Russia does not provide medical assistance at the front to its own soldiers. So, if you get seriously wounded, too bad for you and your family.

I've seen drone videos of such Russian men writhing on the ground in filthy trenches littered with dead bodies. And they end up killing themselves with a rifle or grenade rather than die slowly alone in agony.

The thinking in news media is often that graphically detailed news coverage of such conflicts is too gruesome for viewers or readers back home. Often, they don't even show or describe dead bodies.

We should have provocative discussions about such unofficial censorship that sanitizes the horrors of war. Because that reduces the awful ongoing events basically to an imaginary game far away. Who's going to oppose war — or support it, for that matter — if they never see how bad it really is? I ran into some of this editorial opposition at the end of the Vietnam War. //

While Russian forces are killing Ukrainian men in combat at the front lines (and thousands of civilians in indiscriminate artillery, bombing, and missile attacks on cities), other Russians are kidnapping children from Ukrainian homes behind the front lines. They are simply seizing them from their families — I call that kidnapping — and shipping them off to Russia, never to be seen again.

There, they are punished if they don't speak Russian. The goal is to erase from the minds of these Ukrainian youngsters the national identity that Putin maintains does not exist. Hundreds of thousands of children stolen from their families.

EU member states bought €21.9bn (£18.1bn) of Russian oil and gas in the third year of the war, according to estimates from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), despite the efforts under way to kick the continent’s addiction to the fuels that fund Vladimir Putin’s war chest.

The amount is one-sixth greater than the €18.7bn the EU allocated to Ukraine in financial aid in 2024, according to a tracker from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

In observing the trajectory of Western civilization over the past 70 years, one is hard-pressed to honestly assess that the modern global order has truly been good for mankind. Rather than ending warfare, it has spread fighting far beyond the realms of land and sea combat to mass informational war and lawfare waged both internationally and domestically among our fellow citizens.

Decades of American involvement in wars overseas have desensitized Westerners and their militaries. In the U.S., we hear choruses about willingness to die for freedom. Yet when tyrants violate the freedoms of U.S. citizens on American soil, the allegedly brave roll over. “To the guns for Ukraine,” we hear… though we never see those who sport "I stand with Ukraine" iconography deploy to the fight. //

In a just world, Vladimir Putin would be driven from office and sent to the gallows. But his evil nature does not by default bequeath the character of George Washington on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. //

Unlike much of the current "Give war a chance"/Ukraine flag as social media banner mob, I went to war. It's not pleasant. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman rightly described combat as a cruelty that cannot be refined. Thus, it is right that we should seek the option of armed conflict as a last resort—that if war must be waged, we should fully commit to overwhelming force to bring it to an end and work to expeditiously restore peace and ordered liberty. Those who insist on the necessity of a prolonged conflict to "defeat Russia" often fail to recognize the moral costs of such an approach. War should always be a last resort, and when it is waged, it should aim for an expedient resolution. Yet, in the case of Ukraine, many are advocating for a war of attrition that sacrifices human lives—on both sides—in the hope of a political outcome that seems increasingly distant.

Russia was unjustified in starting this war. The U.S. has been unjustified in merely prolonging it. If lawmakers want to argue that American interests are at stake and that destiny demands that the U.S. fight in Ukraine, let them make the case to the public and follow the constitutional rules for committing America to the fight. Otherwise, the choices are to sit this one out, or use the other instruments of national power to help negotiate a lasting peace. But waging proxy war of attrition against fellow human beings who have not lifted a finger against Americans—without a clear victory strategy—does not place us on the moral high ground.

Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (CT) and presumably others encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to reject the prospect of a peace deal without so-called "security guarantees" (a euphemism for American military commitments) just before the now-infamous Oval Office blow-out. //

One of the big questions was how we even arrived at that point. What caused Zelensky to walk into the White House with the sense that he could bully Trump in front of the press and scoff at any diplomatic negotiations? A post made by Murphy gives the game away.

Chris Murphy 🟧

@ChrisMurphyCT
·
Follow
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.
4:15 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

Chris Murphy isn't going to be writing Ukraine a check. All he and his cohorts can do is virtue-signal, and that's not winning any battles against Russia. If things are going to be patched up with the Trump White House, Zelensky has to accept that reality and stop believing that he can bully his way to American military commitments by appealing to the press and Democrats.

Trump will only recoil further at that, and he is never going to set up any "security guarantees" that result in U.S. troops fighting Russia. There's still a path for Zelensky to get much-needed aid for his country, but he has to stop operating like it's still 2022, and the first step in that is to stop listening to Democrats who can not help him. //

Soundwave
2 hours ago
The Democrats are vile. Willing to sacrifice the Ukrainians to the Russian meat grinder just to “embarrass” Trump. They disgust me.

As for the Europeans. Feel free to fund the war without us. Let’s see how long you losers last without us paying for your defense. //

Political-Paige
2 hours ago
My question is: what was the end-goal of the Dem interference?
Was it just to create an embarrassment for Trump? If so, that failed. Trump isn't at all embarrassed, and Zelensky was unceremoniously kicked out of the White House.
Was it to assure WW III for their donors? If so, that failed. We aren't engaging.
Was it to get even more freebies for Ukraine? Why? And if so, wow: was that ever a failure.
Or was it simply to interfere for the sake of interference, because they've been rendered irrelevant and need some pretense to power?
I think the last one is most likely.

RedStater In a Blue Apocalypse Political-Paige
9 minutes ago edited
...to interfere for the sake of throwing mud at the wall at every thing they see as an opportunity to oppose. Undermine any successes that Trump could achieve, whether they miscalculate or not.

...because this is what a panicked crew does on a rapidly sinking ship.

They have nothing left to lose.

So this really could have been and should have been a positive moment for Ukraine. And then we go to further negotiating with the Russians, bring this war to an end, and, and move the world forward, stop the death and destruction.

But instead, what became clear, and I think what has the president so, uh, so frustrated, and frankly angry, is that it's not clear that Zelensky truly wants to stop the fighting. And he came in, even though he was warned not to, determined to litigate all that in front of the entire world. And the vice president said enough is enough, the president said enough is enough, and I gotta tell you, this was the wrong approach, wrong time in history, and definitely, the wrong president to try to do this kind of thing. This was not Joe Biden, this was Donald J. Trump. I think the entire world saw that, crystal clear. //

If President Zelensky did, for some indecipherable reason, wish to prolong this conflict, what would he have done differently on Friday? //

anon-fht2
9 hours ago edited
If Molly Hemingway is correct, it WAS an ambush, for Trump. Zelensky has supposedly been in communication wth a Democrat/Deep State team that included Rice, Blinken, and others inluding “somoness” from CIA, DHS, and DoD. According to Hemingway, the operative assumption was that Zelensky would embarass Trump. Trump, anxious to save the deal, would capitulate to Zelensky in the public broadcast, destroying his credibility.

If true, this is treason on the part of Rice, Blinken, and the other Obama gang of idiots involved.

It also proves that a massacre in all the agencies is going to be required to root out resisrance collaborators, with sugnificant penitentiary time placed on some worthy exampples to encourage others to turn. This is a war and to lose is to put Americans in place as no longer citizens , but subjects of the bureaucracy. 2 million plus in th4 government bureaucracy; if a quarter of that still exists a year from now the Deep State will just keep coming back.

Now here we are, he's trying to bring an end to this conflict, we've explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to the negotiating table, we want to explore whether peace is possible.

They understand this. They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which to me, as I've explained it, I think the president alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way, because we're now involved, it's us, it's our interests. //

I've asked people, what is the European plan to end this war? I can tell you of one foreign minister told me, I'm not going to say who it was, but I can tell you what one of them told me, and that is that the war goes on for another year, and at that point Russia will feel so weakened, that they'll beg for a peace. That's another year of killing, another year of dying, another year of destruction, and by the way, not a very realistic plan in my point of view. //

It takes two sides to end a war, but only one side to perpetuate one. Ending this affair will require both Ukraine and Russia to come to the table. Once the shooting stops, then the parties involved can start talking about how to prevent a recurrence in a year, a decade, or a century hence. But first, the shooting has to stop.

OrneryCoot
4 hours ago
Zelensky failed to realize that Trump WAS giving him a real, tangible security guarantee. He was promising American shoes (not boots) on the ground in the form of American workers and executives to work the mineral deal. I think he doesn't realize just how far Trump would take that responsibility to protect those American workers. The first time Putin endangered those citizens would have brought him a whole lot of pain. Putin knows this about Trump, which would have stopped him from trying it. No, they weren't soldiers. With our country, it didn't need to be. Zelensky had what he wanted but couldn't realize it due to his arrogance and basic misunderstanding of American culture. Now, he's left to either squeeze blood out of Europe's turnip of military might, or be replaced by a less narcissistic Ukrainian leader.

The basic gist of Trump's remarks was this: The U.S. wants to broker peace, but Zelensky wants to keep fighting with assistance from the U.S.

High-ranking White House officials confirmed to CBS News that President Trump is unwilling to talk to Zelensky at this point because of Zelensky's disinterest in peace. //

High-level Trump sources tell me the White House is now uncertain if they can get the Russians and Ukrainians to stop fighting because this episode with @ZelenskyyUa raised questions about whether he can move forward toward a peace deal. It also raises questions about whether US will pause aid to Ukraine. But Trump is NOT seeking regime change in Ukraine. No discussions about who in Ukraine might be a better leader than Zelenskyy.

Ukrainian officials have reached out this afternoon to senior White House officials desperate to get the deal back on track. But that will not happen today, I'm told. Trump is unwilling to talk to Zelenskyy further today.

When Rubio and Waltz went into the Roosevelt Room to ask Zelenskyy to leave, Rubio made it clear that any further engagements today would be counterproductive. Waltz told Zelenskyy he had made a tremendous mistake, and it was a grave disservice to Ukraine and to Americans, both.

No phone calls between Trump and Putin have been scheduled. But multiple European officials have called top Trump officials since Zelenskyy left asking how the minerals deal can be salvaged.

Trump fully intended to sign the minerals deal today. Two official binders were prepared -- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his Ukrainian counterpart and the two presidents were going to sit at a conference table in the East Room and then trumpet their success at podiums.

But there were suspicions before Zelenskyy arrived today that it might fall apart. Because the Trump admin had been pushing for weeks for a minerals deal signing at the ministerial level, and Ukraine had refused. Zelenskyy wanted security guarantees.

US officials thought negotiations would be much harder with Putin so today have been been in disbelief that it has been Zelenskyy who has been more difficult, making maximalist demands, sources told me. //

Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
Follow
Zelenskyy declares that he won't negotiate an end to the war without security guarantees from the United States -- And then admits that he doesn't have enough weapons to push Russia out of Ukraine -- And then demands more money from the U.S.

Last edited
11:56 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

RedDog_FLA
an hour ago
Zelesky forgot the he's dealing with the Producer of the Apprentice.

Zelensky thought he could manage an on-camera negotiation with the dealmaker. 🤔

He might not get another chance... it's possible he has been FIRED.

Bob Smalser
an hour ago
"If it’s true that Blinken, Rice, Nuland, and Vindman conference called with Zelensky on the flight to DC advising him to "stand strong" and "be tough" and "don't let Trump bully you" it seems to have backfired. Perhaps FBI Director Patel should meet with those clowns for a debriefing (and Logan Act discussion) after talking with a foreign head of state.". //

Slappy
an hour ago edited
The way Zelenskyy bombed this meeting publically like that, I think he isn't stupid, he did it because he wanted to torpedo any ceasefire deal and he's unwilling to settle for peace. The Europeans are all that's left, so maybe he thinks that's who he played up to here. I wish them and Ukraine luck, because blowing up what's left of the relationship with the U.S. is one hell of a risky move.

Slappy
an hour ago edited
The way Zelenskyy bombed this meeting publically like that, I think he isn't stupid, he did it because he wanted to torpedo any ceasefire deal and he's unwilling to settle for peace. The Europeans are all that's left, so maybe he thinks that's who he played up to here. I wish them and Ukraine luck, because blowing up what's left of the relationship with the U.S. is one hell of a risky move.

Sean Davisb@seanmdav
·
Trump doesn’t bad mouth anyone who comes to the negotiating table in good faith. Ever. It’s a near-cardinal rule of negotiations for him, and a major reason he’s been such a successful dealmaker. 

If you refuse to negotiate, he will trash you. If you lie or negotiate in bad faith, he will trash you. He has zero interest in allowing empty moralizing to get in the way of a deal that he wants.  

He has done this his entire career, in business and in politics, and it’s fascinating to me how many people who think of themselves as smart and savvy are incapable of seeing or understanding this dynamic.

Christian Datoc @TocRadio
TRUMP: "You want me to say really terrible things about Putin and then say, 'hi, Vladimir. How are we doing on the deal?' It doesn't work that way. I'm not aligned with anybody. I'm aligned with the United States of America, and for the good of the world."
8:05 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

The key here isn't just that Trump is holding the cards and that Zelensky needs him — not the other way around — it's that Trump is negotiating from a fortified position of "America first." Everything at the table is subject to that one point, and if anything drifts away from that, then Trump pushes back and pushes back until he's all the way gone from the table.

Zelensky acted like a petulant child who showed no respect to the country that had given him the money for his war while trying to secure more, and Trump saw no value, not in the war, and not in Zelensky's disrespect. As such, there was no deal. Moreover, Zelensky attempted to pressure Trump into capitulation through our own media, which was a costly mistake. Trump is not beholden to the American media as other leaders are.

But Zelensky's error came from a habit he never should have never been allowed to develop. The Democrats — and too many Republicans — taught Zelensky that he was in charge. They caved to him constantly because the last thing they wanted was for our own media, who fawn and worship the ground Zelensky walks on, to turn on them. That would result in massive blowback from Democrat supporters, including their donors. //

Ultimately, the Democrat at the negotiating table asks, "what's expedient for me politically right now?" When the question that they should be asking themselves — and Trump clearly understands — is "how does this put America and Americans in the best position possible?"

The answer is sometimes not to make a deal at all. It's not sexy to come back and say negotiations fell apart, especially to a bloodthirsty media who makes everything sound like every failed deal moves us closer to doomsday, but again, Trump isn't concerned with the media, he's concerned with America.

And Democrats just can't seem to wrap their heads around that. //

TexasVeteran
3 hours ago edited
"The answer is sometimes not to make a deal at all."

Trump is channeling his inner Ronnie! Remember when Reagan walked away from a nuke deal with Gorbachev in Iceland? It lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union!🤔. //

anon-m0b0
2 hours ago
The war with Putin is a gigantic money-laundering operation that Zelensky and Democrats (and some Republicans) are getting rich from. Trump knows this. He wants to end the war and end the corruption. Zelensky is not ready for peace because a lot of people are getting rich. The mineral rights are some repayment to U.S. taxpayers for tax dollars sitting in oligarchs bank accounts.

Zelensky is counting on the U.S. press to do his dirty work to Trump. He doesn't realize Trump doesn't care.

Zelensky will be back at the table when the money is gone. He made his own bargaining position worse and he still doesn't realize yet.

A Statement from President Donald J. Trump

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”. //

Cletus Maximus
5 hours ago
The tone of this meeting needed to happen. How long has it been since someone literally got their ass kicked out of the Oval Office? This video should be in the curriculum for every business school. //

Skibum
5 hours ago
I suspect that Zelenskyy agreed to things in private and then tried to play tough in public for his home crowd. Boy did that prove to be a mistake.

Marc Thiessen 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱
@marcthiessen
·
Follow
This is entirely Zelensky’s fault. Trump greeted him graciously, was ready to turn the page. Just said he wanted to get help Ukraine get it’s territory back. And Z comes in and gets into a fight in public? I’ve never seen anything like it in my life.
TV News Now
@TVNewsNow
🚨 WATCH: Here’s the FULL exchange of President Trump and VP Vance EXCORIATING Zelenskyy
Embedded video
6:14 PM · Feb 28, 2025

Jacqui Heinrich
@JacquiHeinrich
·
WH OFFICIALS TELL FOX:-

TRUMP KICKED OUT ZELENSKYY – HE DID NOT WALK OFF ON HIS OWN

-RARE MINERALS DEAL WAS NOT SIGNED.

• WH SAYS “UKRAINANS WERE BEGGING TO RESET” BUT RUBIO AND WALTZ INFORMED THEM ZELENSKYY NEEDS TO LEAVE WHITE HOUSE GROUNDS, RETURN WHEN HE’S READY FOR PEACE

-THE PRESIDENT AND US OFFICIALS FELT DISRESPECTED BY ZELENSKYY’S RHETORIC AND DEMEANOR

– CITED THAT HE WAS “SHRUGGING AND ROLLING HIS EYES” DURING THE CONVERSATION

**WHEN I WENT TO UPPER PRESS TO ASK WHAT WAS GOING ON, THE LUNCH THAT TRUMP AND ZELENSKYY WERE SUPPOSED TO DINE ON AND TALK OVER WAS SITTING IN THE HALLWAY. I’M TOLD WHITE HOUSE PRESS OFFICE STAFFERS WILL BE EATING IT.
6:52 PM · Feb 28, 2025

This was a colossal miscalculation by Zelensky. Trump has never accepted the idea that Ukraine is doing the United States a favor by fighting Russia as a way of justifying unlimited aid. Perhaps Joe Biden found that argument persuasive, but Joe Biden is not in office anymore. Russia is not going to invade the United States or any NATO country (if for no other reason than a lack of capability), and using that as a type of blackmail for support was never going to play.

Here's the deal. Fairness or being "right" doesn't factor into a situation like this. Zelensky is in a desperate spot, and Trump had largely acquiesced to a very Ukraine-friendly deal over the last few days (including lowering the repayment amount to just $90 billion). The negotiations were over. All the Ukrainian president had to do was show up, shake hands, smile for the cameras, and sign the deal. His attempt to lecture Trump and Vance for the cameras was an ego move that he didn't have the leverage to pull off.

Trump does not care about the press. You aren't going to bully him into a certain point of view by appealing to CNN or any other legacy news outlet. Whether that's fair or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is the reality of the moment, and Zelensky chose to pick a fight with Vance when it was completely unnecessary. Liz Cheney and David Frum may do performative outrage online, but they are not going to cut a check to Ukraine. Zelensky needed this deal and chose to blow it up for no good reason. What was the point of him even coming to the White House if he was going to publicly denounce any possible ceasefire?

What this really comes down to is how Zelensky handled this. If he has issues with Trump negotiating a deal with Putin, then he should express those behind closed doors, which is something Vance pointed out during the exchange. By trying to embarrass and undermine the U.S. president in public, he destroyed an already frayed relationship. In doing so, he might have cost his country its war. //

Claudius54
3 hours ago
"What the Heck Was Zelensky Thinking?"

Simple. He was thinking that he had leverage. ... he was mistaken. //

etba_ss anon-6tg1
2 hours ago
When you can't get along with Vance and Rubio either, the problem is pointing toward Zelenskyy. //

etba_ss
4 hours ago
Keep in mind, that Rubio has already pointed out that they reached a deal with Zelenskyy before. Then he left the meeting and went to the press and claimed he told them "no" and he isn't signing any mineral rights. Rubio called him a liar in public over the whole deal. Now they agree to a deal and instead of signing it, Zelenskyy pulls this stunt.

What an idiot.

Baker would have his readers believe that Putin woke up one morning and said it looked like a nice day to start a war. That’s not what happened. //

The timeline is clear. Biden comes into office, Zelensky feels emboldened to antagonize a much bigger and more powerful country under the belief that Ukraine will be protected by NATO (other nations’ armies and money), Russia reacts, and we end up funding Ukraine’s defense. //

As for Zelensky being a “dictator,” it’s not like he outlawed political opposition, shut down places of worship that had traditional ties to Russia, forced the closure of media outlets critical of his administration, and indefinitely suspended elections to keep himself in power. Wait, let me re-check my notes. Never mind. He did do all of that in a process known in permanent Washington as “democracy and freedom.”

When people like Peter Baker claim that it’s “rewriting” history to acknowledge the truth, what they really mean is that the propaganda they prefer has been a failure.

I don't think talking means that you're weak. I think talking is a tactic in order to get to a goal [...] We need to be able to have these conversations with the Russians.

[...]

Again, I go back to the fact that we had it perfect in terms of peace. We were handed a war, and now we're being criticized of, "well how do you dig us out of a war, and you're not doing it fast enough and you're not doing it fair enough." So we're a little frustrated. //

We articulate very clearly under Donald Trump: We don't do regime change. We are going to deal with the countries that are in front of us. And our criteria is, not how do we make that country better, how do we make America better, stronger, more prosperous for the people here. //

Burns' final question was whether Grenell had plans to run for California Governor in 2026. The audience cheered in approval.

Honestly, it's not in my plans unless Kamala Harris runs for governor. If Kamala runs... If Kamala runs...

You're jumping in? Burns interjected.

I mean, here's the thing: we already know who she is. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to define who Kamala Harris is. If she's going to run, a Republican is going to win and I may not be able to resist trying to run against her.

Niall Ferguson @nfergus
Replying to @JDVance
Well, thank God also for free and open debate.
Having visited Ukraine every year but one since 2011, I think I have an informed and realistic view.
I repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for its failure to deter Putin in 2021 and failure to end the war while Ukraine…
3:20 PM · Feb 21, 2025

JD Vance @JDVance
·
In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.

2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.

Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.

3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.
The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.
4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it. //

OrneryCoot
3 hours ago
The fact that the VP of the United States is willing (and extremely capable) of having detailed policy discussions with a British historian concerning an extremely volatile, sensitive, and relevant situation on X/Twitter is absolutely fantastic. They are bypassing entirely the legacy media and putting it all out there for everyone to see. We see everything unvarnished and without the filter and bias of the legacy media "journalists", and can comment on it in real time. THIS is what healthy, productive, free societies have yearned for since probably Athenian democratic debates over 2,000 years ago. Regardless of what side you are on, we should be in the balconies or right at the front of the stage cheering this on for all we're worth. The only losers here are those who want to restrict or alter the flow of information for their own selfish ends, like corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, freaking coup leaders, and the legacy media. It is a great time to be alive! //

Fight On
2 hours ago edited
To all the GOP neocons:
1) define “victory”
2) describe the path to “victory”
3) what’s your plan? be specific, accountable, realistic. time bound
4) math. Math wins in a war of attrition: Ukraine troops < Russian troops. It’s a numbers game, reality.
5) the GDP of Europe is huge compared to Russia. Europe can afford to fund and defend Europe, Ukraine from Russia. Without US.
6) Russia’s military has proven to be third rate -.not the threat you make it out to be
7) Europe is mooching off the American taxpayer for their defense. THIS MUST STOP!
8) NATO has consistently broken their promises to limit the advance of NATO eastward.
9) Biden/Harris regime threatened to add Ukraine to NATO - Russia’s red line
10) Neocon rhetoric constantly provokes Russia with regime change.
11) USA IS BROKE! EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON UKRAINE IS BORROWED ON A CREDIT CARD!! AMERICA FIRST!!!!!

I think the second thing, frankly, is that I was very upset because we had a conversation with Zelensky, the vice president and I, the three of us, and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and we explained to them, look, we want to be a joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal from your country but because we think that is actually a security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor, we get to get paid back some of the money that taxpayers have given, close to $200 billion, and now, we have a vested interest in the security of Ukraine. And he said, sure we want to do this deal, the only thing is, I need to run it through my legislative process.

I read two days later that Zelensky is out there saying, "I rejected the deal, I told them no way, that we're not doing that." Well, that's not what happened in that meeting. So you start to get upset at somebody, we're trying to help these guys. One of the points the president made in his messaging is not that we don't care about Ukraine, but Ukraine is on another continent. It doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans. We care about because it has implications for our allies and ultimately for the world, but there needs to be some level of gratitude about this, and when you don't see and you see him out there accusing the president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly, very counterproductive, and I don't need to explain it to you or anybody else Donald Trump, President Trump is not the kind of person who is going to sit there and take that.

Unfortunately, it seems like Zelensky got very used to being able to play the press during the Biden years, to essentially receive blank checks with no real mechanism to ensure Americans are paid back. Believing he could carry over that strategy to the Trump administration was a huge mistake. Donald Trump does not care about pressure from the mainstream media or Europe. He certainly doesn't have any qualms about having a war of words with Zelensky if the Ukrainian president chooses to make unfortunate comments to the press in an attempt to "hustle" the United States, as Rubio described it. //

Bruce
4 hours ago
Marco Rubio is really knocking it out of the park.

The President has built a team around him that are all rising to have their finest hour at this critical time in our history. And making your team perform beyond their previous best is a hallmark of a great leader.

Niall Ferguson @nfergus
·
"This will not stand. This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait."--George H.W. Bush on August 5, 1990. Full quote from Jon Meacham's biography. Future history students will be asked why this stopped being the reaction of a Republican president to the invasion of a… Show more
7:43 AM · Feb 20, 2025

JD Vance @JDVance
·
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts.

And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is currently flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

And thank God for that.
1:39 PM · Feb 20, 2025//

People cheered Vance's statement.

David Limbaugh called it "one for the ages."

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said:

Amen. Thank goodness we have a President and Vice President who put America first and acknowledged what has always been the reality in Ukraine. We should pursue a peaceful and realistic outcome, not death, debt, and war.

White House reporter Charlie Spiering said Ferguson "laments the loss of Republican neocons like George H.W. Bush." //

What Ferguson said he took issue with was he thought they were conceding too much off the bat, based on what he was reading, including taking NATO membership off the table, conceding territory, as well as a peacekeeping force that could include China.

I earnestly hope that the Trump administration can negotiate an end to this war. But if we end up with a peace that dooms Ukraine first to partition and then to some future invasion, it will be a sorry outcome. To repeat, I agreed with most of your criticisms of Europe at Munich. I would add that the Europeans have talked for “strategic autonomy” for too long without making a serious attempt to achieve it.

But you and President Trump campaigned last year with a slogan that dates back even further than George H.W. Bush’s words that I quoted. That phrase was “peace through strength.”

I would note a few things. Ferguson is assessing things based in part on what he is reading. He's not aware of what's going on in the private discussions.

Further, I think Trump has already made his "peace through strength" clear.

stickdude90
9 hours ago
Remind me again why we spend so much blood and treasure to protect these blowhards...

jri500 anon-fv7m
6 hours ago
Bill Clinton and his buddy, Bernard Schwartz (LORAL Space) GAVE China our ballistic missile gyroscope guidance technology. Just gave it to them because liberals couldn't stand the fact that the US was the world's lone super power at the time. China's missiles couldn't reach orbit. Clinton moved the gyro technology from Defense to the Commerce department, and put a CIA satellite on a Chinese rocket. And when that rocket crashed, the Chi Coms sifted the wreckage and reverse engineered our gyros. When Clinton took office, China had zero (0) nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US mainland. When he left office, they had 20. //

Dieter Schultz stickdude90
6 hours ago edited
Remind me again why we spend so much blood and treasure to protect these blowhards...
I think you might be looking at the US being forward deployed and allied with nations around the world... through the wrong lens.

Yes we're spending money stationing forces around the world and, yes, some... maybe a lot of these countries... don't appreciate or deserve our protection but... look at it from the point of view of avoided costs.

But, we can't understand avoided costs unless we consider what isolationism might really cost us in the bigger scheme of things.

We were, mostly, isolationists between 1910 and 1940... not spending money with alliances and forward deploying our forces. Because of that the bad guys in the world didn't believe we'd respond as they gobbled up other countries. What they did believe, and what Churchill said so elegantly in some of his writing, was that if the US allowed its natural allies to fall, the position that the US would be in, strategically, would be difficult in the extreme.

So we stayed out of the areas but, when we were finally forced to act the costs in treasure and lives of our youth was great... far, far greater than they would have been if the Germans and Japanese really believed we would fight to stop them.

Since the end of WWII we've made a lot of mistakes and many of those mistakes have cost us 10s of thousands of our youth and untold treasures but, even with Russia's aggressive moves in the world, we haven't had a repeat of the carnage, loss of life, and expenditures of the country's treasures.

But, we should ask ourselves, even if we've helped protect people that didn't seem to appreciate and value our sacrifice, if, like happened to us leading up to WWI and WWII, would we have likely gotten sucked into another one of the continent's or world's battles and cost ourselves 10 or 100 times the loss of carnage, loss of life, and expenditures of our treasure anyway?

I see the discussions about forward deploying our forces around the world much like the Chesterton's Fence and we should ask ourselves, why that fence was needed in the first place?

Many in this country just want to tear down that fence but, as Chesterton might see it: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”