Today 8:19 am
a treaty is a signed promise that neither will attack again. this was not the situation.ConservativeWave » Today, 7:33 am » wrote: ↑ I think TRUMP DOES want peace... because he has SAID over and over that there wouldn't have been war in the FIRST place if he were President over the last 4 years, and is pretty much committed to ending the war... So, I think he WANTS peace... IF for no other reason, than it's what he SAID he was going to do... BUT, IF you're going to have peace NOW... You HAVE to throw Russia a bone. Telling them they have to get OUT of all of what they currently control in Ukraine, and Crimea? Just ISN'T going to work... Trump is probably right... THEY'RE just NOT going to get out under Zelesnky's terms, so, saying that Trump "blew it" is just completely wrong... and they (Russia) will just stay there, BLEEDING THEMSELVES, and Ukraine, and Europe, and America dry... Until: 1) AN acceptable peace deal is found, 2) Ukraine, Europe and America capitulate, OR 3) WW3 and/or Nuclear war BREAKS OUT !!...
I think Trumps calculation is that neither option 2 or 3 is acceptable... so option #1 needs to be made to work, and THAT is what he's trying to do. YOU can like it or not, UNDER the CURRENT circumstances, giving up some land, entering a business deal with the USA for rare earth elements (that is EXTREMELY important to America), and having Europe step up to get stronger militarily... while exposing a little space between the U.S.A, & Europe & NATO... might be the exact "witches brew" to make this work.... UNLESS you want perpetual war, OR, WW3 !
AND THINK about it... with options 2 or 3... China becomes the BIG winner, and everyone else loses !!
a treaty should include for russia's part ukraine promises not to join nato and keeps crimera and maybe some other areas. for ukraine's part no more invasion from russia.