Revealed: Trump’s confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold

You know what is the root cause of this war? Not letting Ukraine start the process of joining NATO under Yuschenko. That's GWB. They'd say Ukraine "was not ready" - give me a break! Romania was ready? Hungary?

 

Let's not forget this act of persuasion;

https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-ukraine-war-russia-nuclear-weapons-deal-vladimir-putin-1792682

"I feel a personal stake because I got them [Ukraine] to agree to give up their nuclear weapons. And none of them believe that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons," he (Clinton) said.

 

Now you are touching the holy grail. How dare you blame a Democrat? .
What's next, demand the plutonium they gave away to Russia?

 

The Holy Grail? It's common knowledge. Clinton is as guilty of this as both Bushes; more so because the actual weapons transfer was on his watch.

BTW, Obama, while just as soft on Russia as the rest of them, deserves credit for actually engaging with Ukraine and trying to steer it in right direction. One notable episode was Russian intelligence bugging a phone call where Victoria Nuland discussed resolving the Maidan standoff and acting as a mediator, at one point uttering the infamous "f*ck the EU" line. Profanity aside, this was helpful. (the supposed scandal in the call, in addition to buggering the EU, was a part of the discussion where US diplomats expressed a preference for Arseny Yatsenyuk as an interim Ukrainian leader. I personally believe that would have been not the worst outcome. Petro Poroshenko was a good leader, but has his issues being one of the oligarchs).

Another aspect was Obama admin and USAID-financed NGOs (along with the EU, to an extent) leaning on Ukrainian authorities to clean up their house. This is where the whole "Biden dismissing a prosecutor who investigated Burisma" episode happened. Of course, pressure to fire Viktor Shokin was an official position of both parties in US, as well as EU, UK and Ukrainian civil society. This was a huge symbolic win, as anyone who paid attention at the time (as I was) surely knows. It was under watchful eyes of the US Embassy and the NGOs when Poroshenko had his series of advances for the country: association with the EU, visa-free travel, police reform. The moment Trump came and sidelined Ambassador Yanovitch (sp?), the pace of reforms slowed down significantly. Poroshenko failed to meaningfully reform the judiciary (I suspect because as an oligarch he didn't really want to - just as he wasn't eager to fire Shokin), started going after his democratic opposition, got mired in corruption scandals and ultimately lost to Zelensky in a landslide. We lost valuable time there.

(BTW, it's not a coincidence Zelensky put sanctions on Poroshenko the minute USAID stopped operations in Ukraine. The sanctions look politically motivated, and for all his faults Poroshenko is the leader of the biggest pro-Western opposition party in Rada. Not a great look).

 

I'm not that familiar with details you provided.
Isn't most minerals that Ukraine mining are in areas now occupied by Russian invaders?
Many of Ukraine's significant mineral resources are located in areas that are now occupied by Russian forces. For example, the Donbas region, which has been a key area for coal, steel, and other minerals, regions like Crimea (annexed by Russia in 2014) are also rich in minerals like titanium. The ongoing conflict has certainly impacted Ukraine's ability to utilize and control these resources, though the country still has reserves in other areas under its control.
It's not capable to comply with current admin demands.

 

Mr. Trump is treating Mr. Putin and Russia unlike any other negotiating counterpart. His usual method is to make maximalist demands and negotiate down: We’ll take back the Panama Canal! But here he’s making major concessions first.

He’s making concessions to Vladimir Putin without anything in return, and he’s informing Ukraine after the fact.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-ukraine-russia-negotiations-pete-hegseth-nato-europe-93fce205

 

Dude, nothing I said is particularly obscure. Back in 2013, everyone with any stake in Ukraine kept frantically refreshing the news around Euromaidan protests. It blows my mind any of this could just fly over your head like this.

 

U.S. threatened to cut off Musk’s Starlink to Ukraine in mineral negotiations, says report
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/musk-starlink-ukraine-minerals-negotiations-b2702861.html
(note on this: apparently, Poland is paying for Ukraine's Starlink access.)

‘It’s blackmail’: Ukrainians react to Trump demand for $500bn share of minerals
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/22/its-blackmail-ukrainians-react-to-trump-demand-for-500bn-share-of-minerals
US Declines to Back UN Resolution Urging Russian Withdrawal from Ukraine
https://www.newsweek.com/us-declines-back-un-resolution-urging-russian-withdrawal-ukraine-2033885

These people are disgusting bottom-feeding scum. Which, BTW, clouds my assessment of their position on Gaza as well. Hey, what's stronger than "deplorable"?

 

"Trumpian"?

 

Douglas Murray:
Mr. President: Putin is THE dictator and 10 Ukraine-Russia war truths we ignore at our peril
Link: https://nypost.com/2025/02/20/opinion/putin-is-the-dictator-and-10-ukraine-russia-war-truths-we-ignore-at-our-peril/

 

Adam Zivo
Trump is trying to scam Ukraine — allies, beware
Link: https://archive.is/baj8Q

"Although a new, perhaps fairer version of the resource deal is reportedly being negotiated, the damage has already been done: how can western allies now place their faith in the U.S. if this might invite vassalization? Canadians should be especially alarmed. Would the U.S. demand “payback” for decades of security support, or for future military aid in the Arctic, by seizing control of Canada’s considerable resource economy? If yes, what further risks would that present given Trump’s new fixation on turning Canada into an American state? Who knows at this point."

"U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that his country has spent US$350 billion on defending Ukraine, but this is simply untrue. Congress appropriated approximately US$183 billion to support Ukraine, but, not only was that budget not fully dispersed, much of it was spent within the U.S. to boost domestic weapons manufacturing capacities. According to Zelenskyy, Ukraine received only around $75 billion directly."

"Depending on what figure one accepts, the Trump administration’s proposed “partnership” with Ukraine would have siphoned away between two and six times more wealth than inputted aid. While this would’ve been a remarkable return on investment for the U.S. from a business perspective, military alliances simply do not, and should not, operate along the principles of cutthroat trade."

"While all security partnerships are fundamentally transactional, they also require a certain degree of mutual respect and trust. Using military aid as a Trojan horse for economic colonization may be profitable in the short term, but it comes at the cost of breeding enemies over time."

"The U.S. should understand this, as it has historically benefited from these norms: imagine, for example, if France had demanded control over key economic sectors in the U.S. after aiding the American Revolution."

 

Even more than in his first term, Trump seems to be detached from reality.

 

It seems that way. It’s hard to tell for sure. His first term there were more people trying to rein in his worst inclinations. Now the guardrails are gone.

 

With those constraints loosened, some argue that the response we’re witnessing now is a kind of ‘revenge’ for what they view as eight years of unjust persecution and harassment. Interestingly, this isn’t just a refrain from his staunch supporters; even some critics—who typically steer clear of backing his style—suggest that actions taken by the Democrats may have set the stage for today’s reaction. They contend that while this shift is controversial, it might also act as a corrective force in U.S. politics. Of course, whether this will ultimately benefit the country remains a subject of vigorous debate.

 

So all those felony indictments against Trump, some 97 IIRC, were actions taken by Democrats!?? The 34 felony counts he was convicted of were Democrat actions? They had nothing to do with fraud or inciting an insurrection? They were just the Democrats picking on Trump. Interesting that you repeat such nonsense. Even more interesting is your statement that it may be a corrective force. Sounds like you're consuming unreliable sources.

BTW, this thread was supposed to be about foreign policy, the Ukraine/Russia war specifically. I have assumed that we've wondered into domestic policy. I apologize if I've misconstrued that.

 

Are you among those "some"? Make a point, be a man to defend it. So he's siding with Khuylo to take revenge against... whom? What does it even mean? And how is this a defense?

 

Wouldn't it make your day?
What is not clear? Some means just that, some.
I think my posts so far are clear where I stand on this issue.
So look for another rout to air frustration.
People say that current actions are a result of Dems attacking Trump, for 8 years or more.
Russia, Russia, Russia, well now you got Russia.
Don't you see?
That's what it appears to some people.
Dems helped to create it.
So if I shout it's ain't so, it doesent change it, I heard it with my ears.

 

What I hear from people who elected Trump, is those actions were of overzealous witch hunt. While protecting Dems own from prosecutions, to systematically zealot persecution of Trump in any posible way.
Perceptions are strong.
And now he is back with vengeance.

 

Tell those people that told you this nonsense that they are full of it. He was convicted of 34 felonies in NY state court. He was facing very serious charges in Federal court. The conviction rate in Federal court is over 95%. The charges against him for the mishandling of Top Secret documents was an open and shut case. That one would have been much closer to a 100% conviction chance. It is against the law to have Top Secret documents without permission and then keep them in the bathroom or on a semi-public stage. You and the folks telling you this nonsense that it was Democrats prosecuting Trump are crazy clueless to think it is the Democrats doing this. It was the good old fashion justice system. You really need to improve the sources you use to consume the news.

quote:
What are the Chances for a “Not Guilty” Verdict if a Federally Charged Criminal Defendant Takes the Case to Trial?
Statistically not very good. Currently federal prosecutors tout above a 95% conviction rate.

https://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/representative-cases/federal-cases/if-you-are-charged-with-a-federal-crime/

 

Even if it were true (and it's not), don't you see that the person with a thought process like this is unfit for office? And the people who justify voting for him like this are, putting it veeery charitably, wrong? Are you prepared to correct for it and support Dems for midterms and for a foreseeable future? If not, why not?

(This doesn't even address the role of Vance and Musk. Who are affiliated with "Dark Enlightenment", also known as the "Neo-Reactionary Movement", which is quite literally a cabal of billionaires and their sycophants whose professed goal is to dismantle democracy. And who now have an unchecked power alongside a bumbling elderly President. Frankly, combine this with recent AI advances and you get a half decent premise for a series of dystopian sci-fi novels. God help us all.)