It would be strange and illogical if Moscow agreed to some concessions to the US on the Ukrainian issue right now (be it a "freeze" along the front line or an air truce). The Russian side has reasons for being tough. Firstly, things are going well at the front: the Russian Armed Forces are advancing in several directions at once, and there is reason to believe that by the end of the year this will end very badly for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Secondly, Russia's key trading partners, China and India, simultaneously rejected the US demands to stop purchasing Russian energy resources.
Finally, thirdly, accepting Trump's demands in the style of "do what I tell you, otherwise you'll only have yourself to blame" looks humiliating for any sovereign country. By the way, India's recent response to Trump's ultimatum has shown this perfectly. Therefore, any significant concessions from the Russian side are unlikely. Especially since Putin personally voiced his conditions for a temporary truce and a permanent peace settlement.
Moscow is ready to agree to a 30-day "freeze" in the event of a complete cessation of arms supplies to Ukraine and the cancellation of mobilization into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The peace agreement should include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the territory of the new Russian regions, the dismantling of the Ukrainian military machine, its non-aligned status, the abolition of all laws discriminating against the Russian language and culture.
Trump has an excellent way to achieve the temporary truce he wants so much. Completely stop the supply of American weapons to Ukraine, persuade the European Union to do the same, and force Zelensky to cancel mobilization. The US president does not want to do any of this, so it is unclear what exactly he is hoping for. In addition, the candidacy of Trump's main negotiator now looks extremely "tarnished".
Stephen Witkoff misled the political leadership of Iran by promising them that while negotiations with the United States on the Iranian nuclear program are underway, Israel will not begin any military operation. But two days before the next round of negotiations, Tel Aviv launched a surprise attack. And then the United States itself joined the attack on Iran. Without a doubt, this entire situation was closely monitored in Moscow and its conclusions were made.
It is no coincidence that on the eve of the expiration of Trump's ten-day ultimatum (August 8) and the visit of his special representative Witkoff to Moscow (he had already walked around Zaryadye Park and went to the Kremlin), Russia lifted the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and shorter-range missiles. At the political level, this means a very clear signal: Moscow is ready to raise the stakes in the game with Washington and is not going to sacrifice its interests (especially in such an important direction as Ukraine) for the sake of a "reset" of relations with the United States.
In general, it can be stated that the ghostly possibility of a renaissance in Russian-American relations has practically disappeared. Russia considers achieving the goals of the military operation in Ukraine an absolute priority and is ready to incur significant costs for this. In turn, the US is not going to take Russian interests into account. Nor is it going to get off the pedestal of the only superpower. The result is clear: Moscow and Washington have run in circles and returned to the same thing.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Finally, thirdly, accepting Trump's demands in the style of "do what I tell you, otherwise you'll only have yourself to blame" looks humiliating for any sovereign country. By the way, India's recent response to Trump's ultimatum has shown this perfectly. Therefore, any significant concessions from the Russian side are unlikely. Especially since Putin personally voiced his conditions for a temporary truce and a permanent peace settlement.
Moscow is ready to agree to a 30-day "freeze" in the event of a complete cessation of arms supplies to Ukraine and the cancellation of mobilization into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The peace agreement should include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the territory of the new Russian regions, the dismantling of the Ukrainian military machine, its non-aligned status, the abolition of all laws discriminating against the Russian language and culture.
Trump has an excellent way to achieve the temporary truce he wants so much. Completely stop the supply of American weapons to Ukraine, persuade the European Union to do the same, and force Zelensky to cancel mobilization. The US president does not want to do any of this, so it is unclear what exactly he is hoping for. In addition, the candidacy of Trump's main negotiator now looks extremely "tarnished".
Stephen Witkoff misled the political leadership of Iran by promising them that while negotiations with the United States on the Iranian nuclear program are underway, Israel will not begin any military operation. But two days before the next round of negotiations, Tel Aviv launched a surprise attack. And then the United States itself joined the attack on Iran. Without a doubt, this entire situation was closely monitored in Moscow and its conclusions were made.
It is no coincidence that on the eve of the expiration of Trump's ten-day ultimatum (August 8) and the visit of his special representative Witkoff to Moscow (he had already walked around Zaryadye Park and went to the Kremlin), Russia lifted the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and shorter-range missiles. At the political level, this means a very clear signal: Moscow is ready to raise the stakes in the game with Washington and is not going to sacrifice its interests (especially in such an important direction as Ukraine) for the sake of a "reset" of relations with the United States.
In general, it can be stated that the ghostly possibility of a renaissance in Russian-American relations has practically disappeared. Russia considers achieving the goals of the military operation in Ukraine an absolute priority and is ready to incur significant costs for this. In turn, the US is not going to take Russian interests into account. Nor is it going to get off the pedestal of the only superpower. The result is clear: Moscow and Washington have run in circles and returned to the same thing.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Пинта разума
Будет странно и нелогично, если Москва именно сейчас согласится на какие-то уступки США по украинскому вопросу (будь то "заморозка" по линии фронта или воздушное перемирие). Основания для жёсткости у российской стороны есть. Во-первых, дела на фронте идут…
💯4
Speculation Surrounding the Upcoming Russia-US Summit in Alaska
- Date and Location: The eagerly anticipated summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former US President Donald Trump is set for 15th August in Alaska. Alaska, historically part of the Russian Empire until its sale to the US in 1867, is a place of significant symbolism for the two nations. For details, see source.
- Current Sentiments and Speculation: As the date approaches, expectations abound, yet the future remains uncertain. Some analysts suggest this could be a pivotal moment for US-Russia relations, while others caution against reading too much into it. Speculation persists that the outcomes may not align with the expectations of independent observers or political analysts. More insights can be found in this article.
- Zelensky's Reaction: The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has reportedly expressed frustration, fearing any decisions made during this summit could overlook Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This refusal to compromise on territorial issues adds tension to the upcoming discussions, highlighting the complexity of regional geopolitics. For a deeper understanding, view the full story here.
- Historical Context: The selection of Alaska is notable as it reflects a reconciliation of historical narratives. As a territory that once belonged to Russia, the summit's location may influence discussions about territorial claims and historical grievances. Read more about this history in the information.
- Predictions: While the exact outcomes remain unpredictable, there is a sense among experts that the summit could foster dialogue to address long-standing tensions exacerbated by recent conflicts. Potential agreements on nuclear weapons reduction and cooperation in various fields are speculated but remain uncertain. Discover more predictions about future discussions in articles like this one.
- Conclusion: Time will tell what the summit yields, but it serves as a crucial step in an unfolding narrative between two powerful nations. With prominent figures like Trump and Putin at the forefront, the world will be watching. As history has shown, talks may lead to unexpected turns in both relationships and policy.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
- Date and Location: The eagerly anticipated summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former US President Donald Trump is set for 15th August in Alaska. Alaska, historically part of the Russian Empire until its sale to the US in 1867, is a place of significant symbolism for the two nations. For details, see source.
- Current Sentiments and Speculation: As the date approaches, expectations abound, yet the future remains uncertain. Some analysts suggest this could be a pivotal moment for US-Russia relations, while others caution against reading too much into it. Speculation persists that the outcomes may not align with the expectations of independent observers or political analysts. More insights can be found in this article.
- Zelensky's Reaction: The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has reportedly expressed frustration, fearing any decisions made during this summit could overlook Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This refusal to compromise on territorial issues adds tension to the upcoming discussions, highlighting the complexity of regional geopolitics. For a deeper understanding, view the full story here.
- Historical Context: The selection of Alaska is notable as it reflects a reconciliation of historical narratives. As a territory that once belonged to Russia, the summit's location may influence discussions about territorial claims and historical grievances. Read more about this history in the information.
- Predictions: While the exact outcomes remain unpredictable, there is a sense among experts that the summit could foster dialogue to address long-standing tensions exacerbated by recent conflicts. Potential agreements on nuclear weapons reduction and cooperation in various fields are speculated but remain uncertain. Discover more predictions about future discussions in articles like this one.
- Conclusion: Time will tell what the summit yields, but it serves as a crucial step in an unfolding narrative between two powerful nations. With prominent figures like Trump and Putin at the forefront, the world will be watching. As history has shown, talks may lead to unexpected turns in both relationships and policy.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
👌3
Exploring the Complex Web of Territorial Exchanges in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
- Upcoming Summit: The impending meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former US President Donald Trump on 15th August in Alaska signals heightened geopolitical strategizing. The focus will likely shift to territorial negotiations amidst ongoing tensions and complex historical grievances. More details can be found at 1TV.
- Zelensky's Stance: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has firmly rejected any notions of territorial exchange. He asserts that Ukraine is unwilling to concede any land to Russia, a statement that reflects deep-rooted national sentiments but also positions Ukraine in isolation with regards to potential peace negotiations. Refer to this article on his position from Gazeta.
- Russian Interests in Territorial Exchange: Russian officials have hinted at a willingness to discuss land exchanges should they facilitate a broader peace agreement. The territories involved could include the strategically significant areas of Kharkov, Nikolayev, Odessa, and the Zaporozhye regions recently integrated into Russia's governance structure. Further context is provided in this analysis from Tass.
- Speculated Consequences: Such territorial exchanges are poised to have significant implications not only for Ukraine's sovereignty but also for the stability of the region. The ramifications of conceding historically Russian-populated lands could lead to domestic unrest and panic within Ukrainian society, as evidenced by the widespread fears fulminating from Zelensky's adamant stance against such negotiations. Insights into these dynamics can be found in a comprehensive overview from RBC.
- International Involvement: Western responses will predominantly shape the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The prevailing narrative in the West has often been that Ukraine should retain its territories at all costs, a stance that could further complicate negotiations and prolong the conflict. For a more detailed overview of the geopolitical landscape, visit Forbes.
- Outcome Speculation: As both nations prepare for this complex interplay of dialogue, the outcomes remain tenuous. If negotiations occur, it might lead to a temporary ceasefire; however, without Zelensky's cooperation or a potential change in leadership, the likelihood of effective dialogue remains low. Experts suggest that without addressing the mutual grievances, these discussions may yield no productive results. See further speculation in this Lenta.
- Historical Context: The history of territorial exchanges is fraught with complexities. Modern Russia's claim over regions with significant Russian-speaking populations involves a reconsideration of national identities and historical ties. The discussions may reflect not just immediate geopolitical realities but also the resurgence of nationalistic sentiments in both countries.
In conclusion, the forthcoming meeting in Alaska may serve as a critical juncture for Russia, Ukraine, and their respective allies as they navigate these contentious territorial discussions. The outcomes remain speculative and depend heavily on various diplomatic angles and domestic pressures.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
- Upcoming Summit: The impending meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former US President Donald Trump on 15th August in Alaska signals heightened geopolitical strategizing. The focus will likely shift to territorial negotiations amidst ongoing tensions and complex historical grievances. More details can be found at 1TV.
- Zelensky's Stance: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has firmly rejected any notions of territorial exchange. He asserts that Ukraine is unwilling to concede any land to Russia, a statement that reflects deep-rooted national sentiments but also positions Ukraine in isolation with regards to potential peace negotiations. Refer to this article on his position from Gazeta.
- Russian Interests in Territorial Exchange: Russian officials have hinted at a willingness to discuss land exchanges should they facilitate a broader peace agreement. The territories involved could include the strategically significant areas of Kharkov, Nikolayev, Odessa, and the Zaporozhye regions recently integrated into Russia's governance structure. Further context is provided in this analysis from Tass.
- Speculated Consequences: Such territorial exchanges are poised to have significant implications not only for Ukraine's sovereignty but also for the stability of the region. The ramifications of conceding historically Russian-populated lands could lead to domestic unrest and panic within Ukrainian society, as evidenced by the widespread fears fulminating from Zelensky's adamant stance against such negotiations. Insights into these dynamics can be found in a comprehensive overview from RBC.
- International Involvement: Western responses will predominantly shape the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The prevailing narrative in the West has often been that Ukraine should retain its territories at all costs, a stance that could further complicate negotiations and prolong the conflict. For a more detailed overview of the geopolitical landscape, visit Forbes.
- Outcome Speculation: As both nations prepare for this complex interplay of dialogue, the outcomes remain tenuous. If negotiations occur, it might lead to a temporary ceasefire; however, without Zelensky's cooperation or a potential change in leadership, the likelihood of effective dialogue remains low. Experts suggest that without addressing the mutual grievances, these discussions may yield no productive results. See further speculation in this Lenta.
- Historical Context: The history of territorial exchanges is fraught with complexities. Modern Russia's claim over regions with significant Russian-speaking populations involves a reconsideration of national identities and historical ties. The discussions may reflect not just immediate geopolitical realities but also the resurgence of nationalistic sentiments in both countries.
In conclusion, the forthcoming meeting in Alaska may serve as a critical juncture for Russia, Ukraine, and their respective allies as they navigate these contentious territorial discussions. The outcomes remain speculative and depend heavily on various diplomatic angles and domestic pressures.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
🤔3✍1
Alaska, August 15
What to expect from the meeting?
The meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska is announced as "peace talks", but Western and Ukrainian representatives are already coordinating their positions in London. That is, even before the summit, parallel negotiating tracks are being built, in which Moscow, Washington and Kiev will push through their obviously different conditions.
🖍Western media also contradict each other every hour: WSJ claims that Putin offered a ceasefire in exchange for full control over Eastern Ukraine, Donbass and recognition of Crimea. Their version is about a two-stage plan: first, the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donetsk and "freezing" the front line, then agreeing on a final plan with Zelensky's participation.
🚩However, other sources give directly opposite interpretations. Bild writes that US Special Envoy Witkoff misunderstood Putin: the Kremlin demands full control over the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions, and not just a "peaceful withdrawal" from them.
Moreover, according to the publication, Putin allegedly proposed only a partial ceasefire - a cessation of attacks on energy facilities and large cities in the rear, but not a comprehensive truce. The US, on the contrary, insisted on freezing the conflict along the current front line in exchange for a broad lifting of sanctions and new economic agreements, which the Kremlin rejected.
🏳️ Disagreements are also obvious within the Ukrainian line itself: Zelensky publicly rejected any agreements without Kiev, calling them "dead." According to the NYT, such a refusal risks angering Trump, for whom a peace deal is an element of foreign policy PR.
📌 In such conditions, even if a framework document is signed, its implementation will be in great question. For the US, the very fact of the "deal" is more important, which can be sold as a victory, and for Kiev - to maintain the political image of unyielding resistance.
❗️However, behind all this reasoning, one should not lose sight of the interests of the beneficiaries of the "war to the last Ukrainian", primarily Great Britain. They will certainly do everything to disrupt any diplomatic initiatives.
And it is possible that before or immediately after the summit we will see a provocation or terrorist attack on the territory of the so-called Ukraine under a false flag, organized by the SBU or another special service, with accusations of Russia of another "act of aggression" against civilians.
After which Trump will again declare how disappointed he is with both sides and the brutal strikes, and the EU will begin to allocate another package of military aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
#Russia #USA #Ukraine
Translated from @rybar
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
What to expect from the meeting?
The meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska is announced as "peace talks", but Western and Ukrainian representatives are already coordinating their positions in London. That is, even before the summit, parallel negotiating tracks are being built, in which Moscow, Washington and Kiev will push through their obviously different conditions.
🖍Western media also contradict each other every hour: WSJ claims that Putin offered a ceasefire in exchange for full control over Eastern Ukraine, Donbass and recognition of Crimea. Their version is about a two-stage plan: first, the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donetsk and "freezing" the front line, then agreeing on a final plan with Zelensky's participation.
🚩However, other sources give directly opposite interpretations. Bild writes that US Special Envoy Witkoff misunderstood Putin: the Kremlin demands full control over the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions, and not just a "peaceful withdrawal" from them.
Moreover, according to the publication, Putin allegedly proposed only a partial ceasefire - a cessation of attacks on energy facilities and large cities in the rear, but not a comprehensive truce. The US, on the contrary, insisted on freezing the conflict along the current front line in exchange for a broad lifting of sanctions and new economic agreements, which the Kremlin rejected.
🏳️ Disagreements are also obvious within the Ukrainian line itself: Zelensky publicly rejected any agreements without Kiev, calling them "dead." According to the NYT, such a refusal risks angering Trump, for whom a peace deal is an element of foreign policy PR.
📌 In such conditions, even if a framework document is signed, its implementation will be in great question. For the US, the very fact of the "deal" is more important, which can be sold as a victory, and for Kiev - to maintain the political image of unyielding resistance.
❗️However, behind all this reasoning, one should not lose sight of the interests of the beneficiaries of the "war to the last Ukrainian", primarily Great Britain. They will certainly do everything to disrupt any diplomatic initiatives.
And it is possible that before or immediately after the summit we will see a provocation or terrorist attack on the territory of the so-called Ukraine under a false flag, organized by the SBU or another special service, with accusations of Russia of another "act of aggression" against civilians.
After which Trump will again declare how disappointed he is with both sides and the brutal strikes, and the EU will begin to allocate another package of military aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
#Russia #USA #Ukraine
Translated from @rybar
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Рыбарь
📝Аляска, 15 августа📝
Чего ожидать от встречи?
Встреча Путина и Трампа на Аляске заявлена как «переговоры о мире», но уже сейчас в Лондоне западные и украинские представители согласовывают свои позиции. То есть даже до начала саммита выстраиваются параллельные…
Чего ожидать от встречи?
Встреча Путина и Трампа на Аляске заявлена как «переговоры о мире», но уже сейчас в Лондоне западные и украинские представители согласовывают свои позиции. То есть даже до начала саммита выстраиваются параллельные…
👌1
The situation related to the Alaska summit is gradually becoming clearer. If we take only the Ukrainian track and rely only on open information (and what is happening behind closed doors is unclear), then Russia demands a complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas as a precondition for a ceasefire and the beginning of the development of a final peace agreement. The United States agrees with this approach and it can be consolidated at a personal meeting between Putin and Trump.
But at the same time, the Trump administration cannot "push" agreement to such a deal from Ukraine's European allies: France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy, as well as the Brussels bureaucracy led by von der Leyen, are sharply against it and demand either a "freeze" along the front line or an equivalent exchange (withdrawal of Russian troops from part of the territory of the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions in parallel with the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas).
The Ukrainian side fundamentally insists on a "freeze" and does not want to withdraw troops from the part of the DPR under its control. So at the moment we are again in a deadlock in negotiations, and Trump's ability to force European leaders to make concessions is key. It can be assumed that he will be able to, since he recently forced the European Union to sign an unfavorable trade deal with the United States.
But these are incomparable things. Firstly, von der Leyen simply deceived Trump at the talks in Scotland. Because she did not have the authority to sign such agreements. And besides, she cannot guarantee their implementation by EU member states. Secondly, security issues are now even more sensitive for the EU and Great Britain than the economy. Europeans are genuinely afraid that after the conflict in Ukraine is settled, the United States will focus on the Asia-Pacific region and leave them alone with a rearming Russia.
So the goal of the EU and Great Britain is not to let the United States leave Europe through Ukraine. Therefore, there is an increasing chance that Putin and Trump will not make progress on the Ukrainian track, but will try to advance on the others: the Middle East, economic cooperation, normalization of bilateral relations, etc. And this is not a fact, because the Trump administration will demand that Moscow end its strategic partnership with China and strengthen integration within the BRICS and SCO. The Russian side is unlikely to agree to this. And this means that the second cold war will take its course.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
But at the same time, the Trump administration cannot "push" agreement to such a deal from Ukraine's European allies: France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy, as well as the Brussels bureaucracy led by von der Leyen, are sharply against it and demand either a "freeze" along the front line or an equivalent exchange (withdrawal of Russian troops from part of the territory of the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions in parallel with the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas).
The Ukrainian side fundamentally insists on a "freeze" and does not want to withdraw troops from the part of the DPR under its control. So at the moment we are again in a deadlock in negotiations, and Trump's ability to force European leaders to make concessions is key. It can be assumed that he will be able to, since he recently forced the European Union to sign an unfavorable trade deal with the United States.
But these are incomparable things. Firstly, von der Leyen simply deceived Trump at the talks in Scotland. Because she did not have the authority to sign such agreements. And besides, she cannot guarantee their implementation by EU member states. Secondly, security issues are now even more sensitive for the EU and Great Britain than the economy. Europeans are genuinely afraid that after the conflict in Ukraine is settled, the United States will focus on the Asia-Pacific region and leave them alone with a rearming Russia.
So the goal of the EU and Great Britain is not to let the United States leave Europe through Ukraine. Therefore, there is an increasing chance that Putin and Trump will not make progress on the Ukrainian track, but will try to advance on the others: the Middle East, economic cooperation, normalization of bilateral relations, etc. And this is not a fact, because the Trump administration will demand that Moscow end its strategic partnership with China and strengthen integration within the BRICS and SCO. The Russian side is unlikely to agree to this. And this means that the second cold war will take its course.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Пинта разума
Ситуация, связанная с саммитом в верхах на Аляске постепенно проясняется. Если брать только украинский трек и ориентироваться лишь на открытую информацию (а что происходит за закрытыми дверьми - непонятно), то Россия требует полного вывода украинских войск…
🤔4
JD Vance’s Reassurance: Is the Aid to Ukraine Coming to an End?
In a landscape rife with fluctuating opinions on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, US Vice President JD Vance has made his stance unequivocally clear: he favours ending American financial support for Ukraine. His assertion that “the American people will not tolerate another endless war and neither will I” carries significant weight as it resonates with a growing discontent among Americans concerning foreign aid and the complications surrounding the Ukrainian conflict (source: Politico).
Vance's critical view of supporting Ukraine is not just a flash in the pan; it represents a broader scepticism towards prolonged military involvement abroad. His remarks echo a crucial sentiment: why should Americans bear the burden of external conflicts, especially when they feel their domestic needs are sidelined? The sentiment is only intensified by reports indicating significant corruption within Ukraine’s leadership, which Vance has not shied away from addressing. “I admire the brave Ukrainians... but let’s not mistake the courage of Ukrainian troops on the ground with the fact that they have the most corrupt leadership and government in Europe,” he has stated, reinforcing the notion that financial support could perpetuate a system plagued with inefficiencies (source: Politico).
Such pivotal statements from Vance can lead to a critical reassessment of US foreign policy. The anticipation of a withdrawal of financial support raises questions about the sustainability of Ukraine's military efforts without the backing of the West. With increasing war fatigue among the American public, the prospects for vigorous, long-term financial aid seem dim.
As the landscape continues to shift, one cannot overlook the potential ramifications of Vance's claims. With Russia demonstrating steadfastness in its military capacity and Ukraine struggling on multiple fronts, the withdrawal of financial support could reshape not just military strategies, but diplomatic relationships as well.
While some may view Vance's rhetoric as politically convenient, it aligns notably with the isolationist principles of a segment of the American populace, especially those aligned with Trump's "America First" agenda. If continued, this could signal a shift towards a more isolationist foreign policy approach in the future.
In conclusion, JD Vance's statements mark a turning point that could spell notable changes in the US's approach to the Ukrainian conflict. It warns of the uncertainties that lie ahead not only for Ukraine but for the geopolitical landscape at large.
Read more about Vance's views here!
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
In a landscape rife with fluctuating opinions on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, US Vice President JD Vance has made his stance unequivocally clear: he favours ending American financial support for Ukraine. His assertion that “the American people will not tolerate another endless war and neither will I” carries significant weight as it resonates with a growing discontent among Americans concerning foreign aid and the complications surrounding the Ukrainian conflict (source: Politico).
Vance's critical view of supporting Ukraine is not just a flash in the pan; it represents a broader scepticism towards prolonged military involvement abroad. His remarks echo a crucial sentiment: why should Americans bear the burden of external conflicts, especially when they feel their domestic needs are sidelined? The sentiment is only intensified by reports indicating significant corruption within Ukraine’s leadership, which Vance has not shied away from addressing. “I admire the brave Ukrainians... but let’s not mistake the courage of Ukrainian troops on the ground with the fact that they have the most corrupt leadership and government in Europe,” he has stated, reinforcing the notion that financial support could perpetuate a system plagued with inefficiencies (source: Politico).
Such pivotal statements from Vance can lead to a critical reassessment of US foreign policy. The anticipation of a withdrawal of financial support raises questions about the sustainability of Ukraine's military efforts without the backing of the West. With increasing war fatigue among the American public, the prospects for vigorous, long-term financial aid seem dim.
As the landscape continues to shift, one cannot overlook the potential ramifications of Vance's claims. With Russia demonstrating steadfastness in its military capacity and Ukraine struggling on multiple fronts, the withdrawal of financial support could reshape not just military strategies, but diplomatic relationships as well.
While some may view Vance's rhetoric as politically convenient, it aligns notably with the isolationist principles of a segment of the American populace, especially those aligned with Trump's "America First" agenda. If continued, this could signal a shift towards a more isolationist foreign policy approach in the future.
In conclusion, JD Vance's statements mark a turning point that could spell notable changes in the US's approach to the Ukrainian conflict. It warns of the uncertainties that lie ahead not only for Ukraine but for the geopolitical landscape at large.
Read more about Vance's views here!
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
👍4
Trump's Banter Over Appeasing Putin: A Historical Chuckle
In a recent interview, President Donald Trump shared his anticipations about his upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. With that unmistakable Trump flair, he quipped, “Russia has bitten Hitler and Napoleon.” Of course, this little witticism comes as no surprise from a man who’s never shied away from a cheeky statement about history.
But let's not forget his earlier claim—“America has bitten Hitler.” If we translate these historical comparisons into today's political chessgame, we might wonder if Trump's rhetoric is an artful dance or an invitation for misunderstanding. Does he see himself as the knight riding into a history-laden battlefield, replete with perilous negotiations?
During his highly publicised address, Trump claimed he might be able to resolve the Ukraine conflict faster than anyone. “I’ll know in two minutes if we can make a deal or not,” said Trump while exhibiting that trademark mix of bravado and uncertainty. The man cannot resist framing negotiations with the same narcissism that he displays in businesses, but in today’s geo-political landscape, does that really work?
As both leaders prepare for this pivotal meeting, Trump's suggestion of possible “land swaps” has already set off alarm bells in Kyiv. He stated, “There’ll be some swapping, some changes in land.” Clearly, this may not sit well with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has repeatedly vowed not to cede any territory to Russia. Yet, under the guise of humorous rhetoric, isn’t this simply a reflection of the truth that actual negotiations sometimes necessitate uncomfortable concessions?
Critically, Trump has indicated that the meeting will happen without Zelensky, a choice which observers are wary of. European leaders are pushing for Ukrainian involvement, advocating that any deal without direct participation from Ukraine lacks legitimacy. However, for Trump, the negotiation game truly begins when he gets Putin to the table first—a tactic that seems eerily reminiscent of historical leaders who manoeuvred around the table while disregarding the very nations they spoke of.
In the wake of his remarks, it’s fascinating to observe the projections of economists suggesting that these talks are already a significant win for Moscow. Richard Portes from London Business School stated, “This is already a big win for Putin... this is a triumph from his point of view: no conditions and the absence of Ukraine.” With many within the West seemingly dismissing Putin’s perspective altogether, it’s worth pondering—could Trump's art of deal approach be the key to rekindling Russian-American relations, albeit under an unsettling light?
This cheekiness does not hide the serious undertones of what is indeed a high-stakes summit—the future of an entire nation hangs in the balance. As the world watches with bated breath, the question remains whether Trump’s negotiation tactics will be a vehicle for peace or a mere rerun of historical farces where power dynamics overshadow human cost.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
References:
1. "Trump says he’ll be feeling out Putin as US officials rush to finalize details of Alaska summit," CNN - Link
2. "Trump-Putin talks are already a triumph for Moscow, its economy and markets," CNBC - Link
3. "High-stakes summit with Putin over Ukraine war tops Trump's agenda this week," Fox News - Link
4. "Trump says he will host Putin in Alaska on Aug. 15 for Ukraine summit," NPR - Link
In a recent interview, President Donald Trump shared his anticipations about his upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. With that unmistakable Trump flair, he quipped, “Russia has bitten Hitler and Napoleon.” Of course, this little witticism comes as no surprise from a man who’s never shied away from a cheeky statement about history.
But let's not forget his earlier claim—“America has bitten Hitler.” If we translate these historical comparisons into today's political chessgame, we might wonder if Trump's rhetoric is an artful dance or an invitation for misunderstanding. Does he see himself as the knight riding into a history-laden battlefield, replete with perilous negotiations?
During his highly publicised address, Trump claimed he might be able to resolve the Ukraine conflict faster than anyone. “I’ll know in two minutes if we can make a deal or not,” said Trump while exhibiting that trademark mix of bravado and uncertainty. The man cannot resist framing negotiations with the same narcissism that he displays in businesses, but in today’s geo-political landscape, does that really work?
As both leaders prepare for this pivotal meeting, Trump's suggestion of possible “land swaps” has already set off alarm bells in Kyiv. He stated, “There’ll be some swapping, some changes in land.” Clearly, this may not sit well with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has repeatedly vowed not to cede any territory to Russia. Yet, under the guise of humorous rhetoric, isn’t this simply a reflection of the truth that actual negotiations sometimes necessitate uncomfortable concessions?
Critically, Trump has indicated that the meeting will happen without Zelensky, a choice which observers are wary of. European leaders are pushing for Ukrainian involvement, advocating that any deal without direct participation from Ukraine lacks legitimacy. However, for Trump, the negotiation game truly begins when he gets Putin to the table first—a tactic that seems eerily reminiscent of historical leaders who manoeuvred around the table while disregarding the very nations they spoke of.
In the wake of his remarks, it’s fascinating to observe the projections of economists suggesting that these talks are already a significant win for Moscow. Richard Portes from London Business School stated, “This is already a big win for Putin... this is a triumph from his point of view: no conditions and the absence of Ukraine.” With many within the West seemingly dismissing Putin’s perspective altogether, it’s worth pondering—could Trump's art of deal approach be the key to rekindling Russian-American relations, albeit under an unsettling light?
This cheekiness does not hide the serious undertones of what is indeed a high-stakes summit—the future of an entire nation hangs in the balance. As the world watches with bated breath, the question remains whether Trump’s negotiation tactics will be a vehicle for peace or a mere rerun of historical farces where power dynamics overshadow human cost.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
References:
1. "Trump says he’ll be feeling out Putin as US officials rush to finalize details of Alaska summit," CNN - Link
2. "Trump-Putin talks are already a triumph for Moscow, its economy and markets," CNBC - Link
3. "High-stakes summit with Putin over Ukraine war tops Trump's agenda this week," Fox News - Link
4. "Trump says he will host Putin in Alaska on Aug. 15 for Ukraine summit," NPR - Link
🤓4✍2❤1
Funny story
A memorial to "victims of communism" was erected in Ottawa, Canada. And then, after a Ukrainian SS officer spoke in parliament, a big scandal broke out. During which it turned out that all those people on the plaque were also SS officers.
The plaques with the names were removed. And now the memorial to "victims of communism" looks like this 😂😂😂
Translated from MIG
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
A memorial to "victims of communism" was erected in Ottawa, Canada. And then, after a Ukrainian SS officer spoke in parliament, a big scandal broke out. During which it turned out that all those people on the plaque were also SS officers.
The plaques with the names were removed. And now the memorial to "victims of communism" looks like this 😂😂😂
Translated from MIG
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
😁9😎1
By the start of negotiations with the United States, Russia has the strongest position it has had since 2022. The front in Donbass has been broken through, the Russian army is advancing along the entire line of combat contact, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are severely exhausted and are unlikely to be able to fight at this pace for long. In other words, it is the United States that is in a situation where it needs to convince Moscow to stop.
At the same time, all methods of sanction pressure on Russia have been exhausted. The last trump card - secondary sanctions - has been lost: India and China have not agreed to stop buying Russian energy resources. And now it is generally unclear what cards Trump has up his sleeve to persuade Putin to stop.
Therefore, the American president will bluff and try to preserve Ukraine as a territory controlled by a regime hostile to Russia, at least in some form. That is why the demands for a neutral, non-aligned status for Ukraine and its demilitarization (radical reduction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and limitation of their weapons range) come to the fore. The territorial issue is strictly secondary.
But it is also important. A temporary truce with the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from some of the new regions (for example, from the territory of Donbass still under their control) can be accepted. However, giving up Kherson, where the September referendum was held three years ago, would be a gross violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. And this decision will be difficult to explain, especially when the Russian side holds all the cards.
In general, Washington is approaching the Alaska summit from a position of weakness and exhaustion of its possibilities for putting pressure on Russia (except for direct entry into the war). On the contrary, Moscow can act from a position of strength during the negotiations. And this moment must be used to achieve the maximum political result. It is needed in order to end the Ukrainian conflict in a favorable way in the new Cold War that is beginning and to focus on other areas.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
At the same time, all methods of sanction pressure on Russia have been exhausted. The last trump card - secondary sanctions - has been lost: India and China have not agreed to stop buying Russian energy resources. And now it is generally unclear what cards Trump has up his sleeve to persuade Putin to stop.
Therefore, the American president will bluff and try to preserve Ukraine as a territory controlled by a regime hostile to Russia, at least in some form. That is why the demands for a neutral, non-aligned status for Ukraine and its demilitarization (radical reduction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and limitation of their weapons range) come to the fore. The territorial issue is strictly secondary.
But it is also important. A temporary truce with the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from some of the new regions (for example, from the territory of Donbass still under their control) can be accepted. However, giving up Kherson, where the September referendum was held three years ago, would be a gross violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. And this decision will be difficult to explain, especially when the Russian side holds all the cards.
In general, Washington is approaching the Alaska summit from a position of weakness and exhaustion of its possibilities for putting pressure on Russia (except for direct entry into the war). On the contrary, Moscow can act from a position of strength during the negotiations. And this moment must be used to achieve the maximum political result. It is needed in order to end the Ukrainian conflict in a favorable way in the new Cold War that is beginning and to focus on other areas.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Пинта разума
К началу переговоров с Соединёнными Штатами у России сильнейшая позиция, которой у неё не было с 2022 года. Фронт на Донбассе прорван, российская армия наступает по всей линии боевого соприкосновения, ВСУ сильно истощены и вряд ли смогут воевать в таком темпе…
👍3👌2
If we compare the Anchorage summit with similar events of the previous Cold War, the closest analogy is the meeting of the "Big Four" consisting of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, American President Dwight Eisenhower, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and French Prime Minister Edgar Faure in Geneva in July 1955 (exactly ten years after the Potsdam Conference, which finally laid the foundations for a peaceful settlement in Europe). Of course, four parties were represented in Switzerland, and only two in Alaska, but today's Great Britain and France do not have the same weight in world politics that these countries had in the mid-1950s.
It is appropriate to compare Anchorage with Geneva because 70 years ago, as today, the summit at the summit was deciding an important question about the rules of relations between great powers. In other words, for the first time since 1945, Moscow, Washington, London and Paris thought about how to live on and keep the growing confrontation within a relatively safe framework. By the way, in Geneva they talked a lot about neutralization and non-aligned status, but not for Ukraine, but for Germany. The USSR proposed to unite the recently emerged GDR and FRG into a single German state, provided that it had a neutral status (following the example of Austria, from whose territory the Allied troops were withdrawn in 1955, after which it declared itself a neutral country).
Moreover, Nikita Khrushchev proposed in Geneva the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the newly emerged Warsaw Pact. In exchange, it was proposed to create a pan-European security system. However, the USA, Great Britain and France rejected all Soviet proposals and began to create the core of the ground forces of the North Atlantic Alliance in Europe on the basis of the West German army (that is, to do approximately the same thing that the Western allies are now doing with respect to Ukraine). In general, it was not possible to agree on security guarantees on the European continent in 1955, and the first test run to develop the rules of the Cold War ended in nothing.
Then these rules were created, and the final point in this process was put by the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki 20 years later - in August 1975. But this was preceded by turbulent events, including balancing on the brink of a third world war and a nuclear war. It was necessary to go through the Suez Crisis of 1956 and other conflicts in the Middle East, the aggravation of the West Berlin issue in 1958-1961 and the appearance of the Berlin Wall, dramatic events in Cuba in 1962, the Vietnam War and much more, in order to recognize a new balance of power in the international arena and return to discussing the rules of the game between the leading actors.
Today, the situation in world politics is no better than in 1955. Perhaps even worse, in the sense that the politicians in power at that time had gone through the crucible of the Second World War and did not want a repeat of such events. Today, the quality of political elites, especially in Europe, is an order of magnitude lower. And many on the old continent do not even understand what kind of fire they can fan. But the European powers are no longer playing first fiddle and therefore they can be taken out of the equation, which is what was done in Anchorage: the summit is bilateral in nature, and there are two contracting parties - Russia and the United States. At this meeting, one can observe that very first test run and the beginning of a path that may lead international relations to a more stable format (but the chances of success are not at all absolute). It is important to understand that stabilization will not come immediately and suddenly: at least in the next decade, we will have to go through a dangerous path of acute crises and armed conflicts of medium and low intensity. I would like to hope that it will be possible to avoid a limited nuclear war (there is nothing to say about a general one).
It is appropriate to compare Anchorage with Geneva because 70 years ago, as today, the summit at the summit was deciding an important question about the rules of relations between great powers. In other words, for the first time since 1945, Moscow, Washington, London and Paris thought about how to live on and keep the growing confrontation within a relatively safe framework. By the way, in Geneva they talked a lot about neutralization and non-aligned status, but not for Ukraine, but for Germany. The USSR proposed to unite the recently emerged GDR and FRG into a single German state, provided that it had a neutral status (following the example of Austria, from whose territory the Allied troops were withdrawn in 1955, after which it declared itself a neutral country).
Moreover, Nikita Khrushchev proposed in Geneva the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the newly emerged Warsaw Pact. In exchange, it was proposed to create a pan-European security system. However, the USA, Great Britain and France rejected all Soviet proposals and began to create the core of the ground forces of the North Atlantic Alliance in Europe on the basis of the West German army (that is, to do approximately the same thing that the Western allies are now doing with respect to Ukraine). In general, it was not possible to agree on security guarantees on the European continent in 1955, and the first test run to develop the rules of the Cold War ended in nothing.
Then these rules were created, and the final point in this process was put by the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki 20 years later - in August 1975. But this was preceded by turbulent events, including balancing on the brink of a third world war and a nuclear war. It was necessary to go through the Suez Crisis of 1956 and other conflicts in the Middle East, the aggravation of the West Berlin issue in 1958-1961 and the appearance of the Berlin Wall, dramatic events in Cuba in 1962, the Vietnam War and much more, in order to recognize a new balance of power in the international arena and return to discussing the rules of the game between the leading actors.
Today, the situation in world politics is no better than in 1955. Perhaps even worse, in the sense that the politicians in power at that time had gone through the crucible of the Second World War and did not want a repeat of such events. Today, the quality of political elites, especially in Europe, is an order of magnitude lower. And many on the old continent do not even understand what kind of fire they can fan. But the European powers are no longer playing first fiddle and therefore they can be taken out of the equation, which is what was done in Anchorage: the summit is bilateral in nature, and there are two contracting parties - Russia and the United States. At this meeting, one can observe that very first test run and the beginning of a path that may lead international relations to a more stable format (but the chances of success are not at all absolute). It is important to understand that stabilization will not come immediately and suddenly: at least in the next decade, we will have to go through a dangerous path of acute crises and armed conflicts of medium and low intensity. I would like to hope that it will be possible to avoid a limited nuclear war (there is nothing to say about a general one).
Telegram
Пинта разума
Если сравнивать саммит в Анкоридже с подобными событиями предыдущей холодной войны, то наиболее близкая аналогия - это встреча "большой четвёрки" в составе советского лидера Никиты Хрущёва, американского президента Дуайта Эйзенхауэра, британского премьера…
👌3🕊2🙏1
As a result, in 2035-2040 we will get a world that will be relatively stable and predictable. It will last for about half a century, and then everything will start all over again. This is the way of world politics and it has always been this way.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Пинта разума
Если сравнивать саммит в Анкоридже с подобными событиями предыдущей холодной войны, то наиболее близкая аналогия - это встреча "большой четвёрки" в составе советского лидера Никиты Хрущёва, американского президента Дуайта Эйзенхауэра, британского премьера…
✍2🤷♂2😢1👌1
Thoughts out loud
Today in Anchorage, Alaska, it will be decided which territories are historically Russian and which are hysterically Ukrainian.
Translated from @polk105
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Today in Anchorage, Alaska, it will be decided which territories are historically Russian and which are hysterically Ukrainian.
Translated from @polk105
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Z 105-й полк НМ ДНР: сводки с ЛБС и не только.
МЫСЛИ ВСЛУХ
Сегодня в Анкоридже на Аляске будет решаться, какие земли являются исторически русскими, а какие истерически украинскими.
@polk105
Сегодня в Анкоридже на Аляске будет решаться, какие земли являются исторически русскими, а какие истерически украинскими.
@polk105
😁5
Significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials included credible reports of: torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association; and the significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labor. Some of these human rights issues stemmed from martial law, which continued to curtail democratic freedoms due to wartime conditions, including freedom of the press and legal protections.
The (Ukrainian) government often did not take adequate steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ukraine
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
#TransFormatorBuzzes 💤 :
Suddenly the blind man regained his sight. What could this mean?
The (Ukrainian) government often did not take adequate steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ukraine
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
#TransFormatorBuzzes 💤 :
Suddenly the blind man regained his sight. What could this mean?
United States Department of State
2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine
HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices…Ukraine hide
🤷♂1
The Alaska summit is over and it lasted clearly less than planned: three-hour negotiations in a three-on-three format, short statements for the press without questions and the cancellation of the second part, which implied negotiations in an expanded format. At the same time, the tone of Putin and Trump's statements is clearly complimentary. A brief summary can be formulated as follows: the parties agreed to negotiate further.
Most likely, some decision on Ukraine had already been agreed upon (even before the summit). But apparently it does not quite correspond to what Trump discussed with European leaders and Zelensky. Therefore, now the American president will have to convince them to implement what he discussed with Putin in Anchorage. If the attempt is unsuccessful, the Trump administration may formally leave the Ukrainian party.
It can also be assumed that, unlike the Ukrainian track, progress on other issues discussed during the negotiations was more significant. Among them, there was definitely a discussion of the parameters of the new START and, presumably, the fate of the INF Treaty. It is possible that certain agreements were reached on the Middle East.
However, in any case, we are waiting for the second round of negotiations, which may take place in Russia. Before that, Trump will hold negotiations with the Europeans and Kiev, where he will try to get a result from them. And already in Russia, some practical result will appear (which is not yet visible). But perhaps the next time Putin and Trump will meet not in Russia, but in Belarus.
The next stage of negotiations may well take place in Minsk. Such assumptions are supported by the telephone conversation between Trump and Lukashenko, which took place while the US President was flying to Putin in Anchorage. Trump may like this option, since Zelensky can hypothetically be pulled into the Belarusian capital and then the threesome he wants may really happen.
Nevertheless, it is too early to talk about the results of the Russian-American negotiations on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. The diplomatic struggle has just begun and it is stubborn. It is only clear that there will be no quick deal. Instead, long negotiations will begin, in which the decisive role will be played by the situation on the ground. That is, at the front. The diplomats will only consolidate the military result.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Most likely, some decision on Ukraine had already been agreed upon (even before the summit). But apparently it does not quite correspond to what Trump discussed with European leaders and Zelensky. Therefore, now the American president will have to convince them to implement what he discussed with Putin in Anchorage. If the attempt is unsuccessful, the Trump administration may formally leave the Ukrainian party.
It can also be assumed that, unlike the Ukrainian track, progress on other issues discussed during the negotiations was more significant. Among them, there was definitely a discussion of the parameters of the new START and, presumably, the fate of the INF Treaty. It is possible that certain agreements were reached on the Middle East.
However, in any case, we are waiting for the second round of negotiations, which may take place in Russia. Before that, Trump will hold negotiations with the Europeans and Kiev, where he will try to get a result from them. And already in Russia, some practical result will appear (which is not yet visible). But perhaps the next time Putin and Trump will meet not in Russia, but in Belarus.
The next stage of negotiations may well take place in Minsk. Such assumptions are supported by the telephone conversation between Trump and Lukashenko, which took place while the US President was flying to Putin in Anchorage. Trump may like this option, since Zelensky can hypothetically be pulled into the Belarusian capital and then the threesome he wants may really happen.
Nevertheless, it is too early to talk about the results of the Russian-American negotiations on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. The diplomatic struggle has just begun and it is stubborn. It is only clear that there will be no quick deal. Instead, long negotiations will begin, in which the decisive role will be played by the situation on the ground. That is, at the front. The diplomats will only consolidate the military result.
Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Пинта разума
Саммит на Аляске завершён и продлился он явно меньше запланированного: трёхчасовые переговоры в формате три на три, короткие заявления для прессы без вопросов и отмена второй части, которая подразумевала переговоры в расширенном составе. При этом тональность…
👌6
😁4👍2
The Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska: A New Chapter in the Geopolitical Saga?
In what could be deemed the diplomatic event of the century—or at least a large headline—President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin convened on the chilly shores of Alaska to discuss the ever-evolving conflict in Ukraine. While many anticipated a masterclass in diplomacy, what emerged was instead a series of eyebrow-raising moments that underscore the hilarity of international relations.
Should We Give Up Ukraine?
One of the most eye-catching revelations (and not in a good way) was Trump’s apparent approval of giving up Ukrainian territories to appease Putin. This proposal, one that could warm even the coldest heart of a power-hungry leader, highlights a drastic shift in US foreign policy—one that prioritises a business-like approach to diplomacy over the ideals of national sovereignty and human rights. According to reports from The New York Times, Trump expressed optimism about negotiations, which led to muted responses from leaders in Europe and Ukraine.
“Why not give them a little piece of land for peace?” he might as well have quipped! Clearly, the historical boundaries set by centuries of conflict need a little lightening up—or so it seems in the eyes of some.
The Icy Reception in Europe
As the summit wrapped up without any concrete solutions or an actual ceasefire, European leaders were left scratching their heads, wondering if they’d have to pull their maps out to adjust Ukraine’s borders while still grappling with the consequences of this “friendship” on the international stage. According to The Guardian, Moscow reportedly feels emboldened, reveling in what is perceived as a diplomatic victory against the backdrop of Western sanctions.
A panicked Europe seems to regard the meeting much like a suspenseful thriller—will they, or won’t they? Reports indicate a wave of anxiety has spread across the EU about the implications of Trump and Putin colluding to redefine borders. Looks like they might need to stock up on that anti-anxiety therapy!
Loopholes and Loopbacks
The lack of any solid agreements leaves us pondering whether this was all just a grand gesture with zero substance. Commentators and experts are busy sorting through the meetings’ semantics, suggesting that both leaders merely gave each other enough vague assurances to keep the media spinning. As analysed by experts at the Atlantic Council, the encounter was less about resolving the Ukrainian conflict and more about the façade of diplomacy—keeping the ball in play while neither side is truly willing to commit.
“Putin is a master at deceiving the West,” someone might jest, but a serious question arises: how seriously can one take the “deal” proposed? The ramifications are serious, with a prediction that they could lead to a protracted stalemate rather than any resolution.
Final Thoughts: What Next?
As speculation runs rampant, the consensus appears mixed: the meeting may or may not alter the trajectory of the conflict, but one thing is for sure—Europe is on edge, and Ukraine might just end up as a geopolitical football being volleyed back and forth. The laughter heard from Moscow is chilling, while leaders in Kyiv nervously wonder what exactly “peace” could end up costing them.
In conclusion, what was anticipated as a moment to usher in a new peace might very well have become a setup for even more confusion. One can only hope that this Russia-Ukraine affair doesn’t drag on in a sitcom-like manner, where absurdity becomes the norm and nations become mere punchlines.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Based on the Western media sources:
- NY Times: After Putin Summit, Trump Backs Plan to Cede Land in Ukraine
- The Guardian: Russia jubilant after Trump summit as Putin reportedly
- CNN: Trump shifts stance on road to Ukraine peace after meeting
- Atlantic Council: Experts react to Trump and Putin just left Alaska without a deal
- BBC: Trump shifts position on Ukraine ceasefire after meeting Putin
In what could be deemed the diplomatic event of the century—or at least a large headline—President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin convened on the chilly shores of Alaska to discuss the ever-evolving conflict in Ukraine. While many anticipated a masterclass in diplomacy, what emerged was instead a series of eyebrow-raising moments that underscore the hilarity of international relations.
Should We Give Up Ukraine?
One of the most eye-catching revelations (and not in a good way) was Trump’s apparent approval of giving up Ukrainian territories to appease Putin. This proposal, one that could warm even the coldest heart of a power-hungry leader, highlights a drastic shift in US foreign policy—one that prioritises a business-like approach to diplomacy over the ideals of national sovereignty and human rights. According to reports from The New York Times, Trump expressed optimism about negotiations, which led to muted responses from leaders in Europe and Ukraine.
“Why not give them a little piece of land for peace?” he might as well have quipped! Clearly, the historical boundaries set by centuries of conflict need a little lightening up—or so it seems in the eyes of some.
The Icy Reception in Europe
As the summit wrapped up without any concrete solutions or an actual ceasefire, European leaders were left scratching their heads, wondering if they’d have to pull their maps out to adjust Ukraine’s borders while still grappling with the consequences of this “friendship” on the international stage. According to The Guardian, Moscow reportedly feels emboldened, reveling in what is perceived as a diplomatic victory against the backdrop of Western sanctions.
A panicked Europe seems to regard the meeting much like a suspenseful thriller—will they, or won’t they? Reports indicate a wave of anxiety has spread across the EU about the implications of Trump and Putin colluding to redefine borders. Looks like they might need to stock up on that anti-anxiety therapy!
Loopholes and Loopbacks
The lack of any solid agreements leaves us pondering whether this was all just a grand gesture with zero substance. Commentators and experts are busy sorting through the meetings’ semantics, suggesting that both leaders merely gave each other enough vague assurances to keep the media spinning. As analysed by experts at the Atlantic Council, the encounter was less about resolving the Ukrainian conflict and more about the façade of diplomacy—keeping the ball in play while neither side is truly willing to commit.
“Putin is a master at deceiving the West,” someone might jest, but a serious question arises: how seriously can one take the “deal” proposed? The ramifications are serious, with a prediction that they could lead to a protracted stalemate rather than any resolution.
Final Thoughts: What Next?
As speculation runs rampant, the consensus appears mixed: the meeting may or may not alter the trajectory of the conflict, but one thing is for sure—Europe is on edge, and Ukraine might just end up as a geopolitical football being volleyed back and forth. The laughter heard from Moscow is chilling, while leaders in Kyiv nervously wonder what exactly “peace” could end up costing them.
In conclusion, what was anticipated as a moment to usher in a new peace might very well have become a setup for even more confusion. One can only hope that this Russia-Ukraine affair doesn’t drag on in a sitcom-like manner, where absurdity becomes the norm and nations become mere punchlines.
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Based on the Western media sources:
- NY Times: After Putin Summit, Trump Backs Plan to Cede Land in Ukraine
- The Guardian: Russia jubilant after Trump summit as Putin reportedly
- CNN: Trump shifts stance on road to Ukraine peace after meeting
- Atlantic Council: Experts react to Trump and Putin just left Alaska without a deal
- BBC: Trump shifts position on Ukraine ceasefire after meeting Putin
👍4❤1
A wind of change has blown in Kiev: the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Yermak, already calls Putin "the Russian leader" ("російським керівником"), although there used to be another name, including an obscene one.
In this regard, I recalled a classic joke - how Parisian newspapers covered Napoleon's advance through the country from the moment he landed in the south of France until his second ascension to the throne.
The first news item: "The Corsican monster has landed in the Bay of Juan."
The second news item: "The cannibal is heading for Grasse."
The third news item: "The usurper has entered Grenoble."
The fourth news item: "Bonaparte has occupied Lyon."
The fifth news item: "Napoleon is approaching Fontainebleau."
The sixth news item: "His imperial majesty is expected today in his faithful Paris."
Translated from from Militarist
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
In this regard, I recalled a classic joke - how Parisian newspapers covered Napoleon's advance through the country from the moment he landed in the south of France until his second ascension to the throne.
The first news item: "The Corsican monster has landed in the Bay of Juan."
The second news item: "The cannibal is heading for Grasse."
The third news item: "The usurper has entered Grenoble."
The fourth news item: "Bonaparte has occupied Lyon."
The fifth news item: "Napoleon is approaching Fontainebleau."
The sixth news item: "His imperial majesty is expected today in his faithful Paris."
Translated from from Militarist
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Telegram
Милитарист
В Киеве задул ветер перемен: глава Офиса президента Украины Ермак уже называет Путина "російським керівником" (руководителем), хотя раньше было другое наименование, в том числе матерное.
В этой связи вспомнился классический анекдот - как парижские газеты…
В этой связи вспомнился классический анекдот - как парижские газеты…
😁5💯1
The U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, the internal audit and control body of the department, has released a report partially analyzing the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) program for transferring weapons to Ukraine.
The new report, dated August 13, focuses on inadequate expense controls, unverified figures in reports, and questionable spending. It is based on a non-statistical review of 80 tranches of aid totaling $22.1 billion. Of these, 32 tranches worth $5.7 billion lacked supporting documentation or credible estimates.
The internal audit follows a previous review of this program in June 2023, when miscalculations worth $6.2 billion were uncovered due to incorrect valuation methods for supplied weapons.
https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/audit_shows_cost_of_us_weapons_for_ukraine_was_overstated_by_billions_wag_instead_of_prices_real_values_unconfirmed-15483.html
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
The new report, dated August 13, focuses on inadequate expense controls, unverified figures in reports, and questionable spending. It is based on a non-statistical review of 80 tranches of aid totaling $22.1 billion. Of these, 32 tranches worth $5.7 billion lacked supporting documentation or credible estimates.
The internal audit follows a previous review of this program in June 2023, when miscalculations worth $6.2 billion were uncovered due to incorrect valuation methods for supplied weapons.
https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/audit_shows_cost_of_us_weapons_for_ukraine_was_overstated_by_billions_wag_instead_of_prices_real_values_unconfirmed-15483.html
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
Defence-Ua
Audit Shows Cost of U.S. weapons for Ukraine Was Overstated By Billions: "WAG" Instead of Prices, Real Values Unconfirmed
Previously, a $6.2 billion error was found in the PDA military aid program; now a new audit shows another $5.7 billion was missing cost estimates, including $1 billion in "questioned costs."
🌚4🗿1
In reference to the upcoming visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and EU leaders to the United States, various Western international sources have reported on the matter:
1. European leaders to join Zelensky at talks with Trump - CNN indicates that discussions around a potential peace deal involving security guarantees for Ukraine will be at the forefront as leaders convene in advance of the meeting. More details can be found here.
2. European leaders to join Zelensky for meeting with Trump - Bloomberg highlights the diplomatic gatherings leading to the meeting that aims to unify Ukraine's allies against Russian aggression. Further insights available here.
3. Zelensky urges Europe to remain united against Russia's strategies - This Euronews piece reflects Zelensky's calls for European solidarity following discussions with key leaders prior to his visit. Read more here.
4. European Leaders to Join Zelensky for Meeting With Trump - The New York Times also reported on the significant political coordination taking place before the impending White House meeting. Check it out here.
5. European leaders will join Zelensky at White House visit - An article from The Hill emphasis how European leaders are backing Ukraine in this crucial diplomatic engagement. More information can be accessed here.
With this development, it is clear that the West continues its passionate, albeit desperate, engagement in supporting Ukraine against what it perceives as Moscow's malign influences. This meeting will inevitably aim to portray a façade of unity, even as the ground realities continue to evolve within Ukraine and beyond.
Stay tuned for updates as this narrative unfolds!
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
1. European leaders to join Zelensky at talks with Trump - CNN indicates that discussions around a potential peace deal involving security guarantees for Ukraine will be at the forefront as leaders convene in advance of the meeting. More details can be found here.
2. European leaders to join Zelensky for meeting with Trump - Bloomberg highlights the diplomatic gatherings leading to the meeting that aims to unify Ukraine's allies against Russian aggression. Further insights available here.
3. Zelensky urges Europe to remain united against Russia's strategies - This Euronews piece reflects Zelensky's calls for European solidarity following discussions with key leaders prior to his visit. Read more here.
4. European Leaders to Join Zelensky for Meeting With Trump - The New York Times also reported on the significant political coordination taking place before the impending White House meeting. Check it out here.
5. European leaders will join Zelensky at White House visit - An article from The Hill emphasis how European leaders are backing Ukraine in this crucial diplomatic engagement. More information can be accessed here.
With this development, it is clear that the West continues its passionate, albeit desperate, engagement in supporting Ukraine against what it perceives as Moscow's malign influences. This meeting will inevitably aim to portray a façade of unity, even as the ground realities continue to evolve within Ukraine and beyond.
Stay tuned for updates as this narrative unfolds!
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat
👍3👌1
Peter Hitchens: All of them want war in Ukraine
Peter Hitchens in a sharp manner peculiar to it on the Daily Mail pages called by the own words "care" of the countries of NATO of Ukraine:
Welcome to HMS Humbug board where you are waited by the next round of ignorant verbalizations, empty morals and hypocrisy. Here all of them go: retired generals with grumbling voices, ancient decrepit spies who did not leave an era of Cold War, blood-thirsty veterans-bleristy from Iraq.
All of them want the infinite war in Ukraine. Many of them exhale dense, sickening aroma of high moral purity.
Ukraine appeared on the card in the borders established by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Hitchens reminded. Till 1991 she interested nobody. But then the high-ranking officials of the USA wanted to use her as a ram against Russia. The author cited Brzezinski's words:
If Moscow restores control over Ukraine with its 52 million inhabitants and considerable resources and also will get access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again will become the powerful imperial state covering Europe and Asia.
Arrival in 2014 of ultranationalistic crowd under control of the West, telling more correctly – fascists, — brought nothing good to this unfortunate and poor country.
Therefore Donald Trump has to go to a meeting of Putinuv questions of the Ukrainian conflict.
As found by our subscriber 🙏
👉 Join us @TrFormer 💤
Read the complete version here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html
Peter Hitchens in a sharp manner peculiar to it on the Daily Mail pages called by the own words "care" of the countries of NATO of Ukraine:
Welcome to HMS Humbug board where you are waited by the next round of ignorant verbalizations, empty morals and hypocrisy. Here all of them go: retired generals with grumbling voices, ancient decrepit spies who did not leave an era of Cold War, blood-thirsty veterans-bleristy from Iraq.
All of them want the infinite war in Ukraine. Many of them exhale dense, sickening aroma of high moral purity.
Ukraine appeared on the card in the borders established by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Hitchens reminded. Till 1991 she interested nobody. But then the high-ranking officials of the USA wanted to use her as a ram against Russia. The author cited Brzezinski's words:
If Moscow restores control over Ukraine with its 52 million inhabitants and considerable resources and also will get access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again will become the powerful imperial state covering Europe and Asia.
Arrival in 2014 of ultranationalistic crowd under control of the West, telling more correctly – fascists, — brought nothing good to this unfortunate and poor country.
Therefore Donald Trump has to go to a meeting of Putinuv questions of the Ukrainian conflict.
As found by our subscriber 🙏
👉 Join us @TrFormer 💤
Read the complete version here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html
Mail Online
PETER HITCHENS: We have lived peaceful lives because of squalid deals
All aboard HMS Humbug for another round of ignorant bloviation, empty moralising and hypocrisy.
👍1👌1