How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Holien]

8 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Then everything we've all been saying is blahblahblah, and Zelenskyy is the one going under the bus. And hopefully it isn't the entire Ukrainian nation

Nope I disagree.

Ukraine can fight on without American help.

Will it be harder yep...

But if Ukraine chooses they can keep fighting and killing Russians until they choose to stop.

Poland and a whole raft of European countries will keep them fighting.

So absolutely worse case Ukraine is not out just by Trump winning.

Europe is well prepared to keep Ukraine going.

[Billy Ringo]

Based on comments by family members over the years who were/are tied to presidential entities, nothing is stated publicly without it being scrutinized to the extreme.  (Obviously there are some exceptions, but few.)  It all has purpose, meaning and is well scripted with intent.

In my humble opinion, Zelensky knew what he was going to say and for what purpose.  And, I have a hard time believing he was only advised by the "Blue" side as to what to say.  There are more than a few conservatives who very much support Ukraine and Zelensky is known to engage with them.

When I read his comments regarding Trump, it almost seemed to me he was challenging Trump. Trying to get him to "man up" to support Ukraine.  Appeal to his ego in some way.  (Bold move Cotton, let's see how it works out for 'em.)    It would seem to go way beyond a few million votes by Poles and Ukrainians in the rust belt.

Risky move, but it will be interesting to see if and how Trump responds.

 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But IF in spite of all our fervently wishing it weren't so, Trump wins, decisively (no Supreme Court, no dimpled chads wev), in November (and lives to take office in Jan).

Then everything we've all been saying is blahblahblah, and Zelenskyy is the one going under the bus. And hopefully it isn't the entire Ukrainian nation as well (sadly, not the first nation that Team America has fed into a wood chipper once it became inconvenient). That was my primary point. I knew it would stir up some anger here.

BillB seems confident that Z fully knows what he's doing, and I respect his view, but the stakes are pretty high here.

Again, you are confusing the two issues.  There is an argument to make that Zelensky siding with Harris now greatly reduces the chances that Trump will meaningfully support Ukraine if he wins the Presidency.  I think that is a very legitimate position to take.

However, the second issue is if there's any real chance of Trump supporting Ukraine no matter what Zelensky does or doesn't do. 

The people you are arguing against have a very strong case to make that the chances of Trump doing anything but throwing Ukraine under the bus is somewhere around 0.00001%.  Therefore, nothing Zelensky does or doesn't do matters in terms of influencing the outcome of a Trump election.  However, Zelensky's actions may have SOME chance of helping Harris win, so in that sense it matters what Zelensky does or doesn't do.

It's similar to the line of thinking about Ukraine's Kursk incursion.  Whatever one might think the chances that incursion will move the strategic needle may be, it is certainly higher than sitting around doing nothing or slogging it out in the Donbas.

Steve

[Holien]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's similar to the line of thinking about Ukraine's Kursk incursion.  Whatever one might think the chances that incursion will move the strategic needle may be, it is certainly higher than sitting around doing nothing or slogging it out in the Donbas.

With that latest survey from Russia it could well have swung the needle.

We will know better in the years after it has all ended. 

[LongLeftFlank]

Just now, Baneman said:

But the point you seem determined to avoid is that Ukraine would be going under the bus if Trump won, anyway.

It's not burning bridges if you know the bridge is going to be demolished by the other party.
Trump is not wholly rational, but he is very predictable and he won't have forgiven Ukraine's part in his impeachment.
Zelensky is perfectly aware that he really has nothing to lose with this.

I don't personally believe this is true. But I guess everyone is an expert on what 'Trump thinks', especially people who think he is the left hand of Satan....

Once again, Google has (very recently) en****tified image search, but there was this table in D&D where the attitudes of the various 'humanoid' races (orcs, hobgoblins, etc.) were cross indexed against each other.

So in those terms, Trump has now moved from 'Negative Neutral' to 'Antipathy' due to Zelenskyy openly declaring himself in opposition. OK, everyone here thinks he was there anyway, but all of you hated his guts to begin with, so why is your view credible?

....And oh, everyone talking about 'Russian interference in US elections' just got neutralized as well by this act.

Remind me, did Winston Churchill endorse FDR over Wendell Wilkie in 1940?

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Billy Ringo said:

Based on comments by family members over the years who were/are tied to presidential entities, nothing is stated publicly without it being scrutinized to the extreme.  (Obviously there are some exceptions, but few.)  It all has purpose, meaning and is well scripted with intent.

In my humble opinion, Zelensky knew what he was going to say and for what purpose.  And, I have a hard time believing he was only advised by the "Blue" side as to what to say.  There are more than a few conservatives who very much support Ukraine and Zelensky is known to engage with them.

When I read his comments regarding Trump, it almost seemed to me he was challenging Trump. Trying to get him to "man up" to support Ukraine.  Appeal to his ego in some way.  (Bold move Cotton, let's see how it works out for 'em.)    It would seem to go way beyond a few million votes by Poles and Ukrainians in the rust belt.

Risky move, but it will be interesting to see if and how Trump responds.

 

Yes.  One tactic in a debate is to trick your opponent into saying something that he/she believes, but is trying to dance around it.  The more extreme someone's views, the less disciplined a debater, the easier it is to goad that person into saying something out loud that is harmful.  So yes, it could be that Zelensky is trying to have Trump clarify his views on Ukraine, in a manner of speaking.

And don't think I didn't appreciate the Dodgeball reference.  One of the best lines of an excellent movie.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I don't personally believe this is true. But I guess everyone is an expert on what 'Trump thinks', especially people who think he is the left hand of Satan....

Once again, Google has (very recently) en****tified image search, but there was this table in D&D where the attitudes of the various 'humanoid' races (orcs, hobgoblins, etc.) were cross indexed against each other.

So in those terms, Trump has now moved from 'Negative Neutral' to 'Antipathy' due to Zelenskyy openly declaring himself in opposition. OK, everyone here thinks he was there anyway, but all of you hated his guts to begin with, so why is your view credible?

....And oh, everyone talking about 'Russian interference in US elections' just got neutralized as well by this act.

Remind me, did Winston Churchill endorse FDR over Wendell Wilkie in 1940?

People have cited specifics, not just generalized "Satan" comments.  I explicitly pointed out that Trump Admin threw the Afgahn government under the bus by making a unilateral deal with the enemy and walking away from its ally.  Do you think that's relevant, or just some Blue Bubble talk?

Steve

[Holien]

15 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Res ipse loquitur.

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

People have cited specifics, not just generalized "Satan" comments.  I explicitly pointed out that Trump Admin threw the Afgahn government under the bus by negotiating with the enemy and walking away.  Do you think that's relevant, or just some Blue Bubble talk?

Steve

Honestly Steve, I think it's the latter.

1. Trump has no principles.

2. But he 'knows' who his enemies are.

3. Zelenskyy just voluntarily placed himself, and his country on that list.

4. I think that was extremely risky and may go down in history as the turning point in this war.

....You guys keep trying to paint me into a MAGA corner, this sounds like so many other chat boards and barroom discussions these days. Which is part of why I am guessing (worried) there could be a massive 'Shy Tory' vote out there about to pull a lever for Trump 2024 and Team Blue simply cannot bear to hear about it, and therefore does not admit that it could happen. Everything is 'on message', as if that somehow shapes reality. And the slightest dissent gets shouted down as heresy.

Edited 1 hour ago by LongLeftFlank

[MikeyD]

"Team Blue zealots"? Need we remind you that Trump's own lawyer, shortly before the war, tried to strong-arm Ukraine into sacking an honest government official and specifically replacing him with a corruptible Russian sympathizer? 

[Holien]

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

You guys keep trying to paint me into a MAGA corner

No they are not, they are giving you evidence of what Trump has said and done.

Give us some counter points of what Trump has said that challenges what has been shown to you.

Quotes, anything other than your gut feeling?

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, MikeyD said:

"Team Blue zealots"? Need we remind you that Trump's own lawyer, shortly before the war, tried to strong-arm Ukraine into sacking an honest government official and specifically replacing him with a corruptible Russian sympathizer? 

For Trump's own narrow political purposes. (I suppose I should also mention that JRB did the exact same thing at the behest of his dirtbag son. Or is that all lieslieslies out of Kremlintrollfarm?).

That cold blooded (and crude) political calculation says nothing at all about Trump inherently having it in for Ukraine. The man literally doesn't think that deeply.

Remember, this is a guy who when taking a congratulatory call from the president of Egypt could think of nothing else but a Bangles song.

He was a tabula rasa, an empty vessel. And Z has now filled that empty vessel, at a fourth grade playground level that DJT (God help us all!) 'understands', fundamentally.

I can't post clips any more now, but it's like that climactic scene in 'To Play The King' where Urquhart demands the King's resignation:

'In opposing me, you have gambled everything, and lost everything.'

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Honestly Steve, I think it's the latter.

1. Trump has no principles.

2. But he 'knows' who his enemies are.

True.  And Trump put Zelensky, and Ukraine, on that list years ago.  Which means this next statement you made is factually false:

16 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

3. Zelenskyy just voluntarily placed himself, and his country on that list.

Trump persecuted a decorated Ukrainian-American US Army officer over this very thing.  The MAGA movement, which Trump claims as his own, is decidedly anti-Ukrainian.  It was the group that ALREADY held up financial aid to Ukraine for 8 months.  The list of evidence that Trump thinks ill of Ukraine and Zelensky already is long.  What do you bring to the table to challenge this?  Nothing.

16 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

4. I think that was extremely risky and may go down in history as the turning point in this war.

Holy crap.  It's hard to take you seriously if you believe THIS, of all f'n things, is the turning point.

16 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

....You guys keep trying to paint me into a MAGA corner, this sounds like so many other chat boards and barroom discussions these days. Which is part of why I am guessing (worried) there could be a massive 'Shy Tory' vote out there about to pull a lever for Trump 2024 and Team Blue simply cannot bear to hear about it, and therefore does not admit that it could happen. Everything is 'on message', as if that somehow shapes reality.

I'm not trying to paint you into anything other than to say that you've staked out a position based on a view point that is not supported by factual basis.

I am going to ask you this again, explicitly.  Please don't dance around it again... 

The Trump Admin threw the Afgahn government under the bus by negotiating with the enemy and walking away from its ally.  This is a factual statement based on extremely well documented and public facing events.

The question for you is, do you think past actions are a predictor of future performance or not? 

The next question is, do you see any similarities between what Trump factually did to Afghanistan and what Trump might do to Ukraine?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I am reminded of when Zelensky snubbed the German Chancellor and some said that would end German support.  It didn't.  I still don't think it was a smart move, but the doom-and-gloomers were wrong.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Vinman testified at Trump's impeachment hearing. Of COURSE he perforce went on the Enemies list, for reasons that have nothing to do with some inherent Trump hatred of Ukraine or love of Putin.

....Afghanistan, umm, goalpost shift much? I really have no idea, you tell me. And then the burden is on you to demonstrate that THEREFORE we see that Ukraine is treated in the same way.

Or are you seriously trying to compare the US client regime in Kabul and the ANA to Ukraine's current government and the UA?

[A Canadian Cat]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

1. Trump has no principles.

Agreed

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

2. But he 'knows' who his enemies are.

Disagree. Sometimes he seems to lock onto someone being an enemy but if they kiss his *** enough suddenly they are OK. Most recent example JD Vance. There is a long list of people who he dumped on and or hated that are now his "friends" because they kissed up to him. See item #1 above. Quotes around friends because #1 too.

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

3. Zelenskyy just voluntarily placed himself, and his country on that list.

Already there. Nothing he said did much except make it fresh. Maybe that was a bad idea, that's is an arguable point, but he didn't say anything that took Trump form being neutral to hating him. He already was on the enemies list.

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

4. I think that was extremely risky and may go down in history as the turning point in this war.

Not risky really - see #3. Worse case his *** kissing (see #2 and #1) post win might not work which just leaves him exactly where he was weeks ago (see #3).

I don't think it is wise for leaders of any foreign government to be inserting themselves into free and fair elections it is just too fraught. In this case the principal of self preservation overrides the principal of non interference if Zelensky made the calculation that his comments might help Harris win. It does seem a low probability play but in this election a small move in a key state can actually make a difference. I have no idea if it was worth it.

[LongLeftFlank]

Just now, A Canadian Cat said:

I don't think it is wise for leaders of any foreign government to be inserting themselves into free and fair elections it is just too fraught.

In this case the principal of self preservation overrides the principal of non interference if Zelensky made the calculation that his comments might help Harris win.

It does seem a low probability play but in this election a small move in a key state can actually make a difference. I have no idea if it was worth it.

This! 

If it pays off, well then great (I don't exactly love the Kambot, but I don't vote in US elections so wgaf).

[sburke]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

This from the guy who sternly lectured me on doubting that Joseph Robinette Biden was anything less than in full and total command of his administration.

Again, I notice you and SB are both instantly going to 'shoot the messenger mode' (I expect Steve to join in shortly).

hmm I disagreed with you so it is now shooting the messenger?  Ah but yes it is LLF the purveyor of TRUTH and lo those who would dare defy truth!  C'mon dude.  You have an opinion, so do I, so does pretty much everyone else here and you know what they say about opinions...

The martyr role doesn't suit you.

[The_Capt]

21 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Honestly Steve, I think it's the latter.

1. Trump has no principles.

2. But he 'knows' who his enemies are.

3. Zelenskyy just voluntarily placed himself, and his country on that list.

4. I think that was extremely risky and may go down in history as the turning point in this war.

....You guys keep trying to paint me into a MAGA corner, this sounds like so many other chat boards and barroom discussions these days. Which is part of why I am guessing (worried) there could be a massive 'Shy Tory' vote out there about to pull a lever for Trump 2024 and Team Blue simply cannot bear to hear about it, and therefore does not admit that it could happen. Everything is 'on message', as if that somehow shapes reality. And the slightest dissent gets shouted down as heresy.

Now, now. Long Lefty is entitled to his opinion. If he thinks this was a political mistake by Zelensky...ok, so what?

My sense is that Zelensky came within a pubic hair of being choked out last winter by the US political scene, and most of that was generated by Trump and Friends. He read the tea leaves and made a bold move. He signaled the voters he can influence in the US to stay away from Trump if they care about Ukraine and the war. He also signaled to Europe which camp he is in, which help him in the event the Orange One does get back into power. 

But it was a risk, regardless. Trump was going to likely cut off the money, or threaten to - the guy has to win congress too. But one thing he can do which is particularly vindictive is to cut off all US military support. Which is more than boom-boom, it is data. That data is going a long way in keeping Ukraine in this war. But here maybe Zelensky had inside knowledge. Maybe Trump is planning to turn off that tap anyway.

Zelensky had brass balls at the outset of this thing. Two years of war have turned them into steel. He made one helluva play in this one way or the other. Trump might want to think twice about pissing Zelensky off, as opposed to the other way around.  

[dan/california]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Vinman testified at Trump's impeachment hearing. Of COURSE he perforce went on the Enemies list, for reasons that have nothing to do with some inherent Trump hatred of Ukraine or love of Putin.

....Afghanistan, umm, goalpost shift much? I really have no idea, you tell me. And then the burden is on you to demonstrate that THEREFORE we see that Ukraine is treated in the same way.

Or are you seriously trying to compare the US client regime in Kabul and the ANA to Ukraine's current government and the UA?

Three things about this

1) It is done, Zelensky has played his hand versus Trump.

2) We disagree about whether or not he did that for good reasons. There is an honest discussion to be had about the game theory of the situation. Should Zelensky have played to (slightly) cushion the worst outcome, as opposed to doing everything he could to achieve a much better one? We have different opinions on this, see above.

3) As awful as it will be, selling out Ukraine probably won't even be the worst thing Trump does in his first three months. You need to buy a new couch because several people on this board are going to be bidding for the right to sleep on it if Trump wins. 

Edited 1 hour ago by dan/california

[LongLeftFlank]

Just now, sburke said:

hmm I disagreed with you so it is now shooting the messenger?  Ah but yes it is LLF the purveyor of TRUTH and lo those who would dare defy truth!  C'mon dude.  You have an opinion, so do I, so does pretty much everyone else here and you know what they say about opinions...

The martyr role doesn't suit you.

Absolutely right mate, martyrs go meekly. I will go down with some of your flesh in my teeth.  Or I used to until Google took away my meme search mojo....

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

3) As awful as it will be, selling out Ukraine probably won't even be the worst thing Trump does in his first three months. You need to buy a new couch because several people on this board are going to be bidding for the right to sleep on it if Trump wins. 

Ha ha, just don't bring your spouse. 

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Absolutely right mate, martyrs go meekly. I will go down with some of your flesh in my teeth.  Or I used to until Google took away my meme search mojo....

[kimbosbread]

For what it’s worth, I strongly agree with LLF. No reason to make a statement one way or the other on Z’s part when 90+%* of Americans who supports Ukraine think Trump will hang them out to dry. None of these people will change their vote. The only thing less helpful would be Z making statements about Gaza or transgenderism as it relates to American politics.

*There is a small minority of Trump supporters who think he won’t ditch Ukraine, which is interesting but somewhat irrelevant, and they also won’t change their votes.

[Eug85]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

You post something moralizing and provoking, your post gets analyzed and challenged in detail but instead of reacting to any of the points made you shoot back a number of (again) moralizing questions. There is a pattern and it is very predictable. You made a claim, I challenged it, so answer my points first if you are interested in a discussion.

Of course, my post is moralizing. You are hinting that it is okay to trade with Russia, a country that has unleashed an aggressive war, and I am moralizing you a little, pointing out that doing business with a criminal regime is immoral.

So, do you think that the graph is fake and Finland actually continues to increase trade with Russia? I am simply interested in your logic.