Trump is in talks with Russia to end the war

[RichardHurt]

Day 213 since Trump took office and still no end in sight of your ocean wide butt hurt.

I feel terrible for you.

Please take me on. And bring your big boi panties. 
Let us test the boundaries of DI!

[putnam6]

Move a third of the US operational forces to the borders of Russia.
Give orders to back the fuck off Ukraine while also lifting sanctions.
If compliance is truly off the table that show of force will be the tell.

That's a helluva gambit, it's not as if the US can snap thier fingers and troops are on the border #1 and #2, how in the hell does he get approval for such a move? Trump was elected to limit US involvement not end the proxy war and go on the ground in on the Ukrainian border. #3 Wouldn't this require the permission of NATO countries?

Right now the neither the US nor NATO is being threatened.

Thats just of the top of my head no Grok involved

[RazorV66]

Oh so wise user please do share your expertise for a resolve.
I highly doubt your (anyone)dumb fucked ass ripped butthole can contract a single let alone a paragraph on a solution.

Keyboard tough guy.

I really couldn't care less about what happens to Ukraine. 

Turn it into a dirt parking lot.

Trump is attempting to do something to resolve it, which Biden previously didn't do anything at all.

The old saying is really true, Trump could cure cancer but you guys would say he didn't do it fast enough or some stupid shit.

[RichardHurt]

Keyboard tough guy.

I really couldn't care less about what happens to Ukraine. 

Turn it into a dirt parking lot.

Trump is attempting to do something to resolve it, which Biden previously didn't do anything at all.

The old saying is really true, Trump could cure cancer but you guys would say he didn't do it fast enough or some stupid shit.

Have you not watched what happened overnight in Ukraine? My guess is not.
Trump can attempt many things as he has attempted many times. Doesn't mean they work.
But I will give you the opportunity to bring this debate into a place that gives you footing.
Tell me how the economy is doing?

[RazorV66]

Tell me how the economy is doing?

My wife and I are doing just fine.

We've had three 10 day vacations so far this year and just booked a 2 week vacation for September. 

Haven't had any issues whatsoever.

[RichardHurt]

That's a helluva gambit, it's not as if the US can snap thier fingers and troops are on the border #1 and #2, how in the hell does he get approval for such a move? Trump was elected to limit US involvement not end the proxy war and go on the ground in on the Ukrainian border. #3 Wouldn't this require the permission of NATO countries?

Right now the neither the US nor NATO is being threatened.

Thats just of the top of my head no Grok involved

#1 We have troops near and at the border. A reshuffle is not unheard of nor unwarranted.
#2 Trump has done exactly the opposite to the affect of direct involvement to say he helped resolve it but only due to intimidation. Not very peace maker like.
#3 NATO does not require permission by the US to do a damn thing. We do things on our own accord and have done so for many years.

And yes NATO is threatened by one power hungry nation invading and getting the go ahead by the US and that directly affects our NATO and non NATO partners. 
Would you like to continue speaking on behalf of those thousands of miles away yes not so much away from Russia?

[putnam6]

#1 We have troops near and at the border. A reshuffle is not unheard of nor unwarranted.
#2 Trump has done exactly the opposite to the affect of direct involvement to say he helped resolve it but only due to intimidation. Not very peace maker like.
#3 NATO does not require permission by the US to do a damn thing. We do things on our own accord and have done so for many years.

And yes NATO is threatened by one power hungry nation invading and getting the go ahead by the US and that directly affects our NATO and non NATO partners. 
Would you like to continue speaking on behalf of those thousands of miles away yes not so much away from Russia?

LOL I speak for me, no one else, first of all
 

 
Short answer: you could surge on the order of **10,000–15,000 U.S. troops to NATO territory along Ukraine’s border within a few days**, with more in the following week(s). Here’s a realistic, public-sourced breakdown:
 
* **Already in theater and closest to the border (hours–1 day):**
 
  * **Romania (Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base)** hosts a rotating U.S. brigade presence; in March 2025 the **2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division** took over that mission. That’s typically \~3,000–4,000 soldiers on the ground. ([Stars and Stripes][1])
  * **Poland** has a continuous **U.S. Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT)** rotation of \~**3,500** soldiers, plus V Corps’ forward HQ at Poznań. These forces can move by road/rail to Poland’s east within a day or so. ([Task & Purpose][2], [U.S. Department of Defense][3], [Gov.pl][4])
  * Together, these two rotations already put **\~7,000–8,000** U.S. troops in the immediate neighborhood.
 
* **Rapid reinforcements from within Europe (1–2 days):**
 
  * The **173rd Airborne Brigade** (based in Italy/Germany), the Army’s **Contingency Response Force in Europe** (\~**3,300** paratroopers), is purpose-built to deploy quickly across the theater. ([skysoldiers.army.mil][5], [Wikipedia][6])
 
* **Rapid lift from the U.S. (18–72 hours):**
 
  * Elements of the **82nd Airborne Division’s Immediate Response Force** (a brigade-sized package) are on call to deploy **within \~18 hours**, historically used to flow to Europe on short notice. Realistically, first battalions arrive in a day, with the rest following over \~1–3 days depending on airlift and staging. ([Army][7], [DVIDS][8])
 
* **Follow-on forces (days–weeks):**
 
  * Additional brigades and enabling units can flow from the U.S. and elsewhere in Europe; NATO has raised its **high-readiness pool to “well over 300,000”** (multi-national, not all U.S.), underpinned by prepositioned equipment in Europe (APS-2). This underwrites a larger buildup if political leaders choose it. ([NATO][9], [europeafrica.army.mil][10])
 
* **Total in first few days:** Combining what’s already in Poland/Romania with the 173rd and an 82nd brigade element gets you into the **low-teens of thousands** quickly (roughly **10k–15k**), then more as lift and permissions allow. For context, DoD says there are **\~85,000 U.S. military personnel in Europe** overall (not all combat forces or near Ukraine). ([The Defense Post][11])
 
---
 
### Key concerns & risks of doing this
 
1. **Escalation & signaling:** Large, highly visible U.S. movements to Ukraine’s border (even on NATO soil) may be portrayed by Russia as provocative, risking miscalculation or reciprocal deployments, especially near Kaliningrad and the Black Sea. (NATO has been carefully framing these as defensive.) ([NATO][9])
2. **Host-nation & alliance politics:** Movements require **Polish/Romanian** approvals, infrastructure, and political buy-in, and must align with NATO plans and command arrangements (V Corps forward HQ in Poland helps coordinate, but optics matter). ([Gov.pl][4])
3. **Logistics bottlenecks:** Rail gauge changes, bridge limits, road permits, and airfield throughput constrain how fast armor/support units can stage along the border—even with **prepositioned stocks (APS-2)** in Europe to speed equipping. ([europeafrica.army.mil][10])
4. **Force protection:** Concentrated hubs (Rzeszów/Jasionka in Poland, MK in Romania) are within range of Russian **missiles, drones, and cyber** activity. Robust air/missile defense, dispersion, and electronic protection are required. (NATO has exercised rapid deployments to the southeast flank to stress these defenses.) ([AP News][12])
5. **Legal authorities & mission clarity:** U.S. combat forces are not operating *in* Ukraine; deployments along the border must have clear defensive missions under **Article 5** planning, with congressional oversight for any expanded role. (NATO has been updating defense plans and readiness tiers to clarify these.) ([NATO][9], [Congress.gov][13])
6. **Sustainment & cost:** A surge is feasible, but sustaining high-end formations forward is expensive in airlift, munitions stockpiles, and personnel tempo—and U.S. force-posture decisions in Europe are currently under active political review. ([The Washington Post][14], [Reuters][15])

Would this require Congressional and NATO approval ?

The short version is: **not necessarily for a limited troop movement onto NATO soil — but yes for anything more expansive or offensive.**

---

### 1. **Congressional authority (U.S. side)**

* **Deploying to NATO countries (Poland, Romania, etc.):**
  The U.S. President, as Commander-in-Chief, can order short-term deployments of U.S. forces abroad without prior Congressional approval. This is how presidents regularly move carrier strike groups, bombers, or Army brigades in response to crises.
* **Limits:**

  * Under the **War Powers Resolution (1973)**, the President must notify Congress within **48 hours** of deploying troops into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent.
  * If U.S. troops are only in NATO territory for deterrence and exercises (not crossing into Ukraine), this is generally within the President’s authority.
  * If combat seems likely or sustained, Congress would expect a role — especially for funding or an **Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)**.

---

### 2. **NATO approval (alliance side)**

* **National vs. NATO missions:**

  * The U.S. can move its own troops into Poland or Romania with **bilateral host-nation approval** (since those governments already host U.S. rotational forces).
  * For missions under the **NATO flag** (e.g., a NATO Response Force deployment), then a **North Atlantic Council (NAC)** consensus decision is required.
* **Practical reality:**

  * Current U.S. forces in Poland and Romania are deployed under **bilateral arrangements** but coordinated with NATO.
  * NATO has **pre-agreed defense plans** (recently updated in 2023) that allow much faster activation of multinational units if allies request it.

---

So — **moving more U.S. troops to NATO countries near Ukraine does *not* require Congressional or NATO approval, only host-nation consent.**
But:

* **Crossing into Ukraine** with combat forces *would* almost certainly require both **Congressional authorization** and a **NATO political decision**, given the risk of war with Russia.

---

Do you want me to map out the **legal/command “lanes”** (bilateral U.S.–Poland/Romania vs. NATO framework vs. UN/AUMF), so it’s clearer what paths exist for different levels of escalation?
 

[Astyanax]

It's over.

The Kremlin has given its response to the US peace initiative: give up Donbas, no NATO and no Western troops on the ground in Ukraine. And certainly no ceasefire.

In fact, Russia hasn't budged an inch from its position pre-Anchorage. No summit with Zelenskyy. No trilateral summit with Trump. They're open to nothing except continuing, time-wasting low-level talks of the kind that have already been held, without result, several times before.

And how has the Great Peacemaker reacted? By bailing. He's given up!

Trump backs away from Zelenskyy-Putin peace talks.

That's right. He's given up. He's tired of all this diplomacy, all the hard work it takes to get two warring parties to sit down together at a negotiating table, all those annoying interruptions to his golf schedule. He's given up hope of a Nobel Peace Prize and nobody has forgotten his Epstein cover-up, so why continue?

The moderators had better close this thread now, before the facts become even more embarrassing.

[angelchemuel]

It's over.

The Kremlin has given its response to the US peace initiative: give up Donbas, no NATO and no Western troops on the ground in Ukraine. And certainly no ceasefire.

In fact, Russia hasn't budged an inch from its position pre-Anchorage. No summit with Zelenskyy. No trilateral summit with Trump. They're open to nothing except continuing, time-wasting low-level talks of the kind that have already been held, without result, several times before.

And how has the Great Peacemaker reacted? By bailing. He's given up!

Trump backs away from Zelenskyy-Putin peace talks.

That's right. He's given up. He's tired of all this diplomacy, all the hard work it takes to get two warring parties to sit down together at a negotiating table, all those annoying interruptions to his golf schedule. He's given up hope of a Nobel Peace Prize and nobody has forgotten his Epstein cover-up, so why continue?

The moderators had better close this thread now, before the facts become even more embarrassing.

Read your link properly again. It's not over, Trump is wanting Zelensky and Putin to meet on their own first. This has been reported, but Trump will sit in if both sides want him to.
The Economic Times of India are quoting The Guardian, hardly a reputable paper.
As to telling the mods to close the thread, surely an announcement from the White House itself carries far more weight than The Guardian's or your opinion.

[xuenchen]

It's over.

The Kremlin has given its response to the US peace initiative: give up Donbas, no NATO and no Western troops on the ground in Ukraine. And certainly no ceasefire.

In fact, Russia hasn't budged an inch from its position pre-Anchorage. No summit with Zelenskyy. No trilateral summit with Trump. They're open to nothing except continuing, time-wasting low-level talks of the kind that have already been held, without result, several times before.

And how has the Great Peacemaker reacted? By bailing. He's given up!

Trump backs away from Zelenskyy-Putin peace talks.

That's right. He's given up. He's tired of all this diplomacy, all the hard work it takes to get two warring parties to sit down together at a negotiating table, all those annoying interruptions to his golf schedule. He's given up hope of a Nobel Peace Prize and nobody has forgotten his Epstein cover-up, so why continue?

The moderators had better close this thread now, before the facts become even more embarrassing.

The Strategy will prove out to be SANCTIONS like nobody's ever seen before! 

If Putin "Played" Trump and Putin is doing everything he has always been doing, and sanctions are going to be massive, and The UK/EU/NATO support will increase big, what is Putin's "Playing Trump" point? 



Excellent and Reliable .........

"reported The Guardian, citing Trump administration officials familiar with the situation"

 

"three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking told Reuters"

 

"according to the sources who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters"

 

"they added"

"according to U.S. estimates and open-source data"

"the sources said"

"one of the people said"

"according to two of the Russian sources"

"one of the sources said"