That’s not even an option. How do you figure Trump would be able to do that? It’s ridiculous.
There are limits to what Trump can do, without retaliation from the rest of NATO. Trump may be stupid, but he is not THAT stupid.
So how would he act on his concepts of a plan on stopping the war quickly? In what world would Putin agree to give up the gains of 10 years with so much lost?
I have no idea, but he can’t FORCE Ukraine to give up territory. That’s not saying I know what he WILL do, but I know some things he CAN’T do.
EU supports Ukraine in their claim to get ALL territories back, including Crimea.
The US support has always been viewed as crucial, which is probably why Zelensky was so eager to please Trump by being among the first to congratulate him. If you were to ask me, I’d say Europe is strong enough to help Ukraine win, but one could argue that the will would wane if America pulls out. Moreover, there are reports that suggest the Ukrainian decision-makers are prepared for territorial concessions.
Ukraine is being told it will have to make serious territorial concessions
That’s not agreeing to make concessions. And a piece built on MAGA claims is not really an interesting read IMO.
If you want to make a point based on an article, quote the part you think support it.
if America pulls out.
America is in no way in Ukraine, so they can’t “pull out”.
Of course, this means Russian President Vladimir Putin’s thuggishness will be rewarded, that there will be no accountability for the bestial nature of his army’s atrocious behavior or the unlawful, detestable deportations from occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia. The axis of autocrats will be emboldened in their determination to smash the old global order.
But there’s no other alternative. Short of a “forever war” or Western powers becoming combatants themselves — or at least putting their economies on a war footing to supply Ukraine with much more than they currently are — that’s the cold hard reality.
And according to a Republican foreign policy expert familiar with Zelenskyy and his circle, Kyiv understands this. Asking to remain anonymous in order to speak candidly, Kyiv now reckons Trump may well turn out to be a better option than Harris, he said.
Also:
After Trump’s win, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who’s being tipped as the new secretary of State, said that Russia’s war against Ukraine had reached a “stalemate” that’s costing lives and “needs to be brought to a conclusion.” He described Ukrainians as “incredibly brave and strong,” but also noted “the reality of the war.”
Zelenskyy understands that too — not that he’s going to shout it from the rooftops. As war-weariness mounts, public opinion in Ukraine has been changing, especially among the young, who are the most willing to accept limited outcomes. According to a poll conducted this summer, only 40 percent of those aged 18 to 25 think Ukraine should fight until it liberates all its territory.
That’s just hearsay, but even if true, it doesn’t support your claim. “understanding” almost surely doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. And the part about 18-25 year olds are not “Ukrainian decision-makers”.
Ukraine officials have been VERY clear, there can be no peace with concessions to Russia, because that will almost surely mean Russia will invade again, when they have gathered strength.
If Ukraine were to surrender territory, they would have to be allowed into NATO, to be secured from repeat attack from Russia. Otherwise Russia will just think they can take some piece of Ukraine now, and the rest later.
If Ukraine were to surrender territory, they would have to be allowed into NATO, to be secured from repeat attack from Russia.
I do think that’s one of the more realistic scenarios expected under Trump, though I’m not sure about it having to rest specifically on NATO and not some other written security guarantees. However, in that scenario, Russia gets to keep its gains and the world returns to business as usual, as we saw after Russia’s actions in Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine in 2014, etc (and that’s just the military involvement, not to mention the countless influence and infiltration campaigns, isolated sabotage and killings in Europe, among other things). It could stop Russia from moving forward in Ukraine, but it wouldn’t stop Russia from choosing another target as it always has.
Right, though I can foresee some concessions regarding Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russia had a presence in Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea for a lot longer.
Not if Trump forces Ukraine to give up the three occupied regions.
That’s not even an option. How do you figure Trump would be able to do that? It’s ridiculous.
There are limits to what Trump can do, without retaliation from the rest of NATO. Trump may be stupid, but he is not THAT stupid.
So how would he act
on his concepts of a planon stopping the war quickly? In what world would Putin agree to give up the gains of 10 years with so much lost?I have no idea, but he can’t FORCE Ukraine to give up territory. That’s not saying I know what he WILL do, but I know some things he CAN’T do.
EU supports Ukraine in their claim to get ALL territories back, including Crimea.
The US support has always been viewed as crucial, which is probably why Zelensky was so eager to please Trump by being among the first to congratulate him. If you were to ask me, I’d say Europe is strong enough to help Ukraine win, but one could argue that the will would wane if America pulls out. Moreover, there are reports that suggest the Ukrainian decision-makers are prepared for territorial concessions.
From your link:
That’s not agreeing to make concessions. And a piece built on MAGA claims is not really an interesting read IMO.
If you want to make a point based on an article, quote the part you think support it.
America is in no way in Ukraine, so they can’t “pull out”.
From my link:
Also:
That’s just hearsay, but even if true, it doesn’t support your claim. “understanding” almost surely doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. And the part about 18-25 year olds are not “Ukrainian decision-makers”.
Ukraine officials have been VERY clear, there can be no peace with concessions to Russia, because that will almost surely mean Russia will invade again, when they have gathered strength.
If Ukraine were to surrender territory, they would have to be allowed into NATO, to be secured from repeat attack from Russia. Otherwise Russia will just think they can take some piece of Ukraine now, and the rest later.
I do think that’s one of the more realistic scenarios expected under Trump, though I’m not sure about it having to rest specifically on NATO and not some other written security guarantees. However, in that scenario, Russia gets to keep its gains and the world returns to business as usual, as we saw after Russia’s actions in Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine in 2014, etc (and that’s just the military involvement, not to mention the countless influence and infiltration campaigns, isolated sabotage and killings in Europe, among other things). It could stop Russia from moving forward in Ukraine, but it wouldn’t stop Russia from choosing another target as it always has.
Please tell me how Ukraine would agree to the same, having lost lots of lives too.
And it’s theirs after all.
What are “the three”?
Five. Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea, Kherson, Zaporozhye
Right, though I can foresee some concessions regarding Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russia had a presence in Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea for a lot longer.