwhile, the police keep giving you (the nation) DUI tickets and someone's wondering if they can hide your (national) keys before someone gets hurt.
> Giving away intel is the exact opposite of supporting Ukraine.
Nobody has reported that the director of the CIA (who is a Russia hawk by the way) "gave away intel". In fact, all known reporting from credible sources stated that the reason he went was to try and get Putin to see how dumb and hopeless this war is to get Russia back to the negotiating table.
> That said, keeping the Iran conflict warm is now also now a direct interest of everyone else that the USA has threatened, because it locks up your materiel, depletes your munitions, and lowers the morale of your personnel. As the Trump admin has already threatened military force against the USA's allies, that list is rather long.
Well according to you we can't be trusted, &c. so why would we care if munitions for Europe for example were used up?
Your assertion of how the US is behaving doesn't match with your own strategic comments.
> Most of the other stuff you list was the USA's (or Trump's) own interests; Iran was more of an Israeli interest.
If you are familiar with US foreign policy, Iran has been a primary interest for a long time. Calling it an Israeli interest is accurate but it doesn't detract from US policy
Was it the land that Russia currently controls and Ukraine is very unlikely to retake? There's a spectrum between ideological behavior and pragmatic behavior. If Ukraine gives up this land and achieves peace, maybe it's worth it. I'm not suggesting it definitely is but at least the US is trying to negotiate or find some sort of solution, even if it's not going well.
In retrospect the US should have prepared for war and been willing to fight to uphold what was agreed to with Russia but that would have been a hard sell.
> So, no more support to that crazy country.
Nah Europe will still support it. Nothing will change there. But if you want things to change, we can completely withdraw from NATO, move bases back from Europe where we see fit, and un-sanction Russia while no longer providing support to Ukraine in any fashion and no longer sell weapons to Europe. That would be a disaster for Europe, which is why I tend to think comments like this are either ignorant, or pro-Russia/Iran/China with the intent to further inflame whatever tensions exist.