| firebush03 said: It’s possible Trump could get Xi to the table and have Putin surrender some of the annexed territory (China does have vested interest in Russia not conquering Ukraine, and Russia is very reliant on China ever since the U.S. enforced their embargo on Russia). Tricky thing is that nationalist factions in Russia would likely want Putin’s head on a stake if that were to happen…whether they’d be able to do that? I mean, there is precedent for such factions successfully uprising against a leader in these situations. If there were to be an uprising, and the uprising were to be successful, then you bet the conflict would resume directly after the faction takes power. So, best case scenario: Xi talks Putin down, and there is no nationalist uprising in Russia. Another situation is that the U.S. offers Zelensky refuge upon recognizing the annexed territory as Russia’s, and ending the war there. Not the most ideal situation, especially given that most of the world refuses to recognize Russia’s annexation as legitimate. Though at this point, the minerals deal is set up, and we have nothing to worry about, thankfully. The war continues onward for the foreseeable future! Whether the U.S. will continue being the main supporter of Ukraine in this conflict, or whether responsibilities will be handed off to EU nations, I can’t say for certain. Sounds like the Trump administration is trying to hand off the EU so as to free up U.S. resources for the inevitable conflict with Taiwan. But IDK. |
>U.S. offers Zelensky refuge upon recognizing the annexed territory as Russia’s
Ukraine is fighting for it's freedom, it's land, it's people, etc, against an authoritarian state. A lot of those people are going to fight to win, or die trying.
I don't think either of your suggested solutions, particularly make sense. Putin isn't going to give up his head and Ukraine isn't going to willingly give up their country, regardless of it that makes sense to you.
Edit:
I want to add this isn't Zelenskyy's fight. If Zelenskyy gave up, Ukraine would continue fighting on without him.
| firebush03 said: You could reword it that way with U.S. forcing Putin to the table…IDK i don’t see much of a difference. IG the main reason I mention bringing Ukraine to the table is b/c the U.S. has leverage (via monetary support) and authority over Ukraine, whereas they do not have this same leverage against Russia…so the U.S. can’t force Russia to do anything (unless you’ve got ideas?). Putin has threatened nukes if the U.S. got too involved after all. If we want to see peace where Putin surrenders territory, the U.S. will likely need to get Russian allies, such as China, involved in peace talks. That’s the only way I see Russia ceding territory. Putin has threatened nuclear action if Ukraine re-annexes their lost land; so it’s unwise to fight for the land. Russia is who we’re trying to talk down, and they’re not gonna play softball. That’s the nature of war: the winning side often refuses to make concessions unless they have reason to do so. No country cares about morality of annexation, for annexation is itself inherently immoral (unless reclaiming land lost from the recent past). The U.S. needs to give Russia that reason. What do you believe the U.S. can/should do to make this happen? As far as U.S. monetary support moving forward is concerned, I do suspect Trump will begin to place pressure on EU nations to fund the conflict. This would free up U.S. resources in preparation for conflict with Taiwan (and possibly Iran). Indeed, it was listed in that Project 2025 manifesto thing that the plan was to hand off the financial responsibility of U.S. in this conflict to EU nations…so, that’s what I’m betting on happening. Though the minerals deal does incentivize the U.S. to prolong this conflict, and it definitely favors keeping Ukraine out of annexation from Russia, so this could force the U.S.’ hand to stay involved. They could attempt to bluff by saying “We won’t fund this conflict after Biden’s funding dries up” so as to place pressure on EU nations to ramp up their funding; though I suspect EU nations will see through the bluff, support won’t ramp up, and the U.S. will have their hand forced back into the conflict. |
>authority over Ukraine
The US doesn't have authority over Ukraine.
>Putin has threatened nuclear action if Ukraine re-annexes their lost land; so it’s unwise to fight for the land.
The general belief under nuclear action is that no country has any actual incentive to do it. If Russia uses nuclear weapons on other countries, those other countries would use it back on them. No one wins, everyone dies.
Plenty of incentive to threaten using it, because maybe it'll be effective against countries without nuclear weapons of their own.
And we can't just roll over to a nuclear power to let Putin have whatever he wants. Where would that end? Do we let him have Kazakhstan, UK, the US?
>I do suspect Trump will begin to place pressure on EU nations to fund the conflict.
Trump doesn't particularly care about Ukraine.
Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 25 May 2025
