What's new

[VIDEOS] Donald Trump blasts Volodymyr Zelensky as 'disrespectful' in public blow-up at White House

Who was at fault in the white house altercation before press?

  • Total voters
    24
HaiderAmmar said:

Who showed disrespect? Zelensky or Trump?​

  • Trump’s Behavior:
    • Trump accused Zelensky of insufficient gratitude for U.S. support, saying, “You have to be thankful. You don’t have the cards. You’re buried there. Your people are dying,” and “You’re gambling with World War III.” He spoke over Zelensky repeatedly, cutting off attempts to respond.
    • Post-meeting, Trump posted on Truth Social, claiming Zelensky “disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office” and suggested he wasn’t ready for peace if America was involved. He reiterated his earlier label of Zelensky as a “dictator without elections,” a term he’d used since at least February 19, 2025.
    • Trump’s tone was described as berating and hostile, with Vice President JD Vance joining in, accusing Zelensky of “litigating” issues publicly and disrespecting the administration.
  • Zelensky’s Behavior:
    • Zelensky challenged Trump’s approach to Russia, questioning what diplomacy was possible with Vladimir Putin, who had broken prior agreements. He pointed out Vance’s lack of firsthand experience with Ukraine’s war, saying, “You’ve never been to Ukraine.”
    • Reports note Zelensky tried to interject, emphasizing his desire to end the war, but was interrupted by Trump. His responses were firm but framed as defending Ukraine’s position, not as personal attacks.
    • After the meeting, Zelensky posted on social media, thanking the U.S. for its support and emphasizing a “just and lasting peace,” avoiding direct criticism of Trump in that statement.
Who Showed Disrespect or Insult?
  • Trump’s Disrespect and Insult to Zelensky:
    • Calling Zelensky a “dictator” (both on February 28 and earlier) is a clear insult, implying illegitimacy and authoritarianism. This echoes Kremlin narratives but lacks evidence—Zelensky was democratically elected in 2019, and elections are suspended under martial law, a legal measure since Russia’s 2022 invasion.
    • Trump’s public berating, interrupting, and dismissive tone in the Oval Office—described as a “shouting match” and “ambush”—showed disrespect to Zelensky as a visiting leader. His post-meeting claim of disrespect by Zelensky in the “cherished Oval Office” flipped the narrative, but the initial aggression came from Trump.
    • The “dictator” label, repeated over weeks, escalated into a personal attack, undermining Zelensky’s leadership during a war, which many allies (e.g., UK’s Keir Starmer, Germany’s Olaf Scholz) condemned as baseless and dangerous.
  • Zelensky’s Potential Disrespect to Trump:
    • Zelensky’s challenge to Trump’s Russia policy and his remark to Vance about not visiting Ukraine could be seen as disrespectful if interpreted as questioning their authority or competence. However, these were policy-based rebuttals, not personal insults.
    • Trump perceived Zelensky’s demeanor as disrespectful, citing “body language and argumentative manner” (per White House officials). Yet, no specific act—like name-calling or overt rudeness—stands out from Zelensky beyond
Click to expand...
Above is a dishonest attempt where summary is provided without context.

I have watched the video and gave timeline, chain of events #170.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
No, it happens only in jungle, but not in a civilized world, where one cares for the rights of weaker ones too.

And all dictators like Trump and Modi want to turn this world into jungle, while "might is right" and "the jungle law" suits to all dictators.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between dictators and democratically elected leaders? Learn that first.

And you are mistaken if you think hard earned taxpayers money and lives of soldiers of a country are be sacrificed for another country. That happened when Western countries used to have colonies, not anymore.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
No, because they want to destroy and loot the weaker ones and don't want to give them their rights. Because they are rubbish as human beings and want to destroy every law (even their own state institutions) while they want to become above the law (as every dictator wants to be above the law).
Click to expand...

Do you live in any of these countries? Do you speak for the people of these countries?

Because in my country we are free to vote whosoever we want. We can remove Modi via our votes. Stop worrying about India and Indians.

US removed Trump once.

Netanyahu has lost elections too.

So this agenda peddling of yours isn't working.

Trump has decided that American money and resources are not for Ukrainians to fight wars.

This is no charity.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Your nation's security is your responsibility not someone else's.
Click to expand...
in 1961 India was seeking US intervention and almost received it, when we were getting our behinds pummeled by the chinese. when your house is on fire, you grab everything: your own bucket, your neighbor's bucket, your distant neighbor's bucket... all to hurl water at the flames.

stop with this foolishness that somehow ukraine failed to defend itself. you live in the shadow of a much larger and significantly more powerful country that if it were not concerned about the geopolitical ramifications and detriment to its own economy, could annex most of himachal and uttrakhand in less than 30 days. it already occupies half of arunachal, and it has managed to force bhutan into surrendering territory.

and when that inevitable showdown does occur, whether it is modi, or keriwal, or rahul, or whomever... will be jet setting straight for brussels and washington dc to seek assistance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Western leaders to work on Ukraine ceasefire and present plan to Trump, says Starmer​


The UK, France and Ukraine will work on a ceasefire plan to present to the United States, the prime minister has said, in the wake of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's White House clash with Donald Trump.

Sir Keir Starmer, who visited Washington on Thursday, said he believes Mr Trump does want a "lasting peace" between Russia and Ukraine.

He also said Europe is in a "moment of real fragility" and said he would not trust the word of Vladimir Putin.

Referring to the argument in the White House's Oval Office on Thursday between Mr Trump, US vice president JD Vance and Ukrainian president Mr Zelenskyy, the PM said it made him feel "uncomfortable".

"Nobody wants to see that," he told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.


He added: "We have to find a way that we can all work together. Because, in the end, we've had three years of bloody conflict. Now, we need to get to that lasting peace."

The prime minister said he was in his office when the White House shouting match began to be broadcast.

"Clearly, you know, there's a lot of tension," he said. "The cameras were on."

Later in the evening he phoned both Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskyy, saying his "driving purpose" is to "bridge this and get us back to the central focus".


On Saturday, the PM said he had "quite a long time with President Zelenskyy" before speaking to Donald Trump and French president Emmanuel Macron on he phone.

"We've now agreed that the United Kingdom, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, and then we'll discuss that plan with the United States," he said.

On Mr Trump, he said: "I am clear in my mind that he does want a lasting peace."

Asked why that was the case, he said: "Because I've spoken to him a number of times. I've got to know him. I've had extensive discussions with him and I believe his motivation is lasting peace."

He added: "If the central question you're putting to me is do I trust Donald Trump when he says he wants lasting peace? The answer to that question is yes."

The PM said he was still pushing for a US "backstop" on Ukrainian security, adding that it was the subject of "intense" discussion.

The "components of a lasting peace", he said, included a "strong Ukraine to fight on, if necessary, to be in a position of strength".

He is also pursuing a "European element to security guarantees".

"That's why I've been forward-leaning on this about what we would do - and a US backstop," he said.

"That's the package: all three parts need to be in place, and that's what I'm working hard to bring together."

Asked if he would trust Vladimir Putin, Sir Keir said: "Well, no, I wouldn't trust Putin, which is why I want a security guarantee.

"I wouldn't trust him not to come again, because he's proven that he will come again. He's already done it and we know what his ambitions are."

Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said his party would support sending British troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers in the event that a "credible" deal is struck.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said European nations need to "make sure that America does not disengage", adding: "If we all get dragged into an escalation, America will get dragged into it eventually."

She described Volodymyr Zelenslyy as a "hero" and said her heart "went out to" to him during the on-camera argument at the White House.

"I watched it and I couldn't believe what was happening," she said. "He was being humiliated."

Such "difficult conversations" should not happen in front of the cameras, she added.

news.sky.com

Western leaders to work on Ukraine ceasefire and present plan to Trump, says Starmer

The prime minister says he believes Donald Trump does want lasting peace in Ukraine because he has "got to know him" and had "extensive discussions with him".
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
Varun said:
Imagine if Putin comes for the UK next. This subset of British Pakistanis will happily join forces to participate in the "liberation".
Click to expand...
Putin has no reason to do that. Don’t believe everything you read in the western media. There was a reason Putin was forced to invade Ukraine. Like I said there are no moral upright leaders or righteous states here.

But I do get your point. Europe and the West have successfully avoided war on their land mostly because they keep others busy fighting each other. 😁
 
rickroll said:
Not true definitely since 2014. Especially now - the case in point is all the EU governments scampering for stepping up their defense deals, military infrastructure, defense spending etc now that the US gravy train is slowing down. We can literally find 100s of reputable news articles these days for this.

Are the EU countries listed below sending aid to Ukraine as Christmas gifts if not for perceived Russian threats?

To clarify - I am NOT saying if the perception of Russian threat by EU is genuine or not. I am only saying that EU's perception of Russian threat exists.

View attachment 151526

Link for above image -- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218

UK offering to send troops to Ukraine (why offer troops if UK thinks Russian threat is not real?) - https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...raine-support-russia-peace/story?id=118886868
Click to expand...

EU's perception of threat from Russia does not mean that it is justified, something that even you have acknowledged. If anything you could argue their spending on military hardware for Ukraine could be construed as them being the threat, not Russia.

I live in the UK, to me it seems pretty obvious that the Ukraine is Russia's backyard not ours. I'd be pretty p!ssed if Russia was supplying weapons to Ireland or Wales in a separatist movement.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Do you live in any of these countries? Do you speak for the people of these countries?

Because in my country we are free to vote whosoever we want. We can remove Modi via our votes. Stop worrying about India and Indians.

US removed Trump once.

Netanyahu has lost elections too.

So this agenda peddling of yours isn't working.

Trump has decided that American money and resources are not for Ukrainians to fight wars.

This is no charity.
Click to expand...

What kind of answer is that? We are talking about stronger countries with dictatorships attacking weaker countries and then demanding that they surrender part of their land (or completely submit) in the name of peace. Otherwise, they threaten to kill civilians in one way or another and hold the population hostage.

Nothing is 100% perfect in this world, not even democracy (which you are using as an excuse). Even in a democracy, the majority bloc can turn into a dictatorship, using the power of the vote to start usurping the rights of minority groups. Remember: basic human rights are above democracy, and no majority should have the power to violate fundamental rights just because they have the numbers.

Modi is a prime example—he has destroyed the police and other state institutions, using them against his opponents to turn himself into a dictator through the votes of the majority.

Putin is another example—he controls state institutions to eliminate opposition under the guise of democracy and has placed himself above the law.

Trump is also trying to do the same by compromising state institutions to shield himself from accountability.

Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Hugo Chávez all came to power through democratic elections, yet they systematically destroyed the independence of state institutions, used them against their opponents, and became dictators.

Netanyahu is also attempting to dismantle the independence of the Supreme Court in Israel, aiming to bring it under the control of the executive branch.
 
Indians in a tail spin here, oops I mean stateless Indians.

One minute Modi is their saviour, then the next Trump is their messiah.

About a month ago Trump signed an EO to boot Indians out of Amreeka, and he was Indian enemy 1!

Indian/Amreekans have no skin in this game - they didn’t even know where Ukraine was until the war broke out.

We all have front line tickets for the demise of Amreeka and India with it.

Grab the popcorn!
 
cricketjoshila said:
And you are mistaken if you think hard earned taxpayers money and lives of soldiers of a country are be sacrificed for another country. That happened when Western countries used to have colonies, not anymore.
Click to expand...

Sir, you are mistaken. If we follow your logic, then it will become the end of the civilized world, and we will fall back into the dark ages, where only "might was right". Where stronger countries were invading the weaker countries and no one was coming to save the weak people.

You, Mr. Joshila, is making this statement today only while you feel yourself stronger today. Thus, you feel no moral duty for weaker people. Otherwise, this same game of "might is right" was played against India in the past and you make complaints against it.
 
Itachi said:
Above is a dishonest attempt where summary is provided without context.
Click to expand...

Show us directly the dishonesty in the summary which I presented? Show us the so-called CONTEXT that you are claiming here.

Itachi said:
I have watched the video and gave timeline, chain of events #170.
Click to expand...

Actually your post had not considered the CONTEXT and not even considered how Trump was constantly blaming Zelensky to be a dictator and how Trump was already trying to rob him off of the precious rare metals without giving any guarantee. You want to talk about CONTEXT, ok let's begin with it.
 
Itachi said:
Ukraine doesn't trust US. It just doesn't have any other option/alternative.
Click to expand...

You are again missing the point. It is not Ukrain's fault of not trusting Trump, but it is about Trump's (and your's attempt) to run away from your all moral responsibilities and BLACKMAIL Ukraine in the name of having no option/alternative.

Ukraine was already trusting Biden and still trusting EU much more than Trump. Although not 100% PERFECT, but they were still in the acceptable range of trustworthy partners for Ukraine as they were fulfilling that moral duty and keeping Ukraine strong in any kind of peace deal which could bring real lasting peace.
 
pakistani pride said:
You need to do some research...
Click to expand...

What research do I need when I wrote:

Ukraine entered into an agreement with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia to secure guarantees for its borders in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear arsenal. Trump has claimed he bears no responsibility for Russia’s actions during the tenures of previous presidents, but this stance is inaccurate since Ukraine’s agreement was with the U.S. as a nation, not specifically with the president in office at the time.Now Trump again wants Ukraine to give away its territory without making any security deals and only believing in Trump. Is it really JUSTICE?

Please elaborate where am I wrong in my research here.
 
captain.hansolo said:
in 1961 India was seeking US intervention and almost received it, when we were getting our behinds pummeled by the chinese. when your house is on fire, you grab everything: your own bucket, your neighbor's bucket, your distant neighbor's bucket... all to hurl water at the flames.

stop with this foolishness that somehow ukraine failed to defend itself. you live in the shadow of a much larger and significantly more powerful country that if it were not concerned about the geopolitical ramifications and detriment to its own economy, could annex most of himachal and uttrakhand in less than 30 days. it already occupies half of arunachal, and it has managed to force bhutan into surrendering territory.

and when that inevitable showdown does occur, whether it is modi, or keriwal, or rahul, or whomever... will be jet setting straight for brussels and washington dc to seek assistance.
Click to expand...
Let’s add that it was Kennedy who kept Pak at bay in 1962.

Startling number Putin-Trump loving *’wits on this forum. Yes , I’m looking at you @Champ_Pal , @cricketjoshila @Romali_rotti
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HaiderAmmar said:
Show us directly the dishonesty in the summary which I presented? Show us the so-called CONTEXT that you are claiming here.



Actually your post had not considered the CONTEXT and not even considered how Trump was constantly blaming Zelensky to be a dictator and how Trump was already trying to rob him off of the precious rare metals without giving any guarantee. You want to talk about CONTEXT, ok let's begin with it.
Click to expand...
Have you watched the whole meeting?
 
HaiderAmmar said:
You are again missing the point. It is not Ukrain's fault of not trusting Trump, but it is about Trump's (and your's attempt) to run away from your all moral responsibilities and BLACKMAIL Ukraine in the name of having no option/alternative.

Ukraine was already trusting Biden and still trusting EU much more than Trump. Although not 100% PERFECT, but they were still in the acceptable range of trustworthy partners for Ukraine as they were fulfilling that moral duty and keeping Ukraine strong in any kind of peace deal which could bring real lasting peace.
Click to expand...

1. No one is blackmailing Ukraine. Zelinsky has every option to not to take any resources from others and face on your own.
2. Moral responsibility is just a facade in diplomatic relationships.
 
Itachi said:
1. No one is blackmailing Ukraine. Zelinsky has every option to not to take any resources from others and face on your own.
2. Moral responsibility is just a facade in diplomatic relationships.
Click to expand...
Bet FDR is rolling in his grave. Hearing things like this from Indians, I honestly am tempted to encourage China and Pak to coordinate and rip India to shreds.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a US guarantee. Did it not?

Ukraine should kept some to make a dirty bomb and sent it Moscow’s way
 
Last edited by a moderator:
captain.hansolo said:
in 1961 India was seeking US intervention and almost received it, when we were getting our behinds pummeled by the chinese. when your house is on fire, you grab everything: your own bucket, your neighbor's bucket, your distant neighbor's bucket... all to hurl water at the flames.

stop with this foolishness that somehow ukraine failed to defend itself. you live in the shadow of a much larger and significantly more powerful country that if it were not concerned about the geopolitical ramifications and detriment to its own economy, could annex most of himachal and uttrakhand in less than 30 days. it already occupies half of arunachal, and it has managed to force bhutan into surrendering territory.

and when that inevitable showdown does occur, whether it is modi, or keriwal, or rahul, or whomever... will be jet setting straight for brussels and washington dc to seek assistance.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. India wasn't seeking US intervention. India was seeking US arms and ammunition. India was looking to buy war materials from any available source.

Buying war materials and asking a country to fund a war are two different things.

You are talking absolute rubbish. Don't worry about a nuclear armed India which has the 4th strongest army in the world currently.

China isn't getting any territory now. Whatever China is occupying is from 1962. The only reason for that was Nehru's foolishness and his cronies who were appointed to high posts in the army including the army chief.

Just few months back China was forced to pull back its forces after 4 years of eye to eye deployment.

We are not a bankrupt nation surviving on international dole outs. Never were.

This imaginary scenario of yours where China will occupy Indian provinces at will isn't happening.

India fights its own wars with its own resources.

Ukraine's problem isn't USA's problem.
 
rpant_gabba said:
Bet FDR is rolling in his grave. Hearing things like this from Indians, I honestly am tempted to encourage China and Pak to coordinate and rip India to shreds

Ukraine should kept some to make a dirty bomb and sent it Moscow’s way
Click to expand...

If India was that easy to be torn, it would have been torn already.

China has learnt its lesson at Doklam and Galwan. Signed agreements and pulled back..

So go tempt whosoever you want to.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
Sir, you are mistaken. If we follow your logic, then it will become the end of the civilized world, and we will fall back into the dark ages, where only "might was right". Where stronger countries were invading the weaker countries and no one was coming to save the weak people.

You, Mr. Joshila, is making this statement today only while you feel yourself stronger today. Thus, you feel no moral duty for weaker people. Otherwise, this same game of "might is right" was played against India in the past and you make complaints against it.
Click to expand...

We didn't sign off our safety to someone else.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
What kind of answer is that? We are talking about stronger countries with dictatorships attacking weaker countries and then demanding that they surrender part of their land (or completely submit) in the name of peace. Otherwise, they threaten to kill civilians in one way or another and hold the population hostage.

Nothing is 100% perfect in this world, not even democracy (which you are using as an excuse). Even in a democracy, the majority bloc can turn into a dictatorship, using the power of the vote to start usurping the rights of minority groups. Remember: basic human rights are above democracy, and no majority should have the power to violate fundamental rights just because they have the numbers.

Modi is a prime example—he has destroyed the police and other state institutions, using them against his opponents to turn himself into a dictator through the votes of the majority.

Putin is another example—he controls state institutions to eliminate opposition under the guise of democracy and has placed himself above the law.

Trump is also trying to do the same by compromising state institutions to shield himself from accountability.

Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Hugo Chávez all came to power through democratic elections, yet they systematically destroyed the independence of state institutions, used them against their opponents, and became dictators.

Netanyahu is also attempting to dismantle the independence of the Supreme Court in Israel, aiming to bring it under the control of the executive branch.
Click to expand...

Modi has destroyed institutions? Which one? Modi is dependent on the votes of the people to survive.

People gave him less seats this time. He could have lost.

People want him that's why he is there. There isn't any destruction of democracy in India. I know it because i live here.

Just that the leftist and globalist agenda doesn't work here.

Trump just won a thumping victory in USA. 4 years and American people can remove him.
 
Itachi said:
1. No one is blackmailing Ukraine. Zelinsky has every option to not to take any resources from others and face on your own.
Click to expand...

Of course, Trump is shirking his moral obligation. He is also blackmailing Zelensky—pressuring him to surrender Ukrainian land to Russia and hand over the country's rare metals to the U.S., all without offering any security guarantees for Ukraine.

You haven't addressed the key question: If Trump failed in his duty as U.S. president to secure Ukraine's borders after it gave up its nuclear weapons, why would he protect Ukraine’s borders in the future—especially after exploiting its rare metals?

And yet, you blame Ukraine for not trusting Trump. How blind must one be to not see that the issue isn’t Ukraine’s lack of trust in Trump, but rather selfish dictators like Trump, who are utterly, utterly untrustworthy. These power-hungry leaders have no morals—they would even sell their own mother for personal gain.
Itachi said:
2. Moral responsibility is just a facade in diplomatic relationships.
Click to expand...

No, Biden was fulfilling the moral duty within the acceptable range. The EU is fulfilling it.

Without moral responsibilities, we will again land in dark ages where stronger powers will simply invade the weaker ones and no one will come to help the weak people. You have never addressed this point.

If you are an Indian, then remember how stronger powers kept on invading India in the past. Do you now want to do the same to other weak ones?
 
HaiderAmmar said:
Everyone wants peace—there’s no debate there. But the way Trump is going about it is a disaster. You don’t broker peace by slamming your own ally, branding them a “dictator,” and leaving them dangling in a vulnerable spot. That’s not negotiation; it’s sabotage. To forge a solid peace, you’ve got to back the side fighting for its survival, not tear it down in public. Trump’s approach reeks of weakness masked as bravado, and it’s a terrible signal to send.
The real issue here is Trump himself—he’s the glitch in this equation. His tactics don’t just undermine Ukraine; they embolden Russia in a way that’s dangerously shortsighted. Let’s be clear: if Russia comes out on top—and Trump seems oddly fine with that—this won’t end at Ukraine’s borders. Russia’s not some fading power; it’s got the muscle, the nukes, and the will to keep pushing. A “peace deal” won’t disarm that threat—it’ll just convince Putin that the free world blinks when faced with nuclear bluster or the specter of global conflict. History backs this up: appeasement fuels aggression, not restraint.
And here’s where it gets worse—Trump’s playbook could turn on us. If he’s cool with Russia steamrolling a neighbor, what stops him from eyeing Canada, Greenland, or Panama next? Picture it: he marches in, demands they bow to a “peace deal” under threat, just like he’s nudging Ukraine to do. It’s not far-fetched—his rhetoric thrives on dominance, not diplomacy. Once that precedent’s set, every strongman from Pyongyang to Caracas will see a green light to bully their own backyard, knowing the U.S. won’t stand firm. Trump’s not just risking Ukraine; he’s inviting a world where might trumps right everywhere.
Click to expand...
I dislike Trump he is rude and has treated Ukraine and Zelensky extremely rudely. But as I said I the war seems endless and thus a deal is needed to prevent future loss. Tbh I think Trump is just pretending taking over Canada etc he’s just trying to force his hand. Plus he dislikes spending more money and wants taxes lower. It seems ridiculous, his tactics feel like a bully in a school yard. But no I don’t think he is warmongering or serious with plans to take over countries. Regardless though it’s about getting the best deal for this war in Ukraine.

Russia is a faded power. Countries these days do not have true power or fight with military. Military weapons are quickly outdated with how technology evolves. We’ve seen that in this war. The most important thing these days are economies. Wars and disagreements are actually more usually fought through economic tariffs. Russia lags far behind in economy and even I doubt their weapons are of the newest and top technology. If China told Russia to end the war and give back Ukraine, I doubt Russia would have the power to refuse. And that’s the problem partly, we can’t exactly cut off economic trade and support from their major allies eg China and India to an extent. So Russia stays afloat.

NATO is an effective deterrent and Putin won’t invade a country of NATO for fears of sparking a world war. So I don’t think further invasion into other countries is likely. Ukraine was invaded mainly due to they had to invade now rather than after it had joined NATO. Ukraine will also unlikely ever be allowed to join NATO for this reason which is a shame for the Ukraine people who won’t enjoy the protection that a lot of the neighbouring countries have. NATO is a lot more enforceable than the other obligations of protecting Ukraine for giving back their nuclear weapons.

I don’t think Putin will invade again as this war has been a failure. Russia’s economy has be hit far more than the benefit of the war even if Russia gets to keep some Ukraine territory. It still won’t have been worth it as a country’s power through economy is far more powerful than gaining a bit of extra land. Even if they develop some of the resources there it still isn’t enough to recover long term damage economically to their country. Putin I feel tried it again as he thought it would go down similar to Crimea. Perhaps we were too lenient then. Not now. The next step up from the Ukraine war would be a world war. Which Putin won’t risk again. The war has already been a failure for Putin and Russia. The only thing left is trying to save face for a dictator in Putin so he can walk away and give peace. It’s not right, but we’re dealing with a dictator in Putin who will allow his country to suffer and be in war for the sake of his reputation/position.

A benefit of ending the war is a lot of us western powers can give aid and develop resources in order to allow Ukraine to recover more quickly economically. Russia on the other hand won’t have that advantage, it would take too much, the country is too large and countries would be far less willing to help.

If we think Putin won’t stop and invade again. The answer is not to stop the war. Continue it and win. Western powers would have to pledge more money and risk nuclear war to end the war decisively. Which they won’t. So things would progress very slowly. Might take a decade or two. Countless more people will be lost. The reason why all parties are contemplating a deal even Ukraine is because IMO deep down people feel like Russia won’t just invade again. Otherwise a deal would be pointless. I think it’s not that a deal shouldn’t be made or not. It’s about getting what’s fair for the Ukrainians. And unfortunately I don’t think it’s realistic to get what’s truly fair for Ukrainians which is the entire territory back, which Putin won’t agree it would mark that Russia lost the war. So it’s about trying to get the fairest solution for Ukrainian people that ends the war. Which given the limited power of Ukraine as a whole is likely to result in concessions.
 
cricketjoshila said:
We didn't sign off our safety to someone else.
Click to expand...

This is a very selfish statement. If you are strong today, it doesn't mean all small nations are strong enough to defend themselves from the invasions from stronger and bigger powers.

Do you really want the bigger powers today to usurp the land and resources of smaller countries? Do you really want to snatch away the right from weaker people to live?

And the question was not about today's India, but it was about the history of India when it was invaded and looted and it had no option except to surrender.

Without a moral civilized world, which is ready to help weaker nations against the dictatorships of bigger powers as a moral duty, we will fall back in the dark times. And it is so unfortunate that you forgot today the dark times of India.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Modi has destroyed institutions? Which one? Modi is dependent on the votes of the people to survive.

People gave him less seats this time. He could have lost.

People want him that's why he is there. There isn't any destruction of democracy in India. I know it because i live here.

Just that the leftist and globalist agenda doesn't work here.
Click to expand...

Modi is already using police and other state institutions to harass his opponents.

And no, if the majority block of the society become extremists, then they will keep on choosing Modi again and again and again. Extremists don't care about the FUNDAMENTAL Basic rights of minorities or of the opposition.

I don't know in which India you live in. Or otherwise, you are not a neutral person, but yourself a supporter of that fanatic majority block.

Your problem is you are not answering our all arguments. For example I quoted the examples of Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Hugo Chávez. These dictators were kept chosen by their majority block again and again. So, how can you then claim that democracy is 100% and thus we cannot call Modi, Trump, Putin and Netanyahu type people dictators when they are openly doing injustice towards others?


cricketjoshila said:
Trump just won a thumping victory in USA. 4 years and American people can remove him.
Click to expand...

Victory doesn't mean he is right on ALL issues including Ukraine.
And no, we don't have to wait for 4 years to protest against unjust stance of Trump. We have all the right to expose his wrongdoings.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
Modi is already using police and other state institutions to harass his opponents.

And no, if the majority block of the society become extremists, then they will keep on choosing Modi again and again and again. Extremists don't care about the FUNDAMENTAL Basic rights of minorities or of the opposition.

I don't know in which India you live in. Or otherwise, you are not a neutral person, but yourself a supporter of that fanatic majority block.

Your problem is you are not answering our all arguments. For example I quoted the examples of Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Hugo Chávez. These dictators were kept chosen by their majority block again and again. So, how can you then claim that democracy is 100% and thus we cannot call Modi, Trump, Putin and Netanyahu type people dictators when they are openly doing injustice towards others?




Victory doesn't mean he is right on ALL issues including Ukraine.
And no, we don't have to wait for 4 years to protest against unjust stance of Trump. We have all the right to expose his wrongdoings.
Click to expand...
Brother you are a really good poster like @KB
 
HaiderAmmar said:
Modi is already using police and other state institutions to harass his opponents.

And no, if the majority block of the society become extremists, then they will keep on choosing Modi again and again and again. Extremists don't care about the FUNDAMENTAL Basic rights of minorities or of the opposition.

I don't know in which India you live in. Or otherwise, you are not a neutral person, but yourself a supporter of that fanatic majority block.

Your problem is you are not answering our all arguments. For example I quoted the examples of Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Hugo Chávez. These dictators were kept chosen by their majority block again and again. So, how can you then claim that democracy is 100% and thus we cannot call Modi, Trump, Putin and Netanyahu type people dictators when they are openly doing injustice towards others?




Victory doesn't mean he is right on ALL issues including Ukraine.
And no, we don't have to wait for 4 years to protest against unjust stance of Trump. We have all the right to expose his wrongdoings.
Click to expand...
1. Incorrect.

2. So majority of Indians are extemists. The extremist here is you because you can't tolerate views that differ from you and start calling millions extremists and elected leaders dictators.

3. Comparison of banana republics to a functional democracy is the only example?

4. There is only one India. And this minority card isn't working.

5. Americans will decide if Trump is right or wrong. RoW can only watch.
 
ads101 said:
I dislike Trump he is rude and has treated Ukraine and Zelensky extremely rudely. But as I said I the war seems endless and thus a deal is needed to prevent future loss. Tbh I think Trump is just pretending taking over Canada etc he’s just trying to force his hand. Plus he dislikes spending more money and wants taxes lower. It seems ridiculous, his tactics feel like a bully in a school yard. But no I don’t think he is warmongering or serious with plans to take over countries. Regardless though it’s about getting the best deal for this war in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

I agree that peace in Ukraine is necessary, but I strongly disagree with Trump’s approach and his method of achieving a solid and lasting peace deal.


First, Trump’s behavior will only embolden future conflicts, where powerful factions invade weaker ones, seize land, and then demand peace deals on their terms. This sets a dangerous precedent.


Second, by making it a norm to openly threaten smaller nations, Trump isn't just setting his own precedent—other dictators will follow suit. This could encourage further invasions, such as China attacking Taiwan or Israel annexing the West Bank.


Third, Trump is no angel. When given the opportunity, he will invade. Just look at how he ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force. If Trump sees a strategic benefit in attacking a country and believes he can get away with it, he will act in his own interests, regardless of the consequences.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
I agree that peace in Ukraine is necessary, but I strongly disagree with Trump’s approach and his method of achieving a solid and lasting peace deal.


First, Trump’s behavior will only embolden future conflicts, where powerful factions invade weaker ones, seize land, and then demand peace deals on their terms. This sets a dangerous precedent.


Second, by making it a norm to openly threaten smaller nations, Trump isn't just setting his own precedent—other dictators will follow suit. This could encourage further invasions, such as China attacking Taiwan or Israel annexing the West Bank.


Third, Trump is no angel. When given the opportunity, he will invade. Just look at how he ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force. If Trump sees a strategic benefit in attacking a country and believes he can get away with it, he will act in his own interests, regardless of the consequences.
Click to expand...

China hasn't attacked Taiwan in decades.

Israel will retaliate to any provocation.

Trump's job is to run America. Not Russia or Ukraine.
 
rpant_gabba said:
Let’s add that it was Kennedy who kept Pak at bay in 1962.

Startling number Putin-Trump loving *’wits on this forum. Yes , I’m looking at you @Champ_Pal , @cricketjoshila @Romali_rotti
Click to expand...
Indeed, Kennedy even wanted to consider the use of nuclear weapons to slow down Chinese aggression, whereas in 1971, Kissinger wanted, nay goaded china into attacking India. Unlucky for him the Chinese distrust of American exceeded their imperialist desires in India.
 
cricketjoshila said:
China hasn't attacked Taiwan in decades.

Israel will retaliate to any provocation.

Trump's job is to run America. Not Russia or Ukraine.
Click to expand...
How is this clown allowed to post nonsense such as this? Netanyahu is responsible for murder of 50k Palestinian children. Most below the age of 15. Maybe the kids in his neighborhood bully this crank but in most parts of the world kids do not provocate enough to warrant murder.
 
rickroll said:
To the EU/UK posters here who harp in their typical salty anti-US stance that the US is seeking global hegemony, who did not? Every country vies for influence in other areas given a chance - did we forget all of the EU colonial expansions?

Even in modern times, below is a map of French military bases in Africa, all of which were closed and I believe France is completely pulling out of Africa now. They were pressured to do so by the local governments and surprise surprise because the US gravy train is also slowing.

So France can afford to set up bases in Africa for their selfish reasons (to exert control and also use France backed CFA as the monetary unit to make money) but they cannot pitch in to help Ukraine and defend EU and somehow US tax payer money is needed for that?

I refuse to send my taxes so that "Pierre in Nice" can get free health insurance for his second and third cousins. This is unfair that we as Americans are expected to keep giving our tax money for this nonsense with EU/UK guilt tripping us while they silently continue with their own expansions.


View attachment 151528

www.rt.com

Adieu: Africa’s military breakup with France is official

African leaders announcing the closure of Frensh military bases send a clear sign that Africa is rejecting France’s policies
www.rt.com www.rt.com
Click to expand...

I believe you aren’t reading it correctly. The US is losing it after it had achieved global hegemony.
 
captain.hansolo said:
How is this clown allowed to post nonsense such as this? Netanyahu is responsible for murder of 50k Palestinian children. Most below the age of 15. Maybe the kids in his neighborhood bully this crank but in most parts of the world kids do not provocate enough to warrant murder.
Click to expand...

Don’t call him out.

He will then cry about that y’all hate Hindus.

If some of them weren’t coward then they would actively participate in killing Muslims.
 
captain.hansolo said:
How is this clown allowed to post nonsense such as this? Netanyahu is responsible for murder of 50k Palestinian children. Most below the age of 15. Maybe the kids in his neighborhood bully this crank but in most parts of the world kids do not provocate enough to warrant murder.
Click to expand...

Israel is at war.

Russia is at war.

And you are posting imaginary scenarios.

Learn to be realistic.
 
HalBass9 said:
Don’t call him out.

He will then cry about that y’all hate Hindus.

If some of them weren’t coward then they would actively participate in killing Muslims.
Click to expand...

You hate Hindus. You believe its your basic fundamental right to criticize Sanatan dharma.

Not that it makes any difference. Pakistani Muslims are supposed to hate hindus. Its expected.
 
captain.hansolo said:
Indeed, Kennedy even wanted to consider the use of nuclear weapons to slow down Chinese aggression, whereas in 1971, Kissinger wanted, nay goaded china into attacking India. Unlucky for him the Chinese distrust of American exceeded their imperialist desires in India.
Click to expand...

😂

No American weapons came. Kennedy was busy with the Cuban missile crisis. This imaginary scenario of yours didn't happen.

It was USSR which supplied weapons to India.

India had already concluded a deal with USSR against any Chinese involvement in 1971.

The Sino Soviet split was still simmering and USSR was happy to have a military pact with India.
 
cricketjoshila said:
You hate Hindus. You believe its your basic fundamental right to criticize Sanatan dharma.

Not that it makes any difference. Pakistani Muslims are supposed to hate hindus. Its expected.
Click to expand...

I hate Hindutva bigots like yourself.

You don’t get to accuse me to hate Hindus because you are a bigot.
 
HalBass9 said:
I hate Hindutva bigots like yourself.

You don’t get to accuse me to hate Hindus because you are a bigot.
Click to expand...

I don't poke my nose into other's religion and believe its my fundamental right to criticize another religion.

Its you who do so.

I very well get this tactics of yours and other's like you, attack a section of religious group by giving them a different name. Then keep doing that till you make the followers of that religion into non followers.

May work elsewhere. Not with us Hindus. We know exactly how the likes of you function.

This minority/racism/radicals card isn't going to work on us.

Pakistanis should be the last people to talk about this. Go first change your country. Go do some minority rights activism in Pakistan.
 
cricketjoshila said:
I don't poke my nose into other's religion and believe its my fundamental right to criticize another religion.

Its you who do so.

I very well get this tactics of yours and other's like you, attack a section of religious group by giving them a different name. Then keep doing that till you make the followers of that religion into non followers.

May work elsewhere. Not with us Hindus. We know exactly how the likes of you function.

This minority/racism/radicals card isn't going to work on us.

Pakistanis should be the last people to talk about this. Go first change your country. Go do some minority rights activism in Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Big sentence from little minded people.

You don’t poke your nose you just endorse and support the bigotry and get upset when someone criticize it.

No one is trying to change your mind, you have wholeheartedly internalized anti-Muslim bigotry.

No need to feel special.
 
HalBass9 said:
Big sentence from little minded people.

You don’t poke your nose you just endorse and support the bigotry and get upset when someone criticize it.

No one is trying to change your mind, you have wholeheartedly internalized anti-Muslim bigotry.

No need to feel special.
Click to expand...

Show one post of mine critical of

Allah (SWT)
The Prophet (PBUH)
The holy Quran

I give Islam the respect i give every religion including mine.

I am very critical of any attempts of disrespecting Islam via cartoons.

That's my respect towards Islam.

But you believe any person who is religious and practices another religion is a bigot. You believe its your right to criticize another religion.

I won't change my mind and start disrespecting your religion and poke my nose into Islamic practices because you do it for Sanatan.

When are you going to start some work for the non Muslims of Pakistan?
 
If Russia is a has been power what is stopping Amreeka/NATO ending it once and for all?

Oh that's right, Russia was reborn after the usual western antics, but this time Russia comes with the East and is heck of a lot more powerful.

Remember, neither Amreeka or NATO have the balls to go toe to toe with Russia (China for that matter too).

The best Amreeka/NATO has are sanctions. 🤣🤣🤣
 
cricketjoshila said:
Show one post of mine critical of

Allah (SWT)
The Prophet (PBUH)
The holy Quran

I give Islam the respect i give every religion including mine.

I am very critical of any attempts of disrespecting Islam via cartoons.

That's my respect towards Islam.

But you believe any person who is religious and practices another religion is a bigot. You believe its your right to criticize another religion.

I won't change my mind and start disrespecting your religion and poke my nose into Islamic practices because you do it for Sanatan.

When are you going to start some work for the non Muslims of Pakistan?
Click to expand...

I don’t have to when you support Hindutva. lol

Show me any post where I’ve disrespected Hindus?

I’m going to disrespect anyone who would suggest that killing other humans is absolutely fine over their beliefs.

Fetch on.

lol, now back to, what about Pakistan.

No need to get upset someone criticizes Hindutva bigots. Lol
 
HaiderAmmar said:
Firstly, it still does not make 350 Billion aid from the US as Trump and you are propagating.
Secondly, this figure is also wrong.

The U.S. has provided $119.7 billion to Ukraine’s war effort, compared to the EU’s $138.7-$145 billion (institutions plus member states). The EU surpasses the U.S. overall, driven by financial and humanitarian aid, though the U.S. leads in military support.

U.S. Contributions

  • Total U.S. Aid: Approximately $119.7 billion USD (€111 billion at recent exchange rates).
    • Military Aid: $64 billion, including weapons, equipment, and training (e.g., HIMARS, Abrams tanks, F-16 support). This figure reflects allocations—aid delivered or earmarked—rather than just pledges.
    • Financial Aid: $46 billion, mostly grants to Ukraine’s government for budget support (e.g., salaries, infrastructure).
    • Humanitarian Aid: $3.5 billion, covering refugee support and in-country assistance.
  • Broader Estimates: The U.S. Department of Defense and Congress report a higher total of $175 billion through five supplemental appropriations (up to April 2024), but this includes $69 billion for replenishing U.S. stockpiles and other indirect costs (e.g., NATO presence in Europe), not direct aid to Ukraine. The Kiel figure of $119.7 billion is the direct bilateral aid, aligning with your question’s focus.
EU Contributions
The European Union’s contributions are more complex, as they combine EU institutional aid (via the European Commission and European Investment Bank) with bilateral aid from its 27 member states. Kiel Institute data, corroborated by EU statements, provides:
  • Total EU Aid (Institutions + Member States): Approximately $138.7 billion USD (€130 billion) through December 2024.
    • EU Institutions:
      • Financial Aid: $68 billion, including grants and highly concessional loans (e.g., the €50 billion Ukraine Facility, 2024-2027).
      • Military Aid: $5-6 billion via the European Peace Facility (EPF), though some sources estimate higher when including joint procurement.
      • Humanitarian Aid: $17 billion, largely for refugees and in-country needs.
    • EU Member States (Bilateral):
      • Military Aid: $53 billion, led by Germany ($19.4 billion), Denmark, and the Netherlands.
      • Financial/Humanitarian: Roughly $50 billion, with significant refugee support (e.g., Poland’s $22.7 billion).
  • EU Claims: The EU’s official site (EEAS, updated February 25, 2025) cites $145 billion total, with 65% as grants/in-kind and 35% as loans, slightly higher than Kiel’s estimate, possibly due to broader definitions (e.g., future commitments like the $54 billion Facility).
Comparison
  • Raw Totals:
    • U.S.: $119.7 billion (direct bilateral aid).
    • EU (Institutions + Members): $138.7 billion (Kiel) or $145 billion (EU estimate).
    • Verdict: The EU collectively outpaces the U.S. by $19-25 billion, depending on the source.
  • Per Capita/Scale:
    • U.S. (330 million people): ~$363 per capita.
    • EU (448 million people): ~$310-$323 per capita.
    • The U.S. bears a higher per-person burden, but the EU’s collective effort is larger in absolute terms.
  • Military Focus:
    • U.S.: $64 billion (53% of its total) vs. EU: $58-59 billion (~42% of its total). The U.S. leads in military aid, reflecting its role as Ukraine’s primary weapons supplier.
  • Grants vs. Loans:
    • U.S.: Nearly all aid is grants, with no repayment expected.
    • EU: About 35% ($50 billion) is loans, though on favorable terms (e.g., repaid via frozen Russian assets), with $95 billion in grants/in-kind.



And the aid was given to Ukraine by Biden. If Trump was there instead of Biden, then Ukraine had got perhaps very less.

The problem is the big lie telling mouth of Trump, which has been making it 350 billion dollars again and again.
Click to expand...
Knew you would come up with this . The 119 billion was just in direct military funding , not the whole funding . The total is 180 billion plus which includes USAID and other payments. Yeah its semantics. Not 350 billion , but close to 200 billion which Trump is saying should be 0. 200 billion is a lot of US tax payers money. 350 billion is false scream the liberal media, but about what the 200 billion of US tax payers money spent ?? And for how much longer ? US cant just feeding the Ukraine war tap. And then , Zelensky gets bombastic as to why US is not giving more ? Why in the world should US give "anything" to Zelensky if he doesnt even want to entertain the option of a compromise ? If no, then he can go fund it himself or get EU or others to pay for it.

EU is close to 30 nations and US is 1 country and still paid more . Again, put the dollars where their mouths are.


Grants vs. Loans: highlighted
  • U.S.: Nearly all aid is grants, with no repayment expected. - All grants/free money ; no repayment at all ( a gift basically)- Very generous gift I may add
  • EU: About 35% ($50 billion) is loans, though on favorable terms (e.g., repaid via frozen Russian assets), with $95 billion in grants/in-kind. Very important to note - frozen Russian assets .. Which the EU now wants to seize which is about 200 billion. So, the EU has a collateral of 200 billion that they can take over anytime. They expect re-payment. Not a gift at all.

Also , here's the official info on how the entire Ukraine funds have been allocated and used. In the US, everything is public records unlike banana republics. Even a small towns budget, expenses, fund sources etc etc is all public records. Nothing is hidden like in shady countries. So, all the chest thumping and fake lip service the other nations do , they should go take a look in the mirror.

 
HaiderAmmar said:
If Budapest agreement was not even morally binding for giving up the nukes, then how can Ukraine now trust in Trump for giving guarantee about its security if Ukraine accept Trumps call and hand over all its land to Putin, and give rare metals to Trump?

If Budapest agreement is not even morally binding, then Trump has no standing and no one should trust this person.
Click to expand...
Moral binding ?? No country gives a heck on moral binding . What is moral binding by the way ? Similar to the moral victories claimed by Pan and Ban cricket teams which sounds so silly .
 
deltexas said:
Knew you would come up with this . The 119 billion was just in direct military funding , not the whole funding . The total is 180 billion plus which includes USAID and other payments. Yeah its semantics. Not 350 billion , but close to 200 billion which Trump is saying should be 0. 200 billion is a lot of US tax payers money. 350 billion is false scream the liberal media, but about what the 200 billion of US tax payers money spent ?? And for how much longer ? US cant just feeding the Ukraine war tap. And then , Zelensky gets bombastic as to why US is not giving more ? Why in the world should US give "anything" to Zelensky if he doesnt even want to entertain the option of a compromise ? If no, then he can go fund it himself or get EU or others to pay for it.

EU is close to 30 nations and US is 1 country and still paid more . Again, put the dollars where their mouths are.


Grants vs. Loans: highlighted
  • U.S.: Nearly all aid is grants, with no repayment expected. - All grants/free money ; no repayment at all ( a gift basically)- Very generous gift I may add
  • EU: About 35% ($50 billion) is loans, though on favorable terms (e.g., repaid via frozen Russian assets), with $95 billion in grants/in-kind. Very important to note - frozen Russian assets .. Which the EU now wants to seize which is about 200 billion. So, the EU has a collateral of 200 billion that they can take over anytime. They expect re-payment. Not a gift at all.

Also , here's the official info on how the entire Ukraine funds have been allocated and used. In the US, everything is public records unlike banana republics. Even a small towns budget, expenses, fund sources etc etc is all public records. Nothing is hidden like in shady countries. So, all the chest thumping and fake lip service the other nations do , they should go take a look in the mirror.

Click to expand...

You are writing pages and pages worth of crying here over Ukraine because American taxpayer money is being spent there. But most of you guys are quick to jump to the defense of Israelis who are the biggest benefactor of American tax payers
Why do you guys (Indian Hindus) not cry when American tax payer money is simply handed to Israel, no questions asked when they are guilty of massive war crimes?
 
HaiderAmmar said:
It is a totally delusional statement, devoid of any sense.

You mean when Hitler invaded other countries, then leader of all those countries were at fault but Hitler was an angel and should not be condemned? Does it really make any sense?

And now when Putin attacked Ukraine, then you are putting the whole blame upon Zelensky, while refuting to call Putin an aggressor and dictator and refuse to condemn him.



We are not living in a jungle, where there no one raises a voice when powerful party attacks and oppresses an innocent weaker party.

If we have to follow your logic, then every powerful country will start attacking the weaker neighbour, and no one go to help the innocent, and this world will again become a hell.

Yes, Trump wants to destroy the civilized world and want to become above every law, because it suits him as a dictator. Every dictator does the same.
Click to expand...
Delusional ? as per you ? Putin did not want Nato next to him. That was an absolute redline. But Zelensky defied it and egged on by EU and bombastic Biden started working towards Nato membership. Then Nato would be right next to Russia . Situation could have been defused with talks at the time. But no, get gung ho and then when Russia invades, cry and run to the US for help. So, yes blame goes to Zelensky. You have to give diplomacy as much chance as possible before pushing your nation into war which is a huge toll and suffering.

Comparison with Hitler on every thing is pointless. 2 different situations. Hilter was starting a WW2 and wanting global domination with genocide. No comparison for all you want to make believe. And he went gung ho, bombastic and suffered huge losses. Japan was with Hitler at the time, got 2 bombs dropped by US but now Japan and US are good allies.

You say - " every powerful country will start attacking the weaker neighbor, and no one go to help the innocent, and this world will again become a hell." . Well guess what, countries are not that stupid. Wars cost enormous money , human loss and toll, human immeasurable suffering, economic collapse and ruin. Even a superpower like the US suffered hugely in Irag and Afg - trillions in losses, thousands of US soldiers killed, thousands innocent civilians killed etc started by the idiot bombastic Bush and continued the same trigger happy approach by Obama. And Biden now with Ukraine. So, no country no matter how powerful will start wars just for fun . If that was the case, there would have been so many wars the past 50 years. Wars are expensive, tragic and will set you back decades and if a super power like the US could feel it, what chance does nay other country on this planet have ?
 
Stewie said:
You are writing pages and pages worth of crying here over Ukraine because American taxpayer money is being spent there. But most of you guys are quick to jump to the defense of Israelis who are the biggest benefactor of American tax payers
Why do you guys (Indian Hindus) not cry when American tax payer money is simply handed to Israel, no questions asked when they are guilty of massive war crimes?
Click to expand...
As Is aid here before, its a different topic , no need to derail this thread. You can post in the Gaza section and I can address it there. Why he need to insert Gaza into every single thread ? It has its own megathread , so you can post there and I can address it there.
 
HaiderAmmar said:

Who showed disrespect? Zelensky or Trump?​

  • Trump’s Behavior:
    • Trump accused Zelensky of insufficient gratitude for U.S. support, saying, “You have to be thankful. You don’t have the cards. You’re buried there. Your people are dying,” and “You’re gambling with World War III.” He spoke over Zelensky repeatedly, cutting off attempts to respond.
    • Post-meeting, Trump posted on Truth Social, claiming Zelensky “disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office” and suggested he wasn’t ready for peace if America was involved. He reiterated his earlier label of Zelensky as a “dictator without elections,” a term he’d used since at least February 19, 2025.
    • Trump’s tone was described as berating and hostile, with Vice President JD Vance joining in, accusing Zelensky of “litigating” issues publicly and disrespecting the administration.
  • Zelensky’s Behavior:
    • Zelensky challenged Trump’s approach to Russia, questioning what diplomacy was possible with Vladimir Putin, who had broken prior agreements. He pointed out Vance’s lack of firsthand experience with Ukraine’s war, saying, “You’ve never been to Ukraine.”
    • Reports note Zelensky tried to interject, emphasizing his desire to end the war, but was interrupted by Trump. His responses were firm but framed as defending Ukraine’s position, not as personal attacks.
    • After the meeting, Zelensky posted on social media, thanking the U.S. for its support and emphasizing a “just and lasting peace,” avoiding direct criticism of Trump in that statement.
Who Showed Disrespect or Insult?
  • Trump’s Disrespect and Insult to Zelensky:
    • Calling Zelensky a “dictator” (both on February 28 and earlier) is a clear insult, implying illegitimacy and authoritarianism. This echoes Kremlin narratives but lacks evidence—Zelensky was democratically elected in 2019, and elections are suspended under martial law, a legal measure since Russia’s 2022 invasion.
    • Trump’s public berating, interrupting, and dismissive tone in the Oval Office—described as a “shouting match” and “ambush”—showed disrespect to Zelensky as a visiting leader. His post-meeting claim of disrespect by Zelensky in the “cherished Oval Office” flipped the narrative, but the initial aggression came from Trump.
    • The “dictator” label, repeated over weeks, escalated into a personal attack, undermining Zelensky’s leadership during a war, which many allies (e.g., UK’s Keir Starmer, Germany’s Olaf Scholz) condemned as baseless and dangerous.
  • Zelensky’s Potential Disrespect to Trump:
    • Zelensky’s challenge to Trump’s Russia policy and his remark to Vance about not visiting Ukraine could be seen as disrespectful if interpreted as questioning their authority or competence. However, these were policy-based rebuttals, not personal insults.
    • Trump perceived Zelensky’s demeanor as disrespectful, citing “body language and argumentative manner” (per White House officials). Yet, no specific act—like name-calling or overt rudeness—stands out from Zelensky beyond
Click to expand...
Disrespect, insult etc etc - all internet bombastic words. Zelensky doesnt need to come to the US if he doesnt agree to the US terms for the funds. Simple as that. Why is he now tweeting saying thanks US , POTUS etc etc after he was "insulted" as you claim ? He can just take a one way business class ticket from the the US to Kiev .
 
rpant_gabba said:
I did. Can’t believe the support for thuggery
Click to expand...
Thuggery for what ? For threatening US that they will be attacked too and that there is an ocean in the middle ?? Zelensky is the one "asking" for US money not the other way. He can leave the meeting anytime or not even come to the US. The US has stated their terms - if you dont like it it, dont take it. Simple as that . And Blackmail ?? For real? Did trump put a gun on Zelensky's head and asked to attend ? Zelensky is "requesting" aid, he cant be "demanding" it.
 
deltexas said:
As Is aid here before, its a different topic , no need to derail this thread. You can post in the Gaza section and I can address it there. Why he need to insert Gaza into every single thread ? It has its own megathread , so you can post there and I can address it there.
Click to expand...
It is a different topic but the logic is the same.

You are vociferously supporting trump for his actions because according to you, US does not owe anyone any support because our tax payer dollars are not going to be spent on foreign wars. Yet, you somehow seem to be ok with our tax payer dollars being spent on genocide. You can pretty much replace the words Gaza and Ukraine with any other letters, names, titles and the logic should be the same. So it is not a different topic. You are the one using this logic on this thread. Not me. So try to be consistent in your views or else you are showing others you have zero credibility, but a lot of bias.
 
HalBass9 said:
I don’t have to when you support Hindutva. lol

Show me any post where I’ve disrespected Hindus?

I’m going to disrespect anyone who would suggest that killing other humans is absolutely fine over their beliefs.

Fetch on.

lol, now back to, what about Pakistan.

No need to get upset someone criticizes Hindutva bigots. Lol
Click to expand...

Who was killing whom in the Zakir Naik thread where you said that criticizing a religion is your fundamental right?

Plenty of posts where you justify killing of cows because apparently that's ok for Muslims to kill animals and Hindus therefore should adjust.

@uppercut

Am i wrong here?


You are so worried about minority rights why not show the same love for pakistanis? Or is this Love only for Muslims?
 
rpant_gabba said:
Bet FDR is rolling in his grave. Hearing things like this from Indians, I honestly am tempted to encourage China and Pak to coordinate and rip India to shreds.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a US guarantee. Did it not?

Ukraine should kept some to make a dirty bomb and sent it Moscow’s way
Click to expand...
You need to know the exact details before making inaccurate statements. Read the whole thing before making baseless statements. Here's the details from a Kiev source itself :

kyivindependent.com

30 years ago today, Ukraine traded nuclear arms for security assurances, a decision that still haunts Kyiv today

On Dec. 5, 1994, Ukraine had signed a set of political agreements that would guarantee the country's sovereignty and independence in return for accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Signed in Budapest, the memorandum would lay grounds for Ukraine to dispose...
kyivindependent.com kyivindependent.com

Highlighted portions :

The shadow of the events of 1994 haunts Ukraine today.

Despite the agreements, Ukraine did not receive the main benefit of giving up the world's third-largest nuclear potential — security. Many in Kyiv believe the country was pressured into an unequal agreement by the parties that had no intention to abide by what they had signed.

"Today, the Budapest Memorandum is a monument to short-sightedness in strategic security decision-making," Ukraine's Foreign Ministry's statement read ahead of the 30th anniversary of the agreement.

"It should serve as a reminder to the current leaders of the Euro-Atlantic community that building a European security architecture at the expense of Ukraine's interests, rather than taking them into consideration, is destined to failure."
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
EU's perception of threat from Russia does not mean that it is justified, something that even you have acknowledged. If anything you could argue their spending on military hardware for Ukraine could be construed as them being the threat, not Russia.

I live in the UK, to me it seems pretty obvious that the Ukraine is Russia's backyard not ours. I'd be pretty p!ssed if Russia was supplying weapons to Ireland or Wales in a separatist movement.
Click to expand...
This is my point as well. It does not matter if the perception of Russian threat is valid or not. It is there in EU. It does not even matter if EU's propensity for armament against Russia is defensive or offensive in nature.

EU's propensity for armament against Russia exists and is real. Because this propensity is real EU is not arming against Russia because the Americans forced y'all to. EU is arming themselves against Russia for their own reasons. Given that they are arming themselves for their own reasons and not because they are being forced by us, the expenses for their armament against Russia should mostly be borne by the EU tax payers and not by the American tax payers.

This is my point. Clear?
 
ads101 said:
I dislike Trump he is rude and has treated Ukraine and Zelensky extremely rudely. But as I said I the war seems endless and thus a deal is needed to prevent future loss. Tbh I think Trump is just pretending taking over Canada etc he’s just trying to force his hand. Plus he dislikes spending more money and wants taxes lower. It seems ridiculous, his tactics feel like a bully in a school yard. But no I don’t think he is warmongering or serious with plans to take over countries. Regardless though it’s about getting the best deal for this war in Ukraine.

Russia is a faded power. Countries these days do not have true power or fight with military. Military weapons are quickly outdated with how technology evolves. We’ve seen that in this war. The most important thing these days are economies. Wars and disagreements are actually more usually fought through economic tariffs. Russia lags far behind in economy and even I doubt their weapons are of the newest and top technology. If China told Russia to end the war and give back Ukraine, I doubt Russia would have the power to refuse. And that’s the problem partly, we can’t exactly cut off economic trade and support from their major allies eg China and India to an extent. So Russia stays afloat.

NATO is an effective deterrent and Putin won’t invade a country of NATO for fears of sparking a world war. So I don’t think further invasion into other countries is likely. Ukraine was invaded mainly due to they had to invade now rather than after it had joined NATO. Ukraine will also unlikely ever be allowed to join NATO for this reason which is a shame for the Ukraine people who won’t enjoy the protection that a lot of the neighbouring countries have. NATO is a lot more enforceable than the other obligations of protecting Ukraine for giving back their nuclear weapons.

I don’t think Putin will invade again as this war has been a failure. Russia’s economy has be hit far more than the benefit of the war even if Russia gets to keep some Ukraine territory. It still won’t have been worth it as a country’s power through economy is far more powerful than gaining a bit of extra land. Even if they develop some of the resources there it still isn’t enough to recover long term damage economically to their country. Putin I feel tried it again as he thought it would go down similar to Crimea. Perhaps we were too lenient then. Not now. The next step up from the Ukraine war would be a world war. Which Putin won’t risk again. The war has already been a failure for Putin and Russia. The only thing left is trying to save face for a dictator in Putin so he can walk away and give peace. It’s not right, but we’re dealing with a dictator in Putin who will allow his country to suffer and be in war for the sake of his reputation/position.

A benefit of ending the war is a lot of us western powers can give aid and develop resources in order to allow Ukraine to recover more quickly economically. Russia on the other hand won’t have that advantage, it would take too much, the country is too large and countries would be far less willing to help.

If we think Putin won’t stop and invade again. The answer is not to stop the war. Continue it and win. Western powers would have to pledge more money and risk nuclear war to end the war decisively. Which they won’t. So things would progress very slowly. Might take a decade or two. Countless more people will be lost. The reason why all parties are contemplating a deal even Ukraine is because IMO deep down people feel like Russia won’t just invade again. Otherwise a deal would be pointless. I think it’s not that a deal shouldn’t be made or not. It’s about getting what’s fair for the Ukrainians. And unfortunately I don’t think it’s realistic to get what’s truly fair for Ukrainians which is the entire territory back, which Putin won’t agree it would mark that Russia lost the war. So it’s about trying to get the fairest solution for Ukrainian people that ends the war. Which given the limited power of Ukraine as a whole is likely to result in concessions.
Click to expand...
Great post this - Post of the week for me .(y)

Economic wars are the future, not military wars. Russia is done as a major power. Their economy will takes decades just to get to an even par level. But Putin has to save face face or else he will forget Ukrainians, he will run Russians into the ground because he is a dictator. Thats why China is the biggest threat to US by far atleast for the next 50 - 75 years.
 
HalBass9 said:
I believe you aren’t reading it correctly. The US is losing it after it had achieved global hegemony.
Click to expand...
I think I believe you are the one not reading it correctly.

US not achieving global hegemony or not is up to our vote base. Maybe we do want to focus inward and fix massive economic inequalities as opposed to global hegemony? Or maybe we feel there is better ROI for global hegemony somewhere else and not in EU? Or maybe there is an idea that global hegemony can be achieved with less percentage of military spending and with other economic forms? Or maybe it is a combination of the above or none of the above?

Reasons do not matter. It is up to the US tax payers to choose where we want to spend as opposed to guilt tripping by the EU or coming at it with some sense of entitlement that the US tax payers owe money to the EU.

Think about it from individual tax payer POV, can you??

US tax payers - working long hours, less vacation, high income inequality, barely health insurance, no pension, no avenues for retirement.

EU tax payers - shorter working hours, more vacation, less income inequality, full health insurance, pension, can retire.

Now EU is trying to guilt trip the US tax payers along with some sense of entitlement for us to keep subsidizing their comfy lifestyles while we hamper ours more and more. Yeah ... no thanks!!
 
HaiderAmmar said:
This is a very selfish statement. If you are strong today, it doesn't mean all small nations are strong enough to defend themselves from the invasions from stronger and bigger powers.

Do you really want the bigger powers today to usurp the land and resources of smaller countries? Do you really want to snatch away the right from weaker people to live?

And the question was not about today's India, but it was about the history of India when it was invaded and looted and it had no option except to surrender.

Without a moral civilized world, which is ready to help weaker nations against the dictatorships of bigger powers as a moral duty, we will fall back in the dark times. And it is so unfortunate that you forgot today the dark times of India.
Click to expand...
Can you take the Ind discussion to a different thread and you can be answered there. There are countless Mughal, kashmir threads started here by Pak posters there - so you can discuss them there and not derail this thread.
 
rickroll said:
I think I believe you are the one not reading it correctly.

US not achieving global hegemony or not is up to our vote base. Maybe we do want to focus inward and fix massive economic inequalities as opposed to global hegemony? Or maybe we feel there is better ROI for global hegemony somewhere else and not in EU? Or maybe there is an idea that global hegemony can be achieved with less percentage of military spending and with other economic forms? Or maybe it is a combination of the above or none of the above?

Reasons do not matter. It is up to the US tax payers to choose where we want to spend as opposed to guilt tripping by the EU or coming at it with some sense of entitlement that the US tax payers owe money to the EU.

Think about it from individual tax payer POV, can you??

US tax payers - working long hours, less vacation, high income inequality, barely health insurance, no pension, no avenues for retirement.

EU tax payers - shorter working hours, more vacation, less income inequality, full health insurance, pension, can retire.

Now EU is trying to guilt trip the US tax payers along with some sense of entitlement for us to keep subsidizing their comfy lifestyles while we hamper ours more and more. Yeah ... no thanks!!
Click to expand...

Again, you aren’t reading correctly.

What you’ve described is sentiment, I’m talking about USD and hegemony.
 
Varun said:
Imagine if Putin comes for the UK next. This subset of British Pakistanis will happily join forces to participate in the "liberation".
Click to expand...
I think the intellectual gymnastics that must be played by Indians supporting Putin are easily understood: most Indians are simpletons who think that because the United States condemned their dear leader at some point, they must support the traditional friend Russia against United States, and thus support the invasion. Now that the orange orangutan is in power, it’s even easier to justify the genocide in Israel by finding validation in the Israel aggression for their own police state in Jammu and Kashmir and their system of illegal detention, coercive interrogation and brutalization of their own population.

For the Pakistanis who support Russia, it takes a whole routine to find the persuasion: support Russia because it is anti America, because America is pro Israel. But now Orange orangutan is pro Russia so supporting him, is supporting Israel which is anti Palestinian. But also Israel is pro Saudi who is anti Iran, who is anti Israel, and anti America but pro Russia. Effectively these poor fellas have to support and be opposed to America, support and be opposed to Israel.
 
HalBass9 said:
Again, you aren’t reading correctly.

What you’ve described is sentiment, I’m talking about USD and hegemony.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are not getting it.

I'm not just talking about "sentiment" (reality actually) when I referenced status of US tax payers and the cushy status of those entitled EU tax payers.

I also referenced USD and hegemony above. Maybe there are other better ROI means for USD status and hegemony than funneling money into EU. Maybe it is not just military means but also other economic means. Maybe it is not in this geography (US-EU was center of the world before but now it is increasingly US-Asia Pacific). US having to keep funneling Billions into entitled EU to maintain hegemony is an anachronistic line of thought relative to the current world order.
 
Stewie said:
It is a different topic but the logic is the same.

You are vociferously supporting trump for his actions because according to you, US does not owe anyone any support because our tax payer dollars are not going to be spent on foreign wars. Yet, you somehow seem to be ok with our tax payer dollars being spent on genocide. You can pretty much replace the words Gaza and Ukraine with any other letters, names, titles and the logic should be the same. So it is not a different topic. You are the one using this logic on this thread. Not me. So try to be consistent in your views or else you are showing others you have zero credibility, but a lot of bias.
Click to expand...
Again different topic totally . Why the need to force insert Gaza into everything ? So an FYI. Not similar at all , not even comparable. You can scream Gaza Gaza all you want but its not all comparable to Ukraine solution. Please also insert Kashmiri pandits into every post or thread of yours. See how silly that sounds. A different thread discussion. hamas ejected multiple peace deals and ceasefires. Planned suicide bombers, killed innocents and started the war last year. So it should expect a response. Again , I can discuss on the Gaza thread and on the Kashmiri pandits on the kashmir thread ; and on the Zelensky-Trumo in " this" thread.
 
deltexas said:
Again different topic totally . Why the need to force insert Gaza into everything ? So an FYI. Not similar at all , not even comparable. You can scream Gaza Gaza all you want but its not all comparable to Ukraine solution. Please also insert Kashmiri pandits into every post or thread of yours. See how silly that sounds. A different thread discussion. hamas ejected multiple peace deals and ceasefires. Planned suicide bombers, killed innocents and started the war last year. So it should expect a response. Again , I can discuss on the Gaza thread and on the Kashmiri pandits on the kashmir thread ; and on the Zelensky-Trumo in " this" thread.
Click to expand...
Kashmiri Pundits are not getting us tax payer dollars for support. Your logic follows the money, not the geographical, political nature of the conflicts.

Unless you can debate that and clarify that point, you really have no leg to stand on.
 
Stewie said:
Kashmiri Pundits are not getting us tax payer dollars for support. Your logic follows the money, not the geographical, political nature of the conflicts.

Unless you can debate that and clarify that point, you really have no leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
As I said will discuss on that thread. There are countless other threads on it. No need to derail this. This is the Ukraine Zelensky Trump thread. Every single issue is different. No need to insert and tie Gaza into everything. Each conflict is different an FYI.
 
deltexas said:
You need to know the exact details before making inaccurate statements. Read the whole thing before making baseless statements. Here's the details from a Kiev source itself :

kyivindependent.com

30 years ago today, Ukraine traded nuclear arms for security assurances, a decision that still haunts Kyiv today

On Dec. 5, 1994, Ukraine had signed a set of political agreements that would guarantee the country's sovereignty and independence in return for accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Signed in Budapest, the memorandum would lay grounds for Ukraine to dispose...
kyivindependent.com kyivindependent.com

Highlighted portions :

The shadow of the events of 1994 haunts Ukraine today.

Despite the agreements, Ukraine did not receive the main benefit of giving up the world's third-largest nuclear potential — security. Many in Kyiv believe the country was pressured into an unequal agreement by the parties that had no intention to abide by what they had signed.

"Today, the Budapest Memorandum is a monument to short-sightedness in strategic security decision-making," Ukraine's Foreign Ministry's statement read ahead of the 30th anniversary of the agreement.

"It should serve as a reminder to the current leaders of the Euro-Atlantic community that building a European security architecture at the expense of Ukraine's interests, rather than taking them into consideration, is destined to failure."
Click to expand...
and?

Whats your point?
 
rpant_gabba said:
and?

Whats your point?
Click to expand...
And my point is answering your questions with replies and factual statements and documents ,not give threats of physical violence and abusive trash talking. Thats the point - which is not a street roamer mentality.
 
captain.hansolo said:
I think the intellectual gymnastics that must be played by Indians supporting Putin are easily understood: most Indians are simpletons who think that because the United States condemned their dear leader at some point, they must support the traditional friend Russia against United States, and thus support the invasion. Now that the orange orangutan is in power, it’s even easier to justify the genocide in Israel by finding validation in the Israel aggression for their own police state in Jammu and Kashmir and their system of illegal detention, coercive interrogation and brutalization of their own population.

For the Pakistanis who support Russia, it takes a whole routine to find the persuasion: support Russia because it is anti America, because America is pro Israel. But now Orange orangutan is pro Russia so supporting him, is supporting Israel which is anti Palestinian. But also Israel is pro Saudi who is anti Iran, who is anti Israel, and anti America but pro Russia. Effectively these poor fellas have to support and be opposed to America, support and be opposed to Israel.
Click to expand...

except you forgot to include Chechnya and Uighur ( therefore China ) in your equations.


And lol at the idiotic insinuations of India running a "Police" state in Kashmir where there are literally 1% Hindus ( if that ) and the population has no compunctions on being hostile to any hindus coming back to settle there.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Who was killing whom in the Zakir Naik thread where you said that criticizing a religion is your fundamental right?

Plenty of posts where you justify killing of cows because apparently that's ok for Muslims to kill animals and Hindus therefore should adjust.

@uppercut

Am i wrong here?


You are so worried about minority rights why not show the same love for pakistanis? Or is this Love only for Muslims?
Click to expand...

you are right on target as always ... just don't hold your breath in the hope that the usual suspects will give you any straightforward answers to the many questions that we have been asking for ever. (y)
 
deltexas said:
And my point is answering your questions with replies and factual statements and documents ,not give threats of physical violence and abusive trash talking. Thats the point - which is not a street roamer mentality.
Click to expand...
factual statements? that Ukraine got screwed over by trusting US to keep it word?

Do enlighten us, how is Israel situation different from Ukraine?

Floor is yours.
 
deltexas said:
Knew you would come up with this . The 119 billion was just in direct military funding , not the whole funding . The total is 180 billion plus which includes USAID and other payments. Yeah its semantics. Not 350 billion , but close to 200 billion which Trump is saying should be 0. 200 billion is a lot of US tax payers money. 350 billion is false scream the liberal media, but about what the 200 billion of US tax payers money spent ?? And for how much longer ? US cant just feeding the Ukraine war tap. And then , Zelensky gets bombastic as to why US is not giving more ? Why in the world should US give "anything" to Zelensky if he doesnt even want to entertain the option of a compromise ? If no, then he can go fund it himself or get EU or others to pay for it.

EU is close to 30 nations and US is 1 country and still paid more . Again, put the dollars where their mouths are.
Click to expand...

At the end you did accept that Trump and you both were telling lies about 350 billion. You corrected yourself, but Trump has not, as it is his habit to keep telling lies.

And it was not 27 States of EU who were part of Budapest agreement, but Ukraine handed over his nuclear weapons while US guaranteed for security of Ukraine.

And as I said, it was Biden who gave the aid and not Trump.

Secondly, this time too (just like Budapest agreement) Trump is giving no guarantees. He only wants Zelensky to give up Ukrainian land and rare metals in the name of peace, but don't want to pledge anything. Who is then going to trust such a selfish person like Trump? I am asking this question again and again but you are never answering it.
 
rpant_gabba said:
factual statements? that Ukraine got screwed over by trusting US to keep it word?

Do enlighten us, how is Israel situation different from Ukraine?

Floor is yours.
Click to expand...
Getting screwed over not is a matter of opinion. Just posted what the signed agreements were and stated by the Ukraine gov official himself.

Is this an Israel thread? Happy to discuss Israel in the Israel thread. ( which IMO is totally different than Ukraine or Kashmir or Rohingya or Uiyughurs etc- each one is different )
 
deltexas said:
Moral binding ?? No country gives a heck on moral binding . What is moral binding by the way ? Similar to the moral victories claimed by Pan and Ban cricket teams which sounds so silly .
Click to expand...
Once again you negelect the main point.
Trump swoops in, dangling vague “security guarantees” like a salesman hawking a used car with no warranty, urging Ukraine to hand over its land to Putin and toss its rare earth metals—vital for everything from tech to defense—into Trump’s lap as a sweetener. If the Budapest deal, signed by global powers, couldn’t stop a Russian tank, what’s Trump’s word worth? A man who’s spent his career spinning deals and dodging accountability isn’t exactly a beacon of reliability. Ukraine would be trading its sovereignty and resources for a promise written on water, from someone whose track record screams self-interest over principle.
if the Budapest Memorandum’s betrayal didn’t just expose Russia’s bad faith but also the Trump's spineless follow-through, it’s a neon sign that verbal assurances from any leader, who thrives on bravado over substance—are a gamble with loaded dice. Why would Ukraine trust a guy whose own allies often question his loyalty, let alone a nation he’s never shown real stakes in? Handing over land and rare metals wouldn’t just be a surrender—it’d be a suicide note, betting on a guarantor who’s already proven he’ll pivot the second the deal stops serving him.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
At the end you did accept that Trump and you both were telling lies about 350 billion. You corrected yourself, but Trump has not, as it is his habit to keep telling lies.

And it was not 27 States of EU who were part of Budapest agreement, but Ukraine handed over his nuclear weapons while US guaranteed for security of Ukraine.

And as I said, it was Biden who gave the aid and not Trump.

Secondly, this time too (just like Budapest agreement) Trump is giving no guarantees. He only wants Zelensky to give up Ukrainian land and rare metals in the name of peace, but don't want to pledge anything. Who is then going to trust such a selfish person like Trump? I am asking this question again and again but you are never answering it.
Click to expand...
Your 1st sentence is almost like a CNN headline.. Matter of semantics. For folks 200 billion , 350 b or whatever that number - shouldnt go to Zelensky if he is not willing to compromise. Trump lied lied, its not 350 billion, its "only" 200 billion. And why ?? US gives so much foreign aid to all countries incl anti US nations which should be stopped which is what Trump is saying. He is different than your regular run of the mill politician type US presidents.

Not referrring t o Budapest agreement. 27 states combined contributed 110 million to Zelensky. Thats the difference. And all of it recoverable. Whereas US aid was all grants - no recoverable.

Again, Trump is the president now ; Biden is history so is Kamala

Nobody is gonna give any guarantees in the world of geopolitics or should I say only 1 country. Let otehrs contribute as well, why just the US ? Nobody is asking Zelensky to sign mineral agreement . If he doesnt want to , fine. US is not forcing him whatsoever. He can do what he likes, just dont ask for US aid with no strings attached. Simple.
 
captain.hansolo said:
I think the intellectual gymnastics that must be played by Indians supporting Putin are easily understood: most Indians are simpletons who think that because the United States condemned their dear leader at some point, they must support the traditional friend Russia against United States, and thus support the invasion. Now that the orange orangutan is in power, it’s even easier to justify the genocide in Israel by finding validation in the Israel aggression for their own police state in Jammu and Kashmir and their system of illegal detention, coercive interrogation and brutalization of their own population.

For the Pakistanis who support Russia, it takes a whole routine to find the persuasion: support Russia because it is anti America, because America is pro Israel. But now Orange orangutan is pro Russia so supporting him, is supporting Israel which is anti Palestinian. But also Israel is pro Saudi who is anti Iran, who is anti Israel, and anti America but pro Russia. Effectively these poor fellas have to support and be opposed to America, support and be opposed to Israel.
Click to expand...

Indians are simpletons. Pakistanis are the greatest intellectuals the world has seen.

India has always been close to Russia, no matter who is in the government. Indian support Russia because Russia has supported India. And Russia doesn't have the habit of poking its nose in internal matters of India.

Israel has supported India through 2 wars. 1971 and 1999. So if some Indians support Israel its because we're grateful. Not because of some validation.
 
HaiderAmmar said:
Once again you negelect the main point.
Trump swoops in, dangling vague “security guarantees” like a salesman hawking a used car with no warranty, urging Ukraine to hand over its land to Putin and toss its rare earth metals—vital for everything from tech to defense—into Trump’s lap as a sweetener. If the Budapest deal, signed by global powers, couldn’t stop a Russian tank, what’s Trump’s word worth? A man who’s spent his career spinning deals and dodging accountability isn’t exactly a beacon of reliability. Ukraine would be trading its sovereignty and resources for a promise written on water, from someone whose track record screams self-interest over principle.
if the Budapest Memorandum’s betrayal didn’t just expose Russia’s bad faith but also the Trump's spineless follow-through, it’s a neon sign that verbal assurances from any leader, who thrives on bravado over substance—are a gamble with loaded dice. Why would Ukraine trust a guy whose own allies often question his loyalty, let alone a nation he’s never shown real stakes in? Handing over land and rare metals wouldn’t just be a surrender—it’d be a suicide note, betting on a guarantor who’s already proven he’ll pivot the second the deal stops serving him.
Click to expand...
Again , where did Trump give security guarantees?? Zelensky "wanted" it. US no longer has patience for these endless wars anymore . Bush Obama Biden are relics in that way. The mineral deal has not been signed. And an FYI - Budapest deal is history. Not sure how it helps you keep bringing it. Even Ukraine doesnt talk about it. And AFAIK the deal ended and was not renewed simple as that. Again Zelensky can do "whatever" he wants. No need to agree anything that Trump says. And this "moral" "principles" etc etc are good to see tweets etc. When it comes to pedal hitting the metal - thats when you see other countries not providing anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
  • Poll Poll
Is Donald Trump right in calling the US 2020 Election a fraud?
3 4 5
Replies
376
Views
18K
IMMY69
IMMY69
MenInG
Donald Trump acquitted by Senate in impeachment trial
3 4 5
Replies
378
Views
16K
ManFan
ManFan
A
In a new book, Bob Woodward plans to reveal the ‘harrowing life’ inside Donald Trump’s White House
Replies
9
Views
523
Last Monetarist
Last Monetarist
Back
Top