6 ms·
So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine - weapons, intelligence, the works. Any negotiations US-Russia will be useless as the US won’t
by akmarinov 2y ago
So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine - weapons, intelligence, the works.
Any negotiations US-Russia will be useless as the US won’t represent anyone with a stake in the war. They don’t have people, territory, anything at stake, they don’t get refugees and generally aren’t directly affected in any way.
What are the chances that they just leave Ukraine, Europe and Russia alone from now on and leave them to sort it out on their own?
- GenerocUsername 2y agoDespite all the rage in these comments, the base of the right largely views this as best possible outcome.
- redmajor12 2y agoSupporting peace?! That's a right wing cause now?
- wilg 2y ago[flagged]
- Cornbilly 2y agoWell, you just nailed why this line works on voters. Here’s the other one that works on that same crowd: “We need to fix the budget to close the deficit. We’re going to leave spending basically unchanged and cut taxes for the rich.”
- jandrese 2y agoSupporting peace via the 2025 version of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact? It is very important for future world peace that Russia not be successful in this war.
- tdb7893 2y agoYou don't even have to go back to WWII, we let Russia take part of Ukraine in 2014 and look how that worked out. The idea that letting other countries annex parts of their neighbors is a recipe for lasting peace would be laughable if I didn't see it so often. It's like Charlie Brown and the football every time: https://imgflip.com/i/9lvwwu https://imgflip.com/i/9lvwwu
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoAnd before that, there was Georgia in 2008.
- ttyprintk 2y agoTheir Peace is Ukraine laying back and taking it.
- Glyptodon 2y agoWhy do some many people think enabling invaders is "supporting peace"? Chamberlainism used be so verboten.
- corimaith 2y agoBecause Russian shills, the Alt-Right have already burrowed deep into HN. Don't assume much of the discussion here is anything but in bad faith that feigns ignorance to exhaust opposing arguments. It's the classic gish-gallop in play.
- dang 2y agoWould you please stop breaking the site guidelines like this? I asked you once already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213985. This is a divisive topic with a range of opinion. I don't see any evidence of shills so far but if you think you do, you should be emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it, not posting this sort of sinister speculation to the threads. It's the ultimate internet cliché, and has a degrading effect on discussion. Hence that guideline.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y agoI wish I knew how to respond to such ridiculously bad faith comments like this. Ukraine has no leverage to bring to any peace negotiations. The only possible way to get peace is for Ukraine to roll over and get annexed by Russia. You're arguing for the Bad Guys to win.
- horns4lyfe 2y agoGood thing the world isn’t a marvel movie
- akmarinov 2y agoAt this point that sounds like a good deal. Also pull everything out of Europe and make NATO worthless.
- simmerup 2y agoIn return we can replace all the McDonalds and KFCs with European alternatives, and kick out Meta and the rest of the tech imperialism. Don't pretend America gets nothing out of its role as global hegemon.
- consumer451 2y agoFrom the ashes of the fall of Pax Americana will rise Pax Europa.
- bufferoverflow 2y agoNot going to happen. EU has its own massive problems. And the countries are not aligned on the politics at all.
- consumer451 2y agoThat is not the vibe that I'm feeling over here at all. The USA aligning with Russia was a major wake up call here, and it is leading to solidarity the likes of which I've never seen. For example: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1irgt3n/german_chancellor_candidate_who_is_likely_to_win/ https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1irgt3n/german_chan...
- bufferoverflow 2y agoNow do Hungary. Or Slovakia.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- StefanBatory 2y agoThat would be a good ending by now - USA can start supporting Russia. With intelligence, with weapons.
- akmarinov 2y agoYeah but why? To what end? Russia gets USSR back together? What does Trump get out of that? And don’t start with any of that “Trump was turned by GRU”, “they have dirt on him”, “he’s bought by Russia” He’s got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that’ll give him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc - he doesn’t want or need money He’s at the top of power - both houses, presidency, supreme court all will follow whatever he says without a second thought, commander of the strongest military the world has known, richest nation in the world - there’s hardly any more power to gain. He doesn’t need to care about getting reelected, he won’t get removed from office. He’s 80 and whatever - there’s nothing to fear in his future as he’s at the end. He doesn’t care about the Republican party, so setting that up for the future doesn’t matter to him. Any dirt they bring out can just be handwaved away as AI generated and no one in his base will believe it regardless. So he can’t be a Russian asset, he’s beyond that and untouchable to the Russians. So what is it? What is he after?
- solid_fuel 2y agoI think this: > He’s got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that’ll give him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc - he doesn’t want or need money is flawed thinking. No billionaire ever needs more money. But they all spend their time trying to make more money anyway. Think about it - these are people who have a billion dollars, but instead of starting charities and giving it away or retiring to an island, they take their money and power and use them to get more money and more power. It's greed. So I reject the idea that Donald Trump doesn't want more money.
- akmarinov 2y agoBut he literally has it all in all but name. He can have direct access to any of the big billionaires’ finances, DOGE is restructuring money left and right. 2.4 billion go into the SpaceX for an FAA contract, who’s to say a billion of that doesn’t go to Trump related businesses. We’ve seen it happen where foreign dignitaries stay at Trump hotels when visiting DC, etc There’s just no point in having it under Trump’s name, but if he wishes - he could be the first trillionaire
- cowgoesmoo 2y agoI'm pretty sure that's what Trump wants if the mineral deal isn't signed. And now the mineral deal seems more and more unlikely.
- code_biologist 2y agoAlex Krainer has speculated that Zelenskyy literally can't sign a mineral deal because those rights were a secret part of the UK/Ukraine 100 Year Partnership deal, making this all a bunch of theater.
- akmarinov 2y agoThere’s 0 chance Zelensky signed with the UK if there was a possibility to secure the US instead
- thinkcontext 2y ago> So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine - weapons, intelligence, the works Probably even worse than pulling weapons and intelligence would be if the US pulled the plug on sanctions.
- casenmgreen 2y agoThis is the outcome. Well, we might see a vestigial "peace treaty" set up between D and V, with both saying "we'd have peace now except for Z not wanting it, he's the problem". USA is out of the game. Only question now is if it goes neutral (EU can still buy munitions/weapons) or actually becomes actively hostile, to whatever extent. EU now needs to step up. This means 7% defence spending, to re-arm and to support UA. HU/SK will block everything in EU, every step of the way, as both are Putin's. EU is actually fundamentally unable to respond because it cannot really deal with HU/SK. NATO also. No mechanism to eject members. Enough voting mechanisms require unanimous vote. EU States need to start organizing things between themselves, sans HU/SK/USA.