“The position of France is clear and will not change. We stand for sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with international law,” Macron said. “We will continue to defend the Ukrainian people’s right to live in peace on their territory and within their internationally recognized borders.”
If the US truly wanted to get russia to negotiate, they would understand that the best option is a massive ballistic strike on Moscow (government/military/R&D facilities, but also key bridges and admin centres). And this would have to be done on a regular basis.
But the Americans (not only Trump) lack balls and are too ignorant to be able to negotiate with the russians.
Why would trump, a russian asset do any of the above? He really only has one real goal and it’s not in Ukraine’s best interest. Hell, it’s not even the US’s best interest. trump only serves himself and his interests align with putin.
I am talking about American approaches to russia in general.
From my understanding (I have several friends from the US and I used to live in North America), the public (even pro-Ukrainian Americans) largely doesn’t understand how to deal with russians.
You have to treat them more like the Islamic state (a strong majority of russians are genocidal imperialists and many of the remainder are merely avid imperialists, albeit without open genocidal intent). You can’t buy into their threats. You have understand their psyche and not buy into their fear mongering.
Yeah, except the part where Islamic states regularly commit genocide and respond with crimes against humanity like assad with his chemical weapons. Part of being a genocidal imperialist is a willingness to commit evil acts, like using a nuke. You’re convinced for some reason that they won’t resort to wmds but you have given absolutely no justification for that view
Being genocidal and, indeed, committing crimes against humanity on a regular basis, does not make one suicidal. Any, and with that I mean any, nuclear state opting to retaliate against Russia using nukes would mean the end of Russia. No, not all of them can glass the whole landmass but there’s no Russia without Moscow and St. Petersburg. No empire without its core.
Russia has nuclear bombs that can reach the US. While they have a lot of “red lines” that have turned out not to be, it seems likely that hitting Moscow would be a real red line and the end the world.
Europe has the same ability to strike Russia that way, they don’t for similar reasons.
Thank you for proving my point. The “end of the world” phrase was the cherry on top.
Believe it or not, I have a measure of understanding of American attitudes, both from living in the US and having American who friends with views across the spectrum on this issue.
A large ballistic strike on Moscow and SPB (at least 50 rockets, if not more) is exactly how you show the russians that you mean business.
At this point, westerners typically use “you’re being emotional/unreasonable” or “I don’t want nuclear war” type excuses.
This is all BS. Do you speak russian? Do you speak any other “local” languages? Have you ever lived in russia? Where? Can you provide 3 key bullet points for every decade of the 20th century w.r.t russian empire/USSR/modern Russia?
If you had any real knowledge of russian history you would see how your “end of the world” rhetoric isn’t backed by reality (I am not just referring to 1962, other factors are important too).
P.S. You do understand that Ukraine regularly hits Moscow and has even hit the Kremlin?
Ukraine isn’t the US. Your post scripts is pointless and your main script lacks anything more compelling than “trust me bro”
Krasnov is as Krasnov does.