Philosophy Now Forum

Trump to Ukraine : We have a pig in a poke for you.

It seems pretty cold the way the new administration is dealing with Zelensky — given the last administration’s having set up the whole mess and stringing him along, but from a strategic and nationalistic point of view it does seem like a rational strategy.

Ukraine is in no position to bargain many are saying. It has lost the war and cannot go on. There is no other choice but to effectively surrender and accept the not very satisfying “deal” that is on offer.

The purpose of using Ukraine in this geopolitical game (it seems) had little to do with really helping the nation and more cynical purposes. Now, “they” (the US régime and multinational corporations) can “have their way” with the country. I.e. carve it up and put it to use.

The purpose of not agreeing to formalized “security agreements” is that likely they are not needed. Since Russia effectively won this conflict I have gathered from analysts that the US is not in much of a position to insist otherwise. The new US administration is taking a realistic approach: accept the loss while lamenting that the entire stooopid provoked war ever took place. And they are going to make the best out of a bad outcome: access to mineral rights (and buying up farmland, etc.)

That is the view I have gleaned from my various sources. I am interested in hearing contradictions though.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 4:12 pm What is Ukraine being offered except the prospect of being invaded by Russia in the future?

In realpolitik terms he is being offered the short end of a stick. A result of a deal where he must submit to the will of a large power-player (the US) and the loss of a certain amount of territory. And he has no choice but to accept a certain type of loss of sovereignty at the hand of the US. The “invasion” of business interests.

It does seem to me a “security guarantee” by the US is implied though. If the US invests in substantial interests there, Russia will sensibly accept that. Foolish not to, right?

It does seem to me a “security guarantee” by the US is implied though. If the US invests in substantial interests there, Russia will sensibly accept that. Foolish not to, right?

That's basically what Secretary of State Rubio said after the Oval Office blowup ... A mineral deal would bring American companies into Ukraine and America would have "skin in the game".

But let's say that Russia attacks again. Would Trump put up a fight to protect these companies in Ukraine? Or would Trump cut another deal with Putin? Putin allows the companies to operate freely and he gets to do what he wants with Ukraine in all other respects.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 4:56 pm But let's say that Russia attacks again. Would Trump put up a fight to protect these companies in Ukraine?

More likely than if the US had no stake at all in Ukraine.

You may be trying to figure out the future too far before it happens.

What's clear is this: the war needs to stop, so Ukrainians and Russians stop dying. Then some sort of arrangement needs to be worked out, diplomatically. But the first step is a ceasefire. And why Zelensky doesn't want one...well, you'll have to guess. But a lot of money from the US has disappeared...anybody can do the math.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 4:56 pm But let's say that Russia attacks again.

My understanding, correct me if I'm am wrong, is that outside of its own sphere Russia does not have much interest in the expansive policy of invading countries to the West. I cannot see what they would gain from it. My understanding is that the machinations carried out by the US precipitated the war. Is that a wrong view? I am not certain. But I have heard it a lot. And by sensible analysts.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 5:07 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 4:56 pm But let's say that Russia attacks again.

My understanding, correct me if I'm am wrong, is that outside of its own sphere Russia does not have much interest in the expansive policy of invading countries to the West. I cannot see what they would gain from it. My understanding is that the machinations carried out by the US precipitated the war. Is that a wrong view? I am not certain. But I have heard it a lot. And by sensible analysts.

The last time a foreign power came through Ukraine into Russia, it was Hitler. And as a result, Russia very nearly fell at Stalingrad, and one in seven Russians was killed in the ensuing war. If Russians are a tiny bit paranoid about foreign powers settling into Ukraine, it does make some sense, historically speaking. One doesn't have to agree with what they're doing now to see why they might think they have to do it. So recognizing the history would go some way toward allaying Russian anxieties, perhaps.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 5:07 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 4:56 pm But let's say that Russia attacks again.

My understanding, correct me if I'm am wrong, is that outside of its own sphere Russia does not have much interest in the expansive policy of invading countries to the West. I cannot see what they would gain from it. My understanding is that the machinations carried out by the US precipitated the war. Is that a wrong view? I am not certain. But I have heard it a lot. And by sensible analysts.

Russia considers all the former Soviet republics to be within its sphere.

It tries to control these states either through direct invasion or establishing puppet regimes.

Georgia, Chechnya, Belarus, Ukraine.

There is a clear pattern.

The last time a foreign power came through Ukraine into Russia, it was Hitler. And as a result, Russia very nearly fell at Stalingrad, and one in seven Russians was killed in the ensuing war. If Russians are a tiny bit paranoid about foreign powers settling into Ukraine, it does make some sense, historically speaking. One doesn't have to agree with what they're doing now to see why they might think they have to do it. So recognizing the history would go some way toward allaying Russian anxieties, perhaps.

Let's not forget that the Soviet Union and Germany agreed to carve up the world.

And it all would have worked out wonderfully ... except that you can't trust a tyrannical, invading murderer.

Hitler could not be trusted. Putin cannot be trusted.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 5:31 pm

The last time a foreign power came through Ukraine into Russia, it was Hitler. And as a result, Russia very nearly fell at Stalingrad, and one in seven Russians was killed in the ensuing war. If Russians are a tiny bit paranoid about foreign powers settling into Ukraine, it does make some sense, historically speaking. One doesn't have to agree with what they're doing now to see why they might think they have to do it. So recognizing the history would go some way toward allaying Russian anxieties, perhaps.

Let's not forget that the Soviet Union and Germany agreed to carve up the world.

Absolutely. Stalin and Hitler were both nasty dudes. But the average Russian paid the price for their hubris, just as Ukraine is now paying for Zelensky's.

Hitler could not be trusted. Putin cannot be trusted.

That's plausibly true, although, of course, one cannot deduce from the former to the latter. But why should one trust any politican? What's the evidence that Zelensky, who shuts down the democratic process in his own country, and persecutes religion, and 'disappears' billions of US dollars is some kind of trustworthy character?

Isn't it quite possible that what we have there is a basket of skunks?

But the average Russian paid the price for their hubris, just as Ukraine is now paying for Zelensky's.

Americans are going to pay the price of cozying up to Putin.
Which is what he meant when he said "“First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –”

And Trump's response was :

“You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”

Zelenskyy: “I’m not telling you. I am answering on these questions.”

Trump: “Because you’re in no position to dictate that.”

Vance: “That’s exactly what you’re doing.”

Trump: “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good.”

Zelenskyy: “You will feel influenced.”

Trump: “We are going to feel very good and very strong.”

Zelenskyy: “I am telling you. You will feel influenced.”

That's Trump's hubris.

That's plausibly true, although, of course, one cannot deduce from the former to the latter.

Putin has a track record.

But why should one trust any politican? What's the evidence that Zelensky, who shuts down the democratic process in his own country, and persecutes religion, and 'disappears' billions of US dollars is some kind of trustworthy character?

Isn't it quite possible that what we have there is a basket of skunks?

Including Trump, Vance, Rubio, etc?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:09 pm

But the average Russian paid the price for their hubris, just as Ukraine is now paying for Zelensky's.

Americans are going to pay the price of cozying up to Putin.

Honestly, I see zero evidence of that. You might be anxious that that's what's going to happen, but talks with Putin have not even begun, so far as anybody knows, so it doesn't make any sense to fear it now. And the US president claims he's interested in America's interests, not those of Russia or Ukraine. I think that's likely the case. Why would he do otherwise?

Zelenskyy: “I am telling you. You will feel influenced.”

A really, really stupid thing for him to say, from two perspectives: one, that he has no way of knowing it's true, and two that strategically, it's a super-dumb move. He's not going to get invited into the eventual diplomacy between the US and Russia by claiming, from the get-go, that Russia's got all the cards, or insulting the US's integrity in front of the press. And by doing it, he's making the case that nobody needs him...that this can be settled without him. Very silly, indeed.

Honestly, I see zero evidence of that. You might be anxious that that's what's going to happen, but talks with Putin have not even begun, so far as anybody knows, so it doesn't make any sense to fear it now. And the US president claims he's interested in America's interests, not those of Russia or Ukraine. I think that's likely the case. Why would he do otherwise?

Trump claims that he has talked to Putin many times since he got elected and since he took office.

A really, really stupid thing for him to say, from two perspectives: one, that he has no way of knowing it's true, and two that strategically, it's a super-dumb move. He's not going to get invited into the eventual diplomacy between the US and Russia by claiming, from the get-go, that Russia's got all the cards, or insulting the US's integrity in front of the press. And by doing it, he's making the case that nobody needs him...that this can be settled without him. Very silly, indeed.

The people of that region know Putin and Russia much better than Trump and his group.

Frankly, Trump and his administration look very naive.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:54 pm

Honestly, I see zero evidence of that. You might be anxious that that's what's going to happen, but talks with Putin have not even begun, so far as anybody knows, so it doesn't make any sense to fear it now. And the US president claims he's interested in America's interests, not those of Russia or Ukraine. I think that's likely the case. Why would he do otherwise?

Trump claims that he has talked to Putin many times since he got elected and since he took office.

But we don't know anything about that, good or bad. What we do know is Zelensky just piddled the bed, right in front of the cameras. He's just about cut himself completely out of any negotiations that are going to happen, and made it impossible for the US to include him. He's unlikely to retract or apologize, and essentially, he's convinced everybody he's opposed to any ceasefire. Then he dared the president to back him down or kick him to the curb...which, of course, he promptly did. Zelensky's irrelevant now. He's made himself that way.

What that will mean is that some solution will be imposed by the real power-brokers, and they won't have to care a fig for what Zelensky thinks.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 2:36 pm Trump is not offering peace.

Trump is offering Russia an opportunity to rebuilt it's stockpile of weapons and to attack with greater force in the future.

Without guarantees from America and the EU to come to Ukraine's aid in case of a future Russian attack, signing onto a Trump peace plan are suicide for Ukraine. Ukraine would be swallowed up slowly or quickly.

Putin is not the trustworthy good guy. Americans understand that and they care. Trump and his yes men/women apparently don't understand or don't care.

You ask what if Russia attacks again after making peace with Ukraine. What if Ukraine doesn't accept a peace deal or at least a cease fire and then something happens and Russia gains the upper hand, perhaps even to the point of victory? Then what? Maybe we should make peace while we can and while we have a leg to stand on.