Trump is in talks with Russia to end the war

[sahgwa]

Why is it always the English government?

[putnam6]

What the hell does that even mean ? "Ukraine peacekeeper deployment is now operational" 

Let's hope this works... somehow

It all sounds a bit fractured, sounds like we will just slip the tip in?

"insisted on US involvement"



it should have been announced as a solid coalition of British, French, Turkey, etc. peacekeepers. Even with this small group, Putin will no doubt be having discussions in the back channels.

Likely picking them off one by one diplomatically

But we will see

Geopoliti?
@DalioTroy
·
16h
British PM Starmer announced Ukraine peacekeeper deployment is now operational. He slammed Putin’s ceasefire as inadequate and insisted on US involvement. European military leaders will meet in Britain Thursday. Critics warn this risks pushing Europe toward WW3.

Honestly I can’t wait to see the first guys getting deployed in Ukraine…  Putin's response to ceasefire 'not good enough'. Military chiefs to meet in Britain on Thursday: plans to send peacekeepers to Ukraine move into 'operational phase' - British PM Starmer.
 Emmanuel Macron said Russia will have no say over whether foreign troops will be sent to Ukraine to guarantee an eventual ceasefire.
“If Ukraine asks allied forces to be on its territory, it is not up to Russia to accept or not,” the French president told local press  last night before another aerial attacks between Russia and Ukraine.
France and Britain, as well as other Nato countries including Turkey, have said they are willing to send peacekeeping troops to a post-war Ukraine.
Moscow has repeatedly said it will reject any proposals for foreign troops to be stationed in Ukraine.
It comes after Keir Starmer hosted a virtual meeting of the “coalition of the willing” on Saturday, which involved 26 nations, including Ukraine, to rally support behind Kyiv and discuss steps to end the war.



Then we get the plethora of comments here's the link to the thread 

https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/1900905097300779099

max bucket

@maxbucket
This feels more like 1939 BEF than 1944 D-Day


matt
@matt20910978653

Correct. Only the UN can sanction peacekeepers and Russia has a veto on that. Even if there's a ceasefire, a precondition would be no peacekeepers too. Macron and starmer just trying to raise their dismal ratings.

 
We are living in dangerous times. God and Country
@b94311827

Will America fight if UK gets a pounding inside Ukraine by the Russians? Treaty obligations say 100% they will. How does Trump avoid it?.
TommyBomberdill

@t_bomberdill
These world leadersbin europe are the dumbest in history! The war started to prevent nato military in ukraine, so the solution is to put nato troops in ukraine? Beyind stupid. These globalists are determined to have ww3

Brig V Mahalingam

@BrigMahalingam

What does Starmer mean by saying “plans to send peacekeepers to Ukraine move into 'operational phase' “ He is trying to confuse the world. Let me make a clear statement: Britain’s economy is not in a state either to take up arms in support of Ukraine or support Ukraine
2.7K

Rarely Tolerable.

@RarelyTolerated

Zelensky says he needs nuclear weapons or Nato membership to keep Russia from attacking the west. Would you support giving nuclear weapons back to Ukraine?

• Yes
  30.1%
  
• No
  69.9%
  

9,423 votes·Final results

[Anna]

What the hell does that even mean ? "Ukraine peacekeeper deployment is now operational" 

Let's hope this works... somehow

It all sounds a bit fractured, sounds like we will just slip the tip in?

it should have been announced as a solid coalition of British, French, Turkey etc. peacekeepers.



But we will see.

There will be nothing to see. Russia doesn't accept the deployment of European peace mission troops to Ukraine.

Kremlin says any plan to send European troops to Ukraine would be unacceptable for Russia


It comes as no surprise, really. Why would Putin agree to having European soldiers in Western Ukraine if mere military exercises of both Ukrainian and NATO soldiers bothered him? Now, before anyone comes in repeating the usual "Oh those Brits again" mantra, let's remember that it was Trump himself who had this genius idea of forcing European states to send their soldiers to Ukraine as the guarantee of peace. It was as brilliant an idea as finishing the war in 24 hours. Sure, Trump implied it was a joke and I suppose the immediate and temporary ceasefire agreed on between the US and Ukraine was a joke too since Putin clearly and publicly rejected it too.

So much for Trump's strategic genius.

[putnam6]

There will be nothing to see. Russia doesn't accept the deployment of European peace mission troops to Ukraine.

Kremlin says any plan to send European troops to Ukraine would be unacceptable for Russia


It comes as no surprise, really. Why would Putin agree to having European soldiers in Western Ukraine if mere military exercises of both Ukrainian and NATO soldiers bothered him? Now, before anyone comes in repeating the usual "Oh those Brits again" mantra, let's remember that it was Trump himself who had this genius idea of forcing European states to send their soldiers to Ukraine as the guarantee of peace. It was as brilliant an idea as finishing the war in 24 hours. Sure, Trump implied it was a joke and I suppose the immediate and temporary ceasefire agreed on between the US and Ukraine was a joke too since Putin clearly and publicly rejected it too.

So much for Trump's strategic genius.

First of all, make sure you understand that Trump is removing the US from the equation. This was a big part of his platform and one of the reasons he was elected. This is all just the beginning of the process. It's been going in the other direction for three years, FFS. There are a lot of moving parts here, and to think it could be resolved quickly with so many leaders now actively involved was slightly optimistic.  

Sure he said he could end the war, but he didn't say on what terms, sounds like the EU/UK are interested in a cease-fire, but are insisting on US involvement. WHY because the EU/UK "plan" as it is has no teeth, and doesn't have a chance of succeeding in Ukrainian victory, more than likely it will end right where we are today, just 12-18-24 months from now, at best. 

Again what's the victory in Ukraine plan? What does it involve? is there even a timeline of some sort?

Trump's attempt here at just starting peace talks is much better than any plan put forth by the UK, EU or Ukraine

Regardless Ive said it before looking at the back and forth daily, while semi-entertaining, it's nothing but a single move in a process that will have thousands of moves and countermoves

America tried it your way for 3 years pumped in 100 billion dollars. I find it hard to believe the EU/UK leaders didn't see this eventuality and make plans accordingly without US involvement. We have other expenses...

This is what 52% of America voted for, and Trump's daily approval remains consistent at 50%, the rest of NATO needs to stand up, Macron and Starmer seem to be trying to, but it would work better if the the EU was unified, and it's a huge flaw trying to win the peace either diplomatically or miltarily

[Anna]

@putnam6,

"Sure he said he could end the war, but he didn't say on what terms.."

Well, this is an outright lie because he stated the terms many times. The terms were: no NATO for Ukraine, Ukraine giving up some territories occupied currently by Russia and forcing the European states to send their troops to Ukraine to guarantee peace or ceasefire. Trump and his advisers droned on and on how Europeans should send their soldiers to Ukraine because it's the war in Europe not America. So don't tell me he didn't state any terms.

The thing is that Russia rejected the idea of the European peace mission in Ukraine with or without the American involvement.

Likewise, Putin has rejected Trump's idea of an immediate and temporary ceasefire which would facilitate peace talks. No matter how much you try to sugarcoat it, Trump received one big f*ck you gesture from Russia.

[putnam6]

@putnam6,

"Sure he said he could end the war, but he didn't say on what terms.."

Well, this is an outright lie because he stated the terms many times. The terms were: no NATO for Ukraine, Ukraine giving up some territories occupied currently by Russia and forcing the European states to send their troops to Ukraine to guarantee peace or ceasefire. Trump and his advisers droned on and on how Europeans should send their soldiers to Ukraine because it's the war in Europe not America. So don't tell me he didn't state any terms.

The thing is that Russia rejected the idea of the European peace mission in Ukraine with or without the American involvement.

Likewise, Putin has rejected Trump's idea of an immediate and temporary ceasefire which would facilitate peace talks. No matter how much you try to sugarcoat it, Trump received one big f*ck you gesture from Russia.

LOL and?

Respectfully so what? 

He swung and missed his first attempt, so what do you say now? "Ah, f--- it, let's go to war." No, you go back and discuss it with your advisors and as many other participants as you can and go from there.

But Ive always thought attempting peace talks was a good thing.

https://www.econotimes.com/Trump-Adjusts...ks-1704773

Sunday, March 16, 2025 4:23 AM UTC
U.S. President Donald Trump announced that General Keith Kellogg's role has been narrowed to focus solely on Ukraine after Russian officials sought to exclude him from discussions on ending the war.
"General Kellogg, a Highly Respected Military Expert, will deal directly with President (Volodymyr Zelenskiy) and Ukrainian leadership," Trump stated on Truth Social. He emphasized Kellogg’s strong ties with Kyiv, reinforcing his role in U.S.-Ukraine relations.
Sources told Reuters that Russian officials expressed concerns about Kellogg’s involvement, claiming he was too sympathetic to Ukraine. As a result, Kellogg, 80, has been absent from recent high-level discussions, including a meeting in Saudi Arabia where U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged with a Ukrainian delegation.
During this meeting, the U.S. and Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire in principle. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin later stated that the ceasefire proposal required significant revisions.

Never before in the field of human conquest have so many hung so needlessly on the daily words of a damn politician? FFS and FTN

Im glad you can revel in peace talks failing, btw

The reason Trump wants out is there is no plan here, Americans don't care if his peace plan works or not.
Most really don't care what Europe/UK does as long as they keep it in Ukraine, just don't go around shooting another Archduke beyond that have at it, Tiger

Not our monkey, not our circus 

Just as I've mentioned to others here this is just my viewpoint I understand there are many other viewpoints out there. 

It's perfectly normal for an American to have a different viewpoint than a Brit, Belgian, or German

I would love to hear a compelling reason for America to continue at its same funding levels for 2025 and beyond

[UltraBudgie]

It's pretty obvious that Putin needs something to compromise on in negotiations, so he's taking a hard-line stance with the "no peacekeepers in western Ukraine", because he's going to cave on that, because he's not going to cave on much anything else -- such as the eastern oblasts, NATO membership, Kursk (no longer an issue), or Crimea. How much he wiggles on regime change demands or a buffer zone extending into eastern Odessa remains to be seen, but I'm guessing "not much". It's obvious that the West needs someone to protect their assets during the upcoming chaos of whatever-the-hell is going to happen to what's left of western Ukraine, and Putin understands that and would of course much rather snipe from the sidelines. So take it with a grain of salt.

[sahgwa]

There better be no peacekeeping in Ukraine at this stage because hearing Starmer talk it's just code for keep the war going with foreign troops. Stop pushing for war you idiots.

[Oldcarpy2]

There better be no peacekeeping in Ukraine at this stage because hearing Starmer talk it's just code for keep the war going with foreign troops. Stop pushing for war you idiots.

No, it really is not.

Where do you get that from?

[putnam6]

Here is why America is so bullish on Trump

44% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction, the last time it hit 44% or higher was January 2004.

Considering that was in the halcyon days of American unity early after 9/11, this bodes well for Trump. It seems the rest of the world can get pissy all they want, for 44% of the normally over-reactionary, skeptical, paranoid, neurotic, self-absorbed, anti-social Americans to agree on such a broad term in a supposedly divided country is a huge positive for Trump's 2nd term.