Good News or the bad news?
Bad.
Good
I'm sure Trump doesn't accept that Russia targets civilians. It is expedient for him to believe that Putin is an honorable man with legitimate grievances whose methods are entirely acceptable.Hmmm, as usual Ukraine goes for military infrastructure, and Russia goes for civilian targets. That will NEVER change.
Indeed... it's all 'fake news '.I'm sure Trump doesn't accept that Russia targets civilians. It is expedient for him to believe that Putin is an honorable man with legitimate grievances whose methods are entirely acceptable.![]()
In Moscow, with free Teslas for the committee
Yes, but there are two separate things here with different timescales. I’ll spell out my thinking:“…Under proposals published on Wednesday…”
This bit from Russian reporting very likely a lie or debris from crap Russian air defense:![]()
Huge Blast Rocks Engels Airbase as Ukraine Launches Major Drone Assault - The Moscow Times
Ukrainian drone strikes sparked a fire at a military airfield and wounded at least two people in Russia’s southern Saratov region, local authorities said Thursday. “Due to a fire at the [Engels] airfield, residents of a nearby farming co-op are being evacuated for safety reasons,” Saratov region...www.themoscowtimes.com
So Putin is going to be happy with US troops defending the power plants? And if US troops are killed in defending them what will Trump do? And even if the US successfully protects the power plants, he won’t be able to protect the energy distribution network…..and, and, andThat’s a fun development…Trump wants Ukraine to let the US run Zaporizhzhia…which is currently in Russian-occupied territory.
Sure, Donald, send 250,000 troops to get it back. FUN!
Proof that he’s making it up as he goes and that this is all a sideshow that will achieve nothing (good).
I don't think the plan is for Trump to militarily defend them.So Putin is going to be happy with US troops defending the power plants? And if US troops are killed in defending them what will Trump do? And even if the US successfully protects the power plants, he won’t be able to protect the energy distribution network…..and, and, and
The Times quotes you’ve shared do not prove that #2 remains the case in light of TrumPutin ripping up the world order in the 6 weeks since the French position was reported.
It’s about as feasible/ridiculous as Trump Gaza, I don’t think it deserves to be described as a “plan”I don't think the plan is for Trump to militarily defend them.
I think he wants to take ownership of them, in similar way, french companies own some of ours, sell Ukraine electricity from its own reactors and use them as leverage against Ukraine if needed.
Zelensky? You mean this bloke, who on the night of the invasion, stayed, and didn't run?In a world of c****s I would include, Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy, Macron and Starmer for a start.
I can’t think of one of them that wouldn’t sacrifice peace for financial gain or political stature.
Yes, that's the likely deal. Trump loves leverage, "give Putin all of Kharkiv or we'll turn off the electricity" sort of malarkey.I don't think the plan is for Trump to militarily defend them.
I think he wants to take ownership of them, in similar way, french companies own some of ours, sell Ukraine electricity from its own reactors and use them as leverage against Ukraine if needed.
I agree with two of your c***s. I have all the time in the world for Zelenskiy, and quite a lot for Macron and Starmer.The Times quotes say exactly the same as you… that they have in the past tried to link to…
That’s all.
We are in agreement here, I just haven’t really expressed myself well.
The main point is that Starmer has tried to organise an alliance of the willing or whatever and Macron has stood beside him but as always greed (on both sides here- French and English) is the stumbling block.
To be honest they both look … self serving ?
My view is that often in life - being opposed to one side does not mean you are In favour of the other side.
In a world of c****s I would include, Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy, Macron and Starmer for a start.
I can’t think of one of them that wouldn’t sacrifice peace for financial gain or political stature.
You might think I have no time for current world leaders and I have to admit I’m struggling to think of one I do have time for.