Posted on 02/24/2025 12:22:09 PM PST by Redmen4ever
The two presidents speak of Trump's initiative to bring the war in Ukraine to an end
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
It appears that a peace deal might comprehend wide-ranging deals, for example, on fair trade.
And Trump is saying he’s negotiating for the American people... gotta love the man. Best. President. Ever.
In light of Marcon’s reputation, I’m assuming it’ll be held in under Big Top Tent.
You are screwed Chi Coms.
GOPJ, we only have one president at a time and it is a very good thing that this man - Donald Trump - is president right now. He is strong, self-confident, and open-minded. Nobody else could possibly make this happen; and, while there is no guarantee that Trump will be successful, it is manifest he is trying as hard as possible.
Macron didn’t embarrass himself.
It’ll be interesting to compare his performance to Starmer’s which I suspect will be embarrassing.
If I were rating national leaders, Trump would get a 10 and Macron a 4 with Trudeau and Starmer a 1, only because Joey has to be given a 0. As for Putin, I’d probably give him a 4 and Zelensky a 1.
We are blessed that Trump is our President and that he works for the benefit of the American people...
What exactly is Macron asking for? More money for Ukraine? U.S. troops in Ukraine?
When are we going to stop spending our blood and treasure to fill the pockets of NeoCons and democrats?
I would have liked Trump to tell Macron, Britain and the EU that the Ukraine is now their problem - we're out. Also, Trump needs to collect the $200 Billion we've given Ukraine and the Z man - much of which is unaccounted for.
So tired of seeing Americans dying in vain and billions of our tax dollars filling the pockets of corrupt governments, individuals and greedy military industrial complex.
Trump will figure this out... it’s his style.
Trump is the only person (other than maybe Viktor Orbán) who's telling the truth.
Joe Biden and the EU would rather have Ukraine fight for another 10 years. Even if it ends up destroying Ukraine as a nation.
It's a big mess right now. But things can get worse.
Hi, Jesus, the President of France is not a supplicant.
I am sure that not everybody on freerepublic is paid by Putin to say we, the U.S., should go isolationist and pull out of Europe. But, from the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917, they have been financing this kind of propaganda. During the 1930s, they helped to finance a large pacifist movement in this country. But, the increasing belligerency in Europe and Asia, and then the attack on Pearl Harbor made the pacifist position look naive.
“America First” implies something is second (otherwise the expression would be “America Only”). So, let’s think about it. Who, if anybody, is second?
From early in our history, we said with the Monroe Doctrine that our fellow American republics were second. And our thinking was partly selfish: we wanted to keep the European powers on the other side of the Atlantic. If they got a foothold in this hemisphere, they could threaten us.
With WWII, it became clear that the oceans of the world were no longer a sufficient barrier. So, we formed alliances with democracies (and others) on the other side of the oceans. While we made many mistakes, in 1991, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we survived the Cold War and were neither red nor dead.
We are now dealing a greatly reduced Russia, both in population and GDP, that aspires to the former greatness of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. In terms of the announced goals of Russia, this is a direct threat not only to Ukraine but to other former SSRs of the Soviet Union and the former Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe.
Really? All the teat suckers are supplicants.
The characterization of the U.S. as being isolationist because we want Europe to be responsible for Europe both financially and militarily is a mischaracterization - IMHO.
Here are some arguments per Ask ai for greater disengagement from Europe, which many Americans agree with:
We should be more focused on domestic priorities over international commitments. Resources, both financial and military, should be redirected towards addressing pressing domestic challenges such as national debt, infrastructure, healthcare, education. By reducing its military presence in Europe, the U.S. could allocate more funds to these critical areas.
Shift in Global Threats. The U.S. should focus more on rising powers like China rather than traditional European allies. They contend that the strategic pivot towards Asia is necessary to counterbalance China’s growing influence and assertiveness in global affairs.
European Self-Reliance. European nations should take greater responsibility for their own defense and security needs. They have sufficient resources and capabilities to manage their security without relying heavily on U.S. military support. This perspective posits that a reduced American presence would encourage Europe to invest more in its own defense initiatives.
Avoiding Entanglement in European Conflicts Disengaging from Europe could also help the U.S. avoid becoming embroiled in conflicts that do not directly threaten American interests. Critics of extensive military commitments argue that involvement in European disputes can lead to unnecessary entanglements and drain resources away from more critical areas of concern.
Historical Precedents of Successful Withdrawals Some advocates point to historical examples where great powers have successfully withdrawn troops without creating power vacuums or destabilizing regions significantly. They argue that if managed correctly, a reduction in U.S. forces could be executed without leaving behind a dangerous geopolitical void.
When you began by saying France is a teat sucker, everything else you say becomes suspect.
The growth and expansion of BRICS bothers me. Should it?
Gotta love Macron’s mimicry of Trump’s pose, from downward hand steepling to manspreading, but at the edge of his chair so he can appear to match Trump’s height:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trump-gave-nothing-to-macron/
Thanks, Churchill.
Being an American, I am blessed and cursed by (1) speaking the lingua francais of today’s world and (2) by using the reserve currency of today’s world. As a result of (1), it’s difficult for me to learn and retain foreign languages. And, as a result of (2), it’s difficult for me to think no less transact business in foreign currencies.
Of the BRICS, the only one that concerns me is India. India is growing faster than China and is a democracy. I think this means India will continue to grow. In contrast, China is increasingly authoritarian. While the Chinese people have good values such as working and saving, and are quite smart in terms of IQ, they will be increasingly handicapped by the economic policies of their government and by a closed mindset.
We, the U.S., will continue to be the leader of the free world for some time. We’re not so good when it comes to balancing our budget, we have some strengths. We are the most creative, inventive and innovative people in the world. While India is catching up, it will take several decades to catch up, if it ever does. On the one hand, India’s ascendancy means English will continue to be the dominant language of the world. On the other hand, the dominance of the U.S. Dollar isn’t assured. Continued deficit spending on our part risks the dollar going the way of the British Pound.
I love the role we, the U.S., played in propelling the growth of freedom and prosperity here at home and throughout the world during our time as the leader of the free world. But, frankly, the burden of leadership has been heavy. and I welcome us being joined by the other democracies in the mutual defense of the free world and in leadership.
Now is, indeed, a time for manly men.
It's a metaphor!
Any nation or person that 'depends' on the U.S. for free money, free resources, subsidized this and that, are metaphorically teat suckers. I don't limit my characterization to France. The EU, NATO, UN, WHO ...... have been sucking at the teat of the U.S. for far too long. Some babies resist and fuss over being weaned but it's necessary not only for the mother but for the baby as well.
Jesus, would you mind too much including some facts among your opinions?
How much foreign aid has the teat suckers of France received from the U.S. during the past X number of years? (You can decide what X is)
In what years and by what amounts have the teat sucker of France failed to met their NATO obligation of 2 percent of GDP?
The next two are a hypothetical questions.
You did not comment on my statement that the Monroe Doctrine was in OUR interest (as we considered the European powers re-establishing colonies in the hemisphere to be a threat to us). Is it your opinion that Mexico is, like you think France is, teat suckers because after our civil war we sent an army to the Rio Grande and told the French to get the hell out of Mexico?
Nor did you comment on my statement that with WWII our freedom was no longer secured by the great oceans of the world, so we entered into alliances with nations in Europe and East Asia to better secure our defense. Do you think the Germans, French, British, etc., of Europe then, and the Japanese, Koreans, Australians, of the eastern Pacific Rim then are, like the French today, teat suckers?
I appreciate your thoughts.
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.