rgmwa

It's pretty clear you think the Ukrainians should just let Putin take over their country and that way nobody would get killed. The problem is the Ukrainians would then lose their independence, their resources and their country, and Putin would simply move onto the next target in his efforts to rebuild the Soviet Union - and Trump is only too keen to help him do it. It's pretty sad that Trump is only interested in defending Ukraine if he can Zelenskyy to apologise for telling the truth and get a deal for his rare earth minerals off the ground (he actually calls them `raw earth minerals' - can't even get that right). Ukraine only has value to him if his financial investment may be threatened. The idea that he might defend a weaker country against a power hungry dictator as a matter of principle and for the safety of his allies is not a concept that he can get his head around. The sooner the US dumps him, the better.

It’s aid to help the Ukrainians defend themselves from being overrun by Putin’s armies. Your solution (and Trump’s) would be to just step aside and let him do it. Nobody wants to keep the war going except Putin, and least of all the Ukrainians.

Probably here from the official source of misinformation, courtesy of Musk's minions: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/02/at-usaid-waste-and-abuse-runs-deep/

Zelenskyy has a law degree but never worked in the legal field, however he became a leader of his country. Trump has an economics degree and became a criminal and a leader of his country. Rumour has it that Trump got someone else to sit his exams, so there is also some doubt about his degree.

Western leaders had no illusions about Stalin, unlike Trump's illusions about Putin.

Yes, she’s full of BS.

That puzzles me too, but as OME said she is very good at what she does. I think she is very smart and articulate but either so naive or wilfully blind that she believes everything she is saying. She may eventually realise that the actions of the corrupt regime she has been expertly defending are turning more and more pear shaped. Others like Stefanie Grisham and Alyssa Farah Griffin eventually figured out what Trump was all about and turned on him.

Zelenskyy wants Trump to guarantee that when Putin inevitably breaks whatever agreement they eventually sign up to (as he has done with past agreements), the US will stand with NATO and other allies including Australia, and defend Ukraine against Putin's treachery. That might mean providing more arms and ammunition, cash and possibly to participate in supplying peacekeeping forces. The problem is that Trump is on Putin's side, so it's not going to happen. The end result of the war was supposed to be to get the Russians out of Ukraine, which doesn't seem like a lot to ask for provided your name isn't Putin. Unlike Biden, Trump is not interested in making sure the war ends in Ukraine's favour. He wants Putin to come out ahead because he wants to do deals with Russia. As far as Trump is concerned Ukraine is just a roadblock that he wants to get out of the way.

Zelenskyy has just issued this statement, but unfortunately I doubt whether Trump or Vance will bother to read it: Here is President Zelenskyy's full statement expressing gratitude to the United States...

This commentary by George Brandis sums the situation up pretty well: Donald Trump has said that he wanted each day of his presidency to be like an episode of a reality TV show. On Friday, local time, he certainly achieved that. At the end of his astonishing Oval Office argument with Volodomyr Zelensky Trump said, with apparent satisfaction: “This is going to be great television.” It is easy to be distracted by the sheer awfulness of the scene: the presidents of two nations who are, at least theoretically, meant to be allies, bickering in full view of the world’s media as Ukraine’s fate hangs in the balance. But it is important to look through the pyrotechnics on display to appreciate what Trump’s behaviour reveals, not just for the future of Ukraine, but about his view of America’s role in the world. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance.Credit:Bloomberg Trump’s petulance, and his evident personal disdain for Zelensky, make it difficult to watch the exchange without cringing. The point at which things begin to go off the rails is when Vice President J.D. Vance – appearing to relish the role of provocateur – accuses Zelensky of being “disrespectful”. He wasn’t, he was merely putting Ukraine’s position. Zelensky asked Vance a question – it proved to be a mistake From that point, first Vance, then Trump, berates Zelensky with increasingly excitable belligerence, as Zelensky – patiently and without discourtesy – stands his ground. It was Trump and Vance, not Zelensky, who were disrespectful, a point European leaders, who rallied behind Zelensky, made in the subsequent hours. Trump may be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, but Zelensky is the president of a large nation too, albeit one in a desperately weak position. Trump’s behaviour revealed not just contempt for Zelensky, but utter lack of concern for the victims of Russia’s invasion. The egregious criminality of the invasion itself, and Russia’s conduct since – targeting of civilian populations, deporting thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia, gross violations of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war (including the castration of teenage soldiers) were the furthest things from Trump’s mind. All he wanted was a deal that favoured US interests in exploiting Ukrainian critical minerals. In dealing with a fellow world leader who stood in his way, Trump behaved less like an American president than a Roman emperor dressing down a visiting barbarian chieftain. The issue to which Zelensky repeatedly returned – both in the Oval Office and, at greater length, in his interview with Brett Baier on Fox News immediately afterwards – was the necessity, as part of the overall deal with America concerning the joint exploitation of Ukraine’s critical minerals, of a US “security guarantee”. No such guarantee was part of the agreement which Zelensky left unsigned. Earlier in the week, when they made separate visits to the White House, both UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, had also spoken of the need of US security guarantees (or a “US backstop”, in Starmer’s words). Trump has given no indication to any of them that the US would provide any form of security guarantee, instead promising the presence of US companies on the ground in Ukraine to exploit its minerals, would be enough to deter Putin. When Zelensky insisted to Trump that Putin was not to be trusted, Trump – evidently taking offence on Putin’s behalf – told him that while Putin may have lied to Obama and to Biden, he wouldn’t lie to him. On such flimsy hopes do the future peace of Europe now depend. Can NATO survive Trump? Although a security guarantee is, for Zelensky, the sine qua non of any deal with the United States, even if Trump were to relent and offer one, what use would it be? Trump is no less a pathological liar than Putin. A security guarantee from Trump would not be worth the paper it is written on, particularly since – as was obvious from his confrontation with Zelensky – Trump’s sympathies lie with Putin anyway. One immediate result of the meeting was the Republican Party rallying behind Trump. Most ominously, influential South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham – who, although close to Trump, was seen as one of Zelensky’s few Republican allies on Capitol Hill – was swift to condemn Zelensky for disrespecting Trump, and call for his resignation. Republicans have never much liked Zelensky. After this debacle, they will begin to demonise him. Of deepest concern is what now happens to NATO. Its support for Zelensky has been, and remains, steadfast. (So, to Anthony Albanese’s credit, has been Australia’s.) So far, talk of the European democracies deploying armed personnel to Ukraine has been limited to policing a ceasefire. If there is a ceasefire policed by European boots on the ground, what happens if it is breached and fighting breaks out between Russian and NATO troops? It seems hardly likely that Trump would, in those circumstances, commit America to armed conflict with Russia. If the war continues without further American support, Europe’s limited capacity to continue to arm Ukraine makes it very likely that Russia will prevail. When, last Monday, I published a column in this masthead asking if NATO would survive Donald Trump, and quoted an old remark of Kevin Rudd’s that Trump was a traitor to the West, I wondered if I had gone too far. In the breakneck speed at which the global order is re-sorting itself, with Trump’s America abandoning allies and embracing autocrats, it seems I did not go far enough. George Brandis Former high commissioner to the UK and federal attorney-general George Brandis is a former high commissioner to the UK and a former Liberal senator and federal attorney-general. He is now a professor at ANU.

Are you seriously surprised?

Zelenskyy made the fatal mistake of criticising Putin and telling Trump and Vance the truth about the war in front of the media. It was made worse because English isn't Zelenskyy's first language which made it difficult for him to get his points across in a more diplomatic way. While it showed exactly what disgusting specimens of humanity Trump and Vance are, it hasn't helped Zelenskyy and Ukraine. The only question now is how much more Trump will want to extract out of the minerals deal, and whether he cuts of all military aid as punishment for what he sees as Zelenskyy's insolence. This rant from Trump is interesting as it explains a lot about why he sees Putin as an ally: Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. You ever hear of that deal? That was a phony. That was a phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden scam. Hillary Clinton, shifty Adam Schiff. It was a Democrat scam. And he had to go through that. And he did go through it. We didn’t end up in a war. And he went through it. He was accused of all that stuff. He had nothing to do with it. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said, ‘Oh, the laptop from hell was made by Russia.’ The 51 agents. The whole thing was a scam. And he had to put up with that.

Trump obviously follows this foreign policy, often attributed to Henry Kissinger once saying "America has no allies or enemies, only interests", which he didn't, but this is what British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston said in a speech to the House of Commons in 1848; "Therefore I say it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow".

Once he realises AUKUS was a Biden deal, he will probably tear it up.

Yes, I know what it means. Can you give some examples?

I agree we are a wasteful society but you’re not exactly helpless. We have consumer protection laws in this country if you have legitimate grievances. What do you mean by ‘ripped off’ anyway. If it happens a lot as you suggest, what are you buying and who from?

What's happened to you that makes you feel so strongly about this?

You don’t really think that Trump has thought that far ahead? For him it’s all about the signatures, not the fine detail.

Whatever is in the deal, Trump will ensure it favours Putin. Zelenskyy is over a barrel here without Trump’s support. Nor will Putin necessarily stick to his end of any deal. He has renegged on previous agreements like the Minsk accords. He and Trump are a lot alike. I think Trump sees him simply as a junior real estate rival that he can either beat or do deals with. They are in the same business.

So you’re saying that the Europeans should have caved to Putin’s threat, which is all it was, and let him overrun Ukraine? Trump’s way of defusing Putin’s threat is to reward him for invading Ukraine, trashing Zelenskyy and NATO countries for trying to stop him. and robbing Ukraine of its rare earth minerals because he has now decided Ukraine has to retrospectively pay back what the US gave freely. On top of that, none of that will defuse Putin’s threat in the future because he will simply try it again. He still has his nuclear warheads and he still hasn’t got Ukraine.

As Macron said, they do regard them as donations. Ukraine doesn’t have to pay them back. If eventually the frozen Russian assets are used to help rebuild Ukraine and possibly recompense the Europeans, no guarantees that either will happen at this point, it will be reparation for Putin’s invasion and destruction of Ukraine. Of course with Trump and Putin now on the same side who knows what will happen to the Russian assets.

I don’t know whether Australia has frozen any Russian assets. Hopefully we have if they had any here. Why would Albo expect anything back for what was donated to Ukraine to defend themselves against Putin’s aggression? We give a lot of assistance to all kinds of countries and aid organisations for humanitarian and goodwill reasons and don’t expect repayment.

Agreed, especially with Trump going in to bat for Putin and dumping Ukraine and his former NATO allies.

If Putin wants his assets unfrozen all he has to do is pull his troops out of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are not too happy about Putin stealing their country either.

Which ones? Those crossing into Canada?