Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-russia-lacks-certain-weapons-despite-beefing-up-military-production-2025-04-23/

Putin is just going to ramp up production of weapons and especially drones even more than they already have and throw more meat at the front lines, Russians and non Russian.  I read somewhere else they have 650k troops operating in the war right now. I don’t think they should take a shitty deal, it would be nice if they didn’t have to take one at all but without US weapons they have to be running low on manpower and weapons soon. Any deal definitely needs more access to port areas than Russia is offering now but Putin is never giving up Crimea.  

Posted
2 hours ago, Parliament said:

Is Europe on track to achieve their new support promises?  Can we agree many European counties have been laggards the last 3 years?

They are not technically there yet, and were always counting on the U.S. being the short term guarantor and even producer. 
 

My prediction: Within 1-2 weeks we will wash our hands of trying to broker peace and more openly align with Russia.  Watch for some truly revolting shit in this space around the 80th anniversary of D-Day. 

  • Rage+1 9
Posted
Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would “walk away” if both parties did not agree.
Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday called on Ukraine to accept an American peace proposal that closely aligns with longstanding Russian goals, including a “freeze” of territorial lines in the three-year war, acceptance of the annexation of Crimea by Russia and a prohibition on Ukraine becoming part of the NATO alliance.
It was the first time a U.S. official had publicly laid out a plan to end the war that favors Russia in such stark terms.
A peace plan that leaves Russian forces deep inside eastern Ukraine would be welcome news in Moscow. President Vladimir V. Putin has said for almost year that he would accept a cease-fire in which Ukraine withdraws troops from the four regions that Russia has claimed as its own and drops its aspirations to join NATO.
The comments by the vice president appeared designed to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who has long refused to accept Russian’s occupation of his country’s lands, including the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and territory taken by Russia after it invaded Ukraine in early 2022.
In a second blow to Mr. Zelensky, President Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian president on Wednesday afternoon, writing on Truth Social, his social media site, that “he can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years.”
Mr. Vance, speaking during a trip to India, said the United States would “walk away” from the peace process if both Ukraine and Russia refused to accept the American terms. But Mr. Zelensky was clearly the target.
cont'd:
Spoiler

“We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process,” Mr. Vance told reporters. “The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.”
The vice president’s comments came just hours after Mr. Zelensky said his country will never accept Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea as legal, adding that doing so would violate Ukraine’s Constitution. He also said that Ukraine could not accept any prohibition against becoming part of NATO.
“There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Mr. Zelensky told reporters in a news conference.
On Wednesday afternoon, Yulia Svyrydenko, the Ukrainian economy minister, also vowed that her country “will never recognize the occupation of Crimea.” Writing on X, the social media site, she said that “Ukraine is ready to negotiate — but not to surrender. There will be no agreement that hands Russia the stronger foundations it needs to regroup and return with greater violence.”
In his statement, Mr. Trump accused Mr. Zelensky of making “inflammatory” statements that he claimed would prolong the war.
“If he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?” Mr. Trump wrote. “The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the “killing field,” and nobody wants that!”
The threat by Mr. Vance to walk away from peace talks were similar to comments last week from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and from President Trump, who said in the Oval Office that if the two sides don’t agree quickly to a deal, “we’re just going to say, ‘You’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people, and we’re going to just take a pass.’”
On Wednesday, Mr. Vance told reporters in India that under the American proposal, “We’re going to freeze the territorial lines at some level close to where they are today.”
“The current lines, or somewhere close to them, is where you’re ultimately, I think, going to draw the new lines in the conflict,” he added. “Now, of course, that means the Ukrainians and the Russians are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own.”
The vice president did not say what territory Russia would have to give up. Russia currently occupies 18.7 percent of Ukraine, according to DeepState, an online research group with ties to the Ukrainian army.
A freeze would essentially force Ukraine to surrender huge swaths of land to Russia and would violate the principles of self-determination and borders that has animated the United States and European nations to support Ukraine since Russia’s invasion.
A Kremlin spokesman on Wednesday welcomed Mr. Vance’s remarks.
“The United States is continuing its mediation efforts, and we certainly welcome those efforts,” the spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said. “Our interactions are ongoing but, to be sure, there is a lot of nuances around the peace settlement that need to be discussed.”
The aggressive push for a deal by Mr. Trump’s administration is a blow to European leaders, who have spent weeks attempting to shore up Ukraine’s position by brokering peace talks with the United States. The first effort convened last week in Paris and another session was set to start Wednesday in London before Mr. Rubio announced that he would no longer attend.
Mr. Rubio’s decision to cancel caught the British government off guard, according to a British official who said that David Lammy, the foreign secretary, had fully expected the secretary of state in London on Wednesday.
Lower-level diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Ukraine, and the United States still gathered for technical talks. But the absence of Mr. Rubio or Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s chief negotiator with Russia, renewed fears that Ukraine and Europe were being marginalized as the Trump administration seemed to be working primarily with Russia.
Mr. Witkoff is scheduled to be in Moscow later this week, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday.
Andriy Yermak, the Ukrainian president’s chief of staff, arrived in London Wednesday morning for the scaled-back talks, along with his country’s ministers of defense and foreign affairs.
“Despite everything,” he wrote on X, the social media platform, after arriving, “we continue working for peace.”
Even before his comments Tuesday, Mr. Zelensky had expressed his opposition to the American demands in a conversation with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, according to an official familiar with the conversation. Mr. Zelensky laid out his positions on Crimea and NATO, the official said, and Mr. Rutte later called Mr. Trump and conveyed Mr. Zelensky’s answer.
Instead of participating in a larger meeting, Mr. Lammy met one-on-one with the Ukrainian foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, while the British defense secretary, John Healey, met his Ukrainian counterpart, Rustem Umerov. Mr. Lammy also dropped in on a lunch that included senior national security advisers from Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the Ukrainian delegation and General Kellogg.

 


Lolz, Zelensky would gladly go the “3 more years” route, with or without US support.

Fuck these Russian stooges!
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:

Lolz, Zelensky would gladly go the “3 more years” route, with or without US support.

Fuck these Russian stooges!

Based on how fast the Ukrainians are developing drone and missile technology, I'd assume that Moscow would be getting hammered pretty often three years from now.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/world/europe/ukraine-kyiv-russia-attack.html?unlocked_article_code=1.CE8.mifw.weWDaYFjHTtY&smid=url-share

Assholes.

 

Quote

 

Russia Attacks Kyiv, Killing at Least 8

The assault was the deadliest on Ukraine’s capital in nearly a year. It came just hours after the Trump administration again threatened to walk away from the peace process.

 

Spoiler

Russia launched a huge attack on Kyiv early Thursday, killing at least eight people and injuring more than 60 others in the Ukrainian capital just hours after the Trump administration again lashed out at President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and threatened to abandon peace talks.

The assault was the deadliest on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, since last summer. Explosions could be heard throughout the night; clouds of brown smoke rose over the city as the sun came up.

One missile hit a two-story building with eight apartments where emergency workers hunted for survivors Thursday morning. A five-story building next door lost all of its windows. People stood outside, staring at the damage and talking on their phones, telling loved ones that they were alive. No military target was visible nearby.

Mr. Zelensky said that nearly 70 missiles, including ballistic ones, and about 150 attack drones had targeted cities across the country — although Kyiv was the hardest hit.

 

  • Rage+1 5
Posted

Trump’s deal would plunge the world into war

 Summarize

Rewarding aggression and overturning rules-based order will simply trigger many more invasions

Con Coughlin23 April 2025 6:04pm BST
 

Credit: MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/AFP

US president Donald Trump’s seven-point proposal for ending the Ukraine conflict may be many things, but it most certainly is not a peace plan. It is a blueprint for more war.

Surrender, capitulation, betrayal, appeasement, abandonment. These are the words that better describe the egregious apology of a peace deal that the Trump administration is currently hawking around Europe.

For, rather than attempting to address the fundamental causes of the conflict – namely Russia’s unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state – Trump and his band of fellow travellers have reached the perverse conclusion that the best way to achieve peace in Ukraine is by rewarding Russian president Vladimir Putin for his blatant act of military aggression.

That certainly seems to be the essence of the terms presented in the one-page document given to Western diplomats meeting in London yesterday. It proposes allowing Putin to keep nearly all the Ukrainian territory he has seized since launching his initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, while giving the Ukrainians – who are unquestionably the innocent party in the conflict – next to nothing in return.

By far the most outrageous suggestion made in the proposal, which Trump has called his “final offer”, is that, in return for Russia halting hostilities along the current front lines, Washington would agree to de jure recognition of Russian control of Crimea. In addition, Russia will enjoy Washington’s de facto recognition of all the territory in eastern Ukraine that Moscow has captured, occupied and illegally annexed during the past decade or so.

This concession not only rewards Putin’s decade-long military effort to destroy Ukraine’s independence; it is a flagrant breach of one of the key pillars of the post-war international order, which decrees that the sovereign integrity of any nation is inviolable.

If Russia is allowed to drive a coach and horses through such a fundamental premise of international law, then what is to stop China from seizing Taiwan, or Argentina the Falkland Islands? Far from being a prescription for future peace, Trump’s capitulation to Moscow lays the foundations for future conflict.

Other aspects of Trump’s so-called “peace deal” are equally unpalatable to anyone who supports the principle of defending Ukrainian sovereignty from Russian aggression. Apart from requiring Kyiv to surrender its territory, the deal demands that Kyiv abandon its aspirations to join the Nato alliance. In return, an ad hoc collection of European countries – no doubt a reference to Sir Keir Starmer’s “coalition of the willing” – will commit to providing a “robust security guarantee” to protect Ukraine from any future acts of Russian aggression.

As Trump’s deal makes no mention of the US providing any military support for such a force – one of Starmer’s key requirements – the proposition already looks dead in the water.

Trump is also offering Putin some important incentives for agreeing to the deal, such as the lifting of US sanctions that have been in place since 2014, and the offer of future economic cooperation in the energy and industrial sectors.

It almost beggars belief that Trump, who took office vowing to end the Ukraine conflict in “24 hours”, could produce a document that is not just deeply flawed, but one that constitutes such a blatant threat to world peace.

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, apparently produced this mockery of a peace deal having had four hours of talks with Putin in Moscow last week. To judge by the eventual outcome, the most charitable view of the US envoy’s endeavours is that he simply took dictation from the Russian leader.

Putin will certainly claim this deal – assuming he agrees to it – justifies his warmongering in Ukraine which has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and left large tracts of Ukraine uninhabitable.

More importantly, it will allow Russia’s battered and exhausted military to regroup and prepare to engage in future aggressive acts against Europe’s borders, safe in the knowledge that, even if such attacks occurred against Nato member states, he has nothing to fear in terms of an American military response.

Suddenly, Trump’s quip, made during the presidential election campaign, that he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies in Europe who did not make adequate financial provision for their defence, deserves serious consideration by Washington’s erstwhile European allies.

Given this administration’s open disdain for European concerns, which saw US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Witkoff withdraw at the last minute from yesterday’s London summit on the peace proposal, European leaders need to take a leaf out of Ukraine’s book and acknowledge that the US can no longer be trusted to protect their interests.

Judging by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s initial response to Trump’s offer, Ukraine is likely to conclude that it is better to continue fighting than suffer the national humiliation of surrendering its territory to Russia.

And if European leaders need any further evidence that they must safeguard their own future security needs, then the Ukrainian “peace deal” devised by Trump’s administration of mavericks should give them all the persuasion they require.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 hour ago, AnTiM said:

Trump's only "plan" is to strike a deal with whichever side stands to make him the most money.

I mean....it's not even THAT well thought-out.  He thinks "I'm the mostest importantest person in the world, and my word is law.  So, people will do what I tell them to."  When he gets a response of "LOL....no", he doesn't have an alternate play.  There is no play here.  His only play is "In will impose a deal on you."  When the parties decline, there is no Plan B.

The question is "Why won't an invader who won't accept anything less than total conquest, and an invaded country that will not surrender its sovereignty to an invader, just make a deal?"  The answer to the question is IN THE FUCKING QUESTION ITSELF.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean....it's not even THAT well thought-out.  He thinks "I'm the mostest importantest person in the world, and my word is law.  So, people will do what I tell them to."  When he gets a response of "LOL....no", he doesn't have an alternate play.  There is no play here.  His only play is "In will impose a deal on you."  When the parties decline, there is no Plan B.

The question is "Why won't an invader who won't accept anything less than total conquest, and an invaded country that will not surrender its sovereignty to an invader, just make a deal?"  The answer to the question is IN THE FUCKING QUESTION ITSELF.  

Your first paragraph is spot on 1000%.   Any questioning of what is happening in the WH can just stop right there.  

Your second paragraph has waaaay to many words of waaaay to many syllables for the current admin.  It's a question that only introspective people might ask themselves.  Ergo, that question won't be within 1000 miles of the White House.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

A Popeyes manager would absolutely wreck shit. Imagine an army of heavily armed Popeyes employees.

Someone AI generate a pic of that awesomeness.

I'd rather take an army of Waffle House employees into war, those motherfuckers know how to fight.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

A Popeyes manager would absolutely wreck shit. Imagine an army of heavily armed Popeyes employees.

Someone AI generate a pic of that awesomeness.

"heavily armed" is redundant. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted

So model this hypothetical out for me:

1) US let’s aid run out and doesn’t refill.  This summer some time?

2) Intel and satellite info drops to near zero.

3) The big European nations continue to dither and pither and only drip out weapons.

4) Russia continues to attack, but keeps creeping closer to major economic problems and military shortages.

What does the endgame look like?  How bad would it need to get before a Ukrainians surrender?  Or would the war die down as Russia FINALLY runs out of gas?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Parliament said:

How bad would it need to get before a Ukrainians surrender?

I don’t think Ukraine will ever surrender. It will take Russians taking Kyiv and killing Zelenskyy 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'd rather take an army of people inside Waffle Houses into war, those motherfuckers know how to fight.

Fixed amigo. 

I'd put the weekday 3 am folks from a Waffle House against the North Koreans if paired with the Ukrainian military all day, every day.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

I don’t think Ukraine will ever surrender. It will take Russians taking Kyiv and killing Zelenskyy 

They know surrender means a lot of ongoing torture and death for a long time. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Parliament said:

So model this hypothetical out for me:

1) US let’s aid run out and doesn’t refill.  This summer some time?

2) Intel and satellite info drops to near zero.

3) The big European nations continue to dither and pither and only drip out weapons.

4) Russia continues to attack, but keeps creeping closer to major economic problems and military shortages.

What does the endgame look like?  How bad would it need to get before a Ukrainians surrender?  Or would the war die down as Russia FINALLY runs out of gas?

Maybe Europe gets involved to broker a deal? It wouldn't be as good as a deal brokered by a U.S. that is standing behind Ukraine, but it's probably Ukraine's best option at this point. Russia keeps all the territory and Ukraine gets some weak-ish security guarantees.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

"Brisketexan stopping at merely marrying and occasionally pleasing his wife before he seduced Sela Ward, Hayley Atwell, Elizabeth Hurley, and Susanna Hoffs is a pretty big concession by Brisketexan."

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Brisketexan stopping at merely marrying and occasionally pleasing his wife before he seduced Sela Ward, Hayley Atwell, Elizabeth Hurley, and Susanna Hoffs is a pretty big concession by Brisketexan."

"Atomheartbevo intends to contest the seduction of Sela Ward and Susanna Hoffs."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

"Atomheartbevo intends to contest the seduction of Sela Ward and Susanna Hoffs."

"Atomheart, STOP!  Why won't Hayley Atwell and Elizabeth Hurley just make a deal???!!!"

  • Like 1
Posted
On 4/23/2025 at 7:43 AM, Hook1997 said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-russia-lacks-certain-weapons-despite-beefing-up-military-production-2025-04-23/

Putin is just going to ramp up production of weapons and especially drones even more than they already have and throw more meat at the front lines, Russians and non Russian.  I read somewhere else they have 650k troops operating in the war right now. I don’t think they should take a shitty deal, it would be nice if they didn’t have to take one at all but without US weapons they have to be running low on manpower and weapons soon. Any deal definitely needs more access to port areas than Russia is offering now but Putin is never giving up Crimea.  

Ukraine has had no choice but to manufacture a fuck load of drones to offset the waning US support. They got a taste of it last year when the House blocked support bills. Drones are responsible for like two thirds of injuries and deaths and the US isn’t any help there. Hell, the US is way the fuck behind in modern combat-effective drones. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
9 hours ago, AnTiM said:

Trump's only "plan" is to strike a deal with whichever side stands to make him the most money.

Or flatters him the most. Putin is considering putting Trump’s name on a tower in Moscow to glaze that ego. 

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Parliament said:

So model this hypothetical out for me:

1) US let’s aid run out and doesn’t refill.  This summer some time?

2) Intel and satellite info drops to near zero.

3) The big European nations continue to dither and pither and only drip out weapons.

4) Russia continues to attack, but keeps creeping closer to major economic problems and military shortages.

What does the endgame look like?  How bad would it need to get before a Ukrainians surrender?  Or would the war die down as Russia FINALLY runs out of gas?


Europe and Japan are now providing satellite intel. Obviously not as good as having US support too, but it won’t be as bad as when the US blindsided everyone and fucked the Kursk salient. 

If Russia doesn’t collapse before they’re in artillery range of Zaporizhzhia, I think we’ll see substantial European troops in the rear and far more direct Euro support. 

Russia is fucked just like the current US administration. They can’t economically sustain this. Have faith, my dudes. 

Edited by B00M
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Parliament said:

So model this hypothetical out for me:

1) US let’s aid run out and doesn’t refill.  This summer some time?

2) Intel and satellite info drops to near zero.

3) The big European nations continue to dither and pither and only drip out weapons.

4) Russia continues to attack, but keeps creeping closer to major economic problems and military shortages.

What does the endgame look like?  How bad would it need to get before a Ukrainians surrender?  Or would the war die down as Russia FINALLY runs out of gas?

They need Europe to step up big time I’d say. I have a feeling manpower of experienced soldiers and overall will become a huge issue over the next year for Ukraine and Russia has a huge supply of manpower to force to the front.  

I wouldn’t count on Putin running out of gas he will continue to throw everything they have at it and their economy isn’t as close to collapsing as we would all like it to be. 

I’m afraid this summer could be bad without US support, hopefully something changes soon and Europe steps up.  I miss the days of Wagner marching towards Moscow.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

So they're gonna cut up their meat before they eat it?

f you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding.  How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
56 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

I wouldn’t count on Putin running out of gas he will continue to throw everything they have at it and their economy isn’t as close to collapsing as we would all like it to be. 

I think he's going to do everything he can to keep from doing mass call-ups in Moscow, St. Pete's, etc.  He can't afford any protests to get out of hand in those cities.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

f you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding.  How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

 

Roger Waters is a bad person to quote when it comes to Ukraine.

Edited by Bevo
  • Hook 'Em 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...