West Ham Online

Mr Anon" wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 23:09

 

fuck me, what's the point of any agreement around the world then? pack it all up boys, IOC says it's all pointless  

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:53

Mr Anon" wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:46

Words are paper thin IOC, you said you understand politics so you should know Trump stating "no one will mess with our people" means diddly squat unless he backs it up with some sort of signed guarantee 

*bang head on the table*

A signed guarantee is more words.  Literally on thin paper. What stops Trump ignoring them?  Who punishes him if he does? If we can't trust him.

Real need for a stable supply of minerals, real dollars to America and the risk of real America bodies on the news.  Those are guarantees that America wants the Ukraine stable and sovereign, under this deal. 

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:53

Mr Anon" wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:46

Words are paper thin IOC, you said you understand politics so you should know Trump stating "no one will mess with our people" means diddly squat unless he backs it up with some sort of signed guarantee 

*bang head on the table*

A signed guarantee is more words.  Literally on thin paper. What stops Trump ignoring them?  Who punishes him if he does? If we can't trust him.

Real need for a stable supply of minerals, real dollars to America and the risk of real America bodies on the news.  Those are guarantees that America wants the Ukraine stable and sovereign, under this deal. 

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:59

What is wrong with the solution I already suggested. The reason I prefixed it with the "king of negotiating" was to head off any suggestion it wasnt possible. Anything is possibe so why not start from there. Trumps unfortunately laid all the cards on the table in public no wonder hes bankrupted... how many casinos?

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:28

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:10

So now you are saying there was definitely room for negotiating a security guarantee. So Ill ask again why did Trump say there was no room for it! 

The solution, if as Trump says he is the king of negotiating, is to convince Putin to either step away from all Ukraine borders as they were before 22 or let Ukraine join NATO. Putin they are your options now choose! He's happy to play hardball with Ukraine why not Russia? Neither of them have any "cards" left they are both punch drunk running out of troops and equipment and both economies ruined.

Russia started the war and if the land is so important then have it but give Ukraine security. At the end of the day they both have compromises Ukraine land for NATO membership!

But Im guessing Putin has already told Trump he wont allow NATO membership so that leaves security guarantees so thats what Zelensky has to go for!

Find me where he said "there was no room for" security guarantees.
He said the deal is an "automatic guarantee" - "Nobody’s going to be messing around with our people when we’re there."   (Blowing your loan-whatever malarky out of the water)

Does he want to commit to boots on the ground - of course not.  Political suicide.  And a road to escalation.


"The solution, if as Trump says he is the king of negotiating..."

What a weasel way of not giving an answer.  You know I don't think Trump is perfect. And Russia has a lot more cards than the Ukraine, it is honestly idiotic to suggest otherwise. 

Give me your solution, not some cowardly avoidance exercise in continued Trump-bashing.  Until you can do that, honestly whinging about Trump is just that. 

Mr Anon" wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:46

Words are paper thin IOC, you said you understand politics so you should know Trump stating "no one will mess with our people" means diddly squat unless he backs it up with some sort of signed guarantee 

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:28

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:10

So now you are saying there was definitely room for negotiating a security guarantee. So Ill ask again why did Trump say there was no room for it! 

The solution, if as Trump says he is the king of negotiating, is to convince Putin to either step away from all Ukraine borders as they were before 22 or let Ukraine join NATO. Putin they are your options now choose! He's happy to play hardball with Ukraine why not Russia? Neither of them have any "cards" left they are both punch drunk running out of troops and equipment and both economies ruined.

Russia started the war and if the land is so important then have it but give Ukraine security. At the end of the day they both have compromises Ukraine land for NATO membership!

But Im guessing Putin has already told Trump he wont allow NATO membership so that leaves security guarantees so thats what Zelensky has to go for!

Find me where he said "there was no room for" security guarantees.
He said the deal is an "automatic guarantee" - "Nobody’s going to be messing around with our people when we’re there."   (Blowing your loan-whatever malarky out of the water)

Does he want to commit to boots on the ground - of course not.  Political suicide.  And a road to escalation.


"The solution, if as Trump says he is the king of negotiating..."

What a weasel way of not giving an answer.  You know I don't think Trump is perfect. And Russia has a lot more cards than the Ukraine, it is honestly idiotic to suggest otherwise. 

Give me your solution, not some cowardly avoidance exercise in continued Trump-bashing.  Until you can do that, honestly whinging about Trump is just that. 

BRANDED wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:11 Russia and Ukraine should do a Korea. 

The USA doesnt really win wars, it makes business for businesses.

Anyone who doesnt understand this is a child

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 22:10

So now you are saying there was definitely room for negotiating a security guarantee. So Ill ask again why did Trump say there was no room for it! 

The solution, if as Trump says he is the king of negotiating, is to convince Putin to either step away from all Ukraine borders as they were before 22 or let Ukraine join NATO. Putin they are your options now choose! He's happy to play hardball with Ukraine why not Russia? Neither of them have any "cards" left they are both punch drunk running out of troops and equipment and both economies ruined.

Russia started the war and if the land is so important then have it but give Ukraine security. At the end of the day they both have compromises Ukraine land for NATO membership!

But Im guessing Putin has already told Trump he wont allow NATO membership so that leaves security guarantees so thats what Zelensky has to go for!

Hammer I am" wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 21:52

again, Zelensky went in the slim chance that US will ensure their protection in return for their £500 billion windfall, to his shock, and the wider world, are now realising now that Trump had no such intentions, I'm amazed someone with "political experience" such as yourself continues to misunderstand this.

I find it sickening Trump said to Zelensky you're risking world War 3, Trump is the one that's pushed that closer to reality by removing a deterrent that's kept that in check for decades. Lithuania and Bolivia are next, mark my words, Putin has been given the green light US won't get involved, and Europe isn't ready or equipped, What a way to thank your allies that followed into two wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.. Bunch of quisling fifth column schills some of you, and  you worst of all IOC as you have half a brain, shame.

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 21:46

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 21:20

Your interpretation is no more fact based than anyone else so stop pretending. We all saw what happened and both sides have blame attached but if there were to be further talks around security why did Trump tell Zelensky live on air that they were Europes problem. 

You and Trump both seem to initially say there were no security guarantees so why come to sign knowing that, but then say that was to be further discussed over lunch so clearly there was potential for a negotiated security agreement - which is it? My guess is you dont know just like the rest of us. I agree though Zelensky should have kept his powder dry for the off air meeting and so should Trump.

 

It's not my interpretation.  It is from multiple sources that were supposed to be at the lunch.

Again, the deal is a security guarantee, just not what Zelensky wanted, apparently. A demonstration that there is "no daylight" between the American and Ukrainian people. 

This lazy, "who knows?" is a cop out.
 
We know:

If he thought the deal could be salvaged, tweaked, clarified, whatever we call it, he knew that was what the lunch was for. He did not wait for that.

If he didn't want a deal, it was deceptive in coming.  His right to use any means, but that lead to...

If he wanted to relitigate in the press - he tried. He again has that right  but if he wanted the deal, he lost that negotiation. 

But the narrative of the ambush is looney tunes, frankly. 


What is your solution? For Zelensky on the night and for the Ukraine in general.  I am arguing for the deal - basically.  What is your alternative?

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 20:37

Those are weasel words, as well you probably already know, they can be interpreted in any way they see fit, eg we meant the safety and prosperity of the geographical location, which by the way requires us to occupy it, there's nothing in there that ensures Ukraine's remaining territory as a sovereign nation 

I guess that's my point and this is where "Trump is all bad" fails you.

What is your solution?  Boots on the ground?

What words will satisfy you?

And if Trump can't be trusted, why should he abide by any of those words?  
Already a number of countries are not meeting their obligations to the NATO treaties, for instance.

Making things real in terms of minerals in US hands, money in it's coffer and a real political win - tough guy image - "people don't start wars when I'm in charge" is better security than words in a treaty, especially if you can't trust Trump in anything.  Who is going to punish him if he reneges on any deal?  What stops him from breaking a mineral deal? It takes boots on the ground and a massive political loss to take them by force.

And again I guess, if this deal is not good enough in Zelensky's eyes, why did he come to the White House press conference?  He has plenty of chance to negotiate before Friday.

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 21:20

Your interpretation is no more fact based than anyone else so stop pretending. We all saw what happened and both sides have blame attached but if there were to be further talks around security why did Trump tell Zelensky live on air that they were Europes problem. 

You and Trump both seem to initially say there were no security guarantees so why come to sign knowing that, but then say that was to be further discussed over lunch so clearly there was potential for a negotiated security agreement - which is it? My guess is you dont know just like the rest of us. I agree though Zelensky should have kept his powder dry for the off air meeting and so should Trump.

happygilmore wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 21:02 Well done Starmer. Stepping up !

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 20:54

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 20:43

Perhaps the meltdown that ensued during the live discussion could have been avoided if Trump had simply suggested that as per the agreement further discussion would be ongoing.  He didnt have to agree to specifics and that would have shut Zelensky down and kept the talks going. The question is why didnt he do that? Had he already told Zelensky that there would be no such guarantees, which may have put the whole conversation on edge before it even started? Who knows but frankly you know about as much as the rest of us!

Apparently I do know more because I have read and watched too much.

They were expecting to "further discuss" in the lunch that followed the press conference.  But Zelensky started to try to relitigate it in front of the press. So there was no lunch.

I guess again the original question, why does Zelensky come if he didn't want the deal?

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 20:43

Perhaps the meltdown that ensued during the live discussion could have been avoided if Trump had simply suggested that as per the agreement further discussion would be ongoing.  He didnt have to agree to specifics and that would have shut Zelensky down and kept the talks going. The question is why didnt he do that? Had he already told Zelensky that there would be no such guarantees, which may have put the whole conversation on edge before it even started? Who knows but frankly you know about as much as the rest of us!

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 18:56

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 18:21

This is why it requires full transparency and a proper negotiation including all parties. Zelensky obviously wants guarantees and hasnt had them hence asking for them.  how they may be delivered is obviously one of the points he wants clarified before he agrees to any kind of land grab by Putin. 
 

 

Pretty transparent in fact.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/f ... 025-02-26/

The details needed to be worked out. Not on live TV. 

Of course, Zelensky wants more, its his job to try for more.  Even Joe Biden yelled at him for continual asking for more. Even Starmer with all his support words and pounds, won't give him all the security he wants. 

Edit: I guess getting back to the original point of this, if Zelensky didn't think the deal was good enough, why insist on coming to the White House for what amounted to a signing ceremony.  He had weeks to negotiate the deal (and opportunities to sign.)

Those are weasel words, as well you probably already know, they can be interpreted in any way they see fit, eg we meant the safety and prosperity of the geographical location, which by the way requires us to occupy it, there's nothing in there that ensures Ukraine's remaining territory as a sovereign nation 

ironsofcanada wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 19:30

Hammer I am" wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 19:14

he's avoided answering that pertinent point, he seems to think Zelensky should accept it on the good faith on the word of... check's notes... Putin and Trump

There are words about security in the deal. " safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine etc." 
All treaties are words on paper.  If a NATO country decides,-  we are not enforcing Article 5 - there is no force that punishes them.  Maybe some political will at home.

In the real world, it is material actions that will provide security.  Getting your money and the political capital dug into the Ukraine and counting on them for rare earth minerals.  That is as real as security can get. 

BillyJenningsBoots wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 18:42

Nutsin wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 17:52 Yeah and there are plenty who are saying we are heading for more inflation and also some who say we are heading for deflation,(recession) that’s what makes a market ffs!

IT’S ALWAYS THAT WAY.

All you have is conjecture but your track record makes everyone question why you still think you have an opinion?

 

It was you that was stating factually that Trump was successfully bringing inflation down and that interest rates would follow. Ive not seen those figures so dont have a hissy fit just tell me how or where that is stated. If you cant then yours is just conjecture too!

I know how markets work!

Im trying to understand why you and Canada and others have such faith in Trump. It seems bizarre because of what we hear about him currently and his past. The way he conducts himself even you must admit is weirdly non-statemanlike and his relationship with Musk is oddest of all. The news is is nearly always portraying whats going on there as a curcus/shit show and no matter what you may think we in the UK are not restricted to what we can read and as google is backing Trump youd think search algorithms articles would even or maybe favouring Trump but they dont.

Im not saying what I see is perfect hence asking what articles show you that Trumps economic policies are working. A successful US helps the UK markets, helps inflation, interest rates and my pension pot. So if things are looking up Im all for it!

Stop thinking Im trying to trip you up - Im not! But if you bring up Moyes thats different!!!! Swt!

Hammer I am" wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 19:14

he's avoided answering that pertinent point, he seems to think Zelensky should accept it on the good faith on the word of... check's notes... Putin and Trump