Trump: "If you go back long beyond before President Putin, it was always a statement that they would never allow Ukraine into NATO. So that was a statement that was made."
"Allow Ukraine?" How is that Russia's decision to make?
Quite likely true, but that's not what Trump said. It's pretty clear who holds all the cards as far as he's concerned.As I have said before. The accession decision will have to be unanimous. My guess is that Turkey or Hungary would be the toad in the road on Ukrainian admission. Or France.
Maybe. IIRC, it was mainly France and Germany who placed the "poison pill" of no admittance for states with an existing territorial dispute to keep Georgia out. I just don't see Ukraine signing anything which would give up their claims to the Donbas forever, which would be what it would take for admission. I think that Georgia considers itself every bit as much "European" as Ukraine. Sometimes, my wife and I watch a little Youtube travelog called "Little Chinese Everywhere." The primary narrator is a Chinese girl, early 30s, now joined by her German husband. Both are fluent in English and he's fluent in Mandarin, to the point that Chinese as him if he's Chinese, despite his German/European looks. Her vlog concerns itself largely with Chinese provinces, but with other countries also. She spent a lot of time in Georgia, talking with ordinary people, not with politicians. She, at the end of her Georgian sojourn, asked that question and concluded that Georgians very much wanted to be part of the West. Of course that's just one viewpoint. I think the same is true of almost all Ukrainians outside Donbas - they want to be European and not be embraced by the Russian bear...As I have said before. The accession decision will have to be unanimous. My guess is that Turkey or Hungary would be the toad in the road on Ukrainian admission. Or France.
I'd be very surprised if Zelensky de jure ceded Crimea and Malorossiya. He might acknowledge it is de facto occupied and agree not to settle things militarily, but de jure? I serious doubt it. That would put things in a situation similar to Taiwan. Not good, but better than nothing.Maybe. IIRC, it was mainly France and Germany who placed the "poison pill" of no admittance for states with an existing territorial dispute to keep Georgia out. I just don't see Ukraine signing anything which would give up their claims to the Donbas forever, which would be what it would take for admission. I think that Georgia considers itself every bit as much "European" as Ukraine. Sometimes, my wife and I watch a little Youtube travelog called "Little Chinese Everywhere." The primary narrator is a Chinese girl, early 30s, now joined by her German husband. Both are fluent in English and he's fluent in Mandarin, to the point that Chinese as him if he's Chinese, despite his German/European looks. Her vlog concerns itself largely with Chinese provinces, but with other countries also. She spent a lot of time in Georgia, talking with ordinary people, not with politicians. She, at the end of her Georgian sojourn, asked that question and concluded that Georgians very much wanted to be part of the West. Of course that's just one viewpoint. I think the same is true of almost all Ukrainians outside Donbas - they want to be European and not be embraced by the Russian bear...
Just after September 11th 2001, Pentagon planners realized that the only way to get into Afghanistan was to invade through Uzbekistan, which was led by a very unsavory dictator, Karimov.Quite likely true, but that's not what Trump said. It's pretty clear who holds all the cards as far as he's concerned.
Maybe. IIRC, it was mainly France and Germany who placed the "poison pill" of no admittance for states with an existing territorial dispute to keep Georgia out. I just don't see Ukraine signing anything which would give up their claims to the Donbas forever, which would be what it would take for admission. I think that Georgia considers itself every bit as much "European" as Ukraine. Sometimes, my wife and I watch a little Youtube travelog called "Little Chinese Everywhere." The primary narrator is a Chinese girl, early 30s, now joined by her German husband. Both are fluent in English and he's fluent in Mandarin, to the point that Chinese as him if he's Chinese, despite his German/European looks. Her vlog concerns itself largely with Chinese provinces, but with other countries also. She spent a lot of time in Georgia, talking with ordinary people, not with politicians. She, at the end of her Georgian sojourn, asked that question and concluded that Georgians very much wanted to be part of the West. Of course that's just one viewpoint. I think the same is true of almost all Ukrainians outside Donbas - they want to be European and not be embraced by the Russian bear...
Just after September 11th 2001, Pentagon planners realized that the only way to get into Afghanistan was to invade through Uzbekistan, which was led by a very unsavory dictator, Karimov.
The US rep showed up with a check book and said, "What's it going to take to get basing rights?"
Karimov said, "Stop saying I'm a scummy dictator and give me $100M."
"Done."
The US could urge other NATO members to admit Ukraine, but some would probably demand bribes like Karimov. I do not think the check book is open to them the way it was to Karimov.
Trump did pass my mind...If Ukrainians outside Donbas want to be European then de facto cede the Donbas to Russia and admit the rest of Ukraine to NATO. Same with Moldova.
What would be unreal, but in the current case highly likley, is if France, Hungary, and Turkey all approved it but Trump was the holdout toad vote...
What this war is missing and our political climate is missing is to start calling bluffs on some of the ridiculous positions by perceived power brokers...
That is just how international affairs is done.Worth every life and penny in the long run. Pay the money and keep the receipts. The bill will come due sooner or later for these profiteering countries.
What this war is missing and our political climate is missing is to start calling bluffs on some of the ridiculous positions by perceived power brokers...
But you have nervous nellies who keep fretting, "He's got nukes!" every time Vlad makes a threat. So we should just give him everything he wants. That's pretty much what Trump is doing.
The sad reality is that he DOES have nukes. If we were to attempt to put US troops in Ukraine then who knows what a caged rat (Putin, not Trump) would do when cornered. Trump and the EU leaders are well aware of this which is why they have to walk a tightrope between diplomacy and sanctions. It's just not anywhere near obvious what the correct answer is, regardless of the opinions on this message board.But you have nervous nellies who keep fretting, "He's got nukes!" every time Vlad makes a threat.
Whichever side in the Russo-Ukrainian War wins the Donbas loses the war.
That is the savage and largely unacknowledged irony at the core of the struggle over the Donbas  a territory that has recently come to occupy center stage in President Trump’s post-summit thinking about how to end the war.
The Donbas was the industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union for decades, but the region was already going into decline by the 1970s and 1980s. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, it inherited what had largely become a value-destroying territory. The Donbas fed the corrupt appetites of local politicians, oligarchs and organized crime. Its working-class residents claimed to have an exalted status belied by a wretched reality.
In 2016, Aslund estimated that it would cost some $20 billion to revive the Donbas. By 2025, the estimated cost of Ukraine’s reconstruction had zoomed upward to $524 billion, a 26-fold increase. Much of that money would need to go to the Donbas, where most of the heaviest fighting has taken place.
A reasonable guesstimate of how much it would cost to rebuild just the Donbas today is $200 billion  nearly one-tenth of Russia’s reported annual GDP and slightly more than Ukraine’s. If the fighting continues indefinitely, that sum will surely double or even triple.
Here is an article from the Hill on the events in Washington:
5 takeaways from the Trump-Zelensky White House meeting
Five points.
A positive tone but few specifics (Not surprising at this stage)
Europeans succeeded in shoring up Zelensky (The Euro leaders wanted to avoid a repeat of the debacle of the last Trump-Zelensky meeting in Washington)
Interim ceasefire is rare point of contention (von der Leyen says Ukraine should have an "article V-like security guarantee." Not NATO membership, but a close equivalent. "Let’s try to put pressure on Russia,†Merz said, although the EU imported "over half of the ... coal and 43% of imported natural gas" from Russia last year.
Trump vouches for Putin’s desire to make peace (I'm sure he is, and whether he accepts and abides by it depends on the terms and condition of the final agreement)
Huge stakes if a trilateral meeting happens (a face-to-face meeting could be a make or break meeting).
As long the Europeans are willing to step up and really do what they say, there is a chance