Yeah, idk about that. There has been plenty recently dividing him from us. I don’t think it’s reporters.
Anyway, this convo is jumping all over the place.
1 Like
Then there wasn’t an agreement in place and there shouldn’t have been the sideshow “meeting.”
If there are unresolved issue that need to be resolved (and there clearly are), and you don’t want those discussed in public, then you don’t set up a televised meeting.
This was either a set-up or the people who decided it was a good idea are stupid - maybe both.
4 Likes
Doubt there was an agreement in place. Zelensky was invited to negotiate a deal. He was was ambushed and was being forced to sign over Ukraines minerals.
He balked, refused to bend over. Then sh7t hit the fan.
4 Likes
I don’t think it makes sense to only attack one side of this for a communication blunder. Plenty of that to go around.
1 Like
What agreement exactly. To capitulate and have his country pillaged by billionaires without security guarantees.
There was no agreement, none. He was set up from the beginning. His invitation to Washington was a farce, intended to humiliate him on national tv and have him hand over his country’s mineral rights to a colonial power.
Putin is going after Estonia and the Baltic states. He has Crimea and now has enough oil to run over Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe. He’s received no resistance from the guy in the White House who simply wants to pillage Ukraine’s wealth, before Putin gets to it.
Ukraine should absolutely demand security guarantees. The three previous presidents posture towards Putin was predicated on the fact that he was the most singular existential threat to the United States . No security guarantees were demanded then because everyone understood having a secure Europe was and still is critical for our own national security.
The money spent in Ukraine is for our own safety and defense. You don’t want that war to reach your shores because if it gets to to that, you’ve already lost.
4 Likes
This is too far down into politics. Let’s stop it there.
2 Likes
Explain to us how my post was removed and Acres was not? I would like to know for a clear understanding of the rules.
It was flagged. You have some questionable stuff still left up.
Let’s just pivot away from politics going forward.
And please don’t get in a flag war.
I am asking you for clarification purposes so I do not get flagged. It would be helpful for everyone.
I didn’t flag it but it was political so I accepted the flag.
There is other stuff you’ve posted that’s also political that hasn’t been flagged. Let’s just move forward.
Confrontational posts toward other posters is the real problem.
1 Like
I’m going to need you to email the networks, AD and everyone to make sure we get early Saturday start times. Apparently we all feel feisty in the morning. Or our SO’s to give us chore ists
1 Like
I’m pretty sure everyone knows who and what I’m talking about.
Asking someone a question is different than changing the topic to them.
I have a very simple question:
(well two)
How would ceding any land be any different than appeasement?
Wouldn’t that set a precedent that was already set needing a world war to resolve?
Well three:
Do we want or need to go through this again?
2 Likes
-
It isn’t. It’s either appeasement or surrender.
-
Yes. Bad news for Ukraine. I can understand Zelensky being pissed.
-
No. Also bad messaging for China/Taiwan.
3 Likes
-
No, it’s the very definition of appeasement
-
No, the precedent has already been set. We’re just looking to be Chamberlain this time.
-
Apparently, we just wanted to see what it will be like to be on wrong side of history this time
5 Likes
If Russia stops fighting the war ends.
If Ukraine stops fighting Ukraine ends.
4 Likes
