Posted on 08/17/2025 7:41:42 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
Well they are on the UN security council and pretty much oppose the west on all matters of peace there so why would you let them into an organization that was formed to protect itself from them? Your expect some good will first.
No worries! There’s a ton of phraseology and language in our politics and not everyone is as autistically steeped in it as some might be!
Let’s see exactly what was agreed to!
Otherwise, no one will believe them.
Since no one else has replied to you, I will say ‘well stated’.
I’m a Trump supporter, but I’m not a yes man. I don’t disagree with much he says or does, but I do think if he had been this firm about guaranteeing security in February, lives would have been saved and Russian war booty for their invasion would have been much less.
And we would be in no different position as to risks of American involvement in a future conflict.
Future conflict is a Russian choice. And we don’t control that, we can only choose to fight or submit.
Sounds like NATO-Light.
No worries! There’s a ton of phraseology and language in our politics
not everyone is as autistically steeped in it as some might be!
The answer is there is no possibility he'd agree to something that could lead to us being involved militarily in Ukraine.
https://nypost.com/2025/08/16/us-news/nato-style-security-mutual-defense-deal-on-the-table-for-ukraine-reports
Trump has not committed to sending US troops and previously ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine.
###
Russian President Vladimir Putin floated Friday during talks with Trump including Chinese troops, but appeared willing to accept Turkish troops as a compromise addition to the international force, a source said. Although Turkey is a member of NATO, it also has served as a Russian mediator.
Yes, little Ukraine will exist in your stated, “rump form.” Nice to see you put that into words.
Donald Trump deserves praise for allegedly extending this guarantee that makes peace possible, subject to the observation that this is the guarantee that Zelinski sought in the fateful White House fiasco in which Trump humiliated Zelinski for demanding such a guarantee.
Little z made himself a jerk and it had nothing to do with such a guarantee. It was Little z’s expectation the US would come in and fight and get his country whole again. We had no guarantee before and he was pressing that he would never compromise on the idea that he would have the US give him his own dang country back. He would never agree to less.
Little Gay Dancer z’s tantrums were disgusting, as was his attire.
But little men do need to compensate, you know.
“Sounds like NATO-Light.”
Naa, Putin knows that the Neocons will simply restart their war if they can get a foot in the door. He won’t let them!
“Yeah, that’s about to happen.”
Sadly you’re probably right, the DNC will need to die of natural causes and be replaced by a pro-America political party.
“NATO -like” guarantees of the security of Ukraine”
Did Russia announce that or is it another Pipe Dream of the Neocons?
mucus is here to destroy FR, not help it.
“This will be effectively like Ukraine is in NATO, but Putin can claim he didn’t cave. But Putin will have given up on part of his overall goal: taking all of Ukraine”
Putin knows enough not to agree to anything obvious fake, as he’ll be hanging by a lamp post if he does.
As to second claim - that may well happen, but if he actually wanted all of Ukraine, he wouldn’t trying to work with Trump, instead he would be following the European plan, which is the complete defeat of Ukraine in order to create a ‘monster’ on Europe’s Eastern Border and thus necessitate the final steps in the complete subjugation of European countries to their one big superstate - that being the EU.
“Donald Trump deserves praise for allegedly extending this guarantee that makes peace possible, subject to the observation that this is the guarantee that Zelinski sought in the fateful White House fiasco in which Trump humiliated Zelinski for demanding such a guarantee.”
from Search Assist:
Key Reasons for Trump’s Anger
Accusations of Disrespect
Trump and Vice President JD Vance accused Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” towards the United States.
They felt Zelenskyy was not adequately grateful for the support Ukraine had received from the U.S. over the years.
Diplomatic Tensions
Zelenskyy challenged Vance’s comments about diplomacy with Russia, arguing that previous U.S. administrations had failed to stop Russian aggression.
Trump reacted strongly to Zelenskyy’s assertion that the U.S. would “feel it in the future” if the war continued, stating, “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”
“But when Trump makes a deal that obligates us to defend a non-NATO state in the future, the same people say, “well ok”.”
We Trump supporters able to figure out what security guarantees mean in real life.
Article Five of the NATO treaty which binds all members to go to war if another member is attacked. A good old fashioned pre-WW1 stye entangling alliance.
Agreed. But first and foremost, I suspect he is here to promote a specific 'foreign government's' long term aim.
I only repeat my thoughts in a previous reply made just before events:
Perhaps each side should consider the point of view of the other.
Supporters of Ukraine should concede that an American guarantee of some sort running to peacekeepers in Ukraine carries a risk to the United States of deeper involvement in Ukraine and, potentially, even in kinetic war.
Opponents of United States support of Ukraine should concede that peace in Ukraine, even at the cost of the risks noted above, carry benefits for the United States that might outweigh the risks. The benefits include retention by the United States of the power to deter aggression against places like Taiwan and, ultimately, against the United States itself or United States’ vital trade interests. The benefits might also include prying Russia away from its alliance with China, a development clearly in American national interest.
Donald Trump has evidently had his epiphany. He has expressed willingness to send arms to Ukraine and, reportedly, a willingness to guarantee a cease-fire with American military power. In doing so he has presumably weighed the risks against the benefits.
In making a risk-benefit analysis we are actually speculating about future consequences. We might at least muster the humility, born of limited vision, to concede that there is merit as well as risks to both points of view.
Yes, his first target was Fauxnews after 2020, where he spammed the forum for months over Faux’s reporting, then he went after Tucker, then he started in on The Ukraine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.