Trump Hosts World Leaders as Ukraine Peace Talks Advance

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 3 months ago

   Is Trump coming close to ending the Russia/Ukraine war? Look what is coming up this week in the White House.
   
   President Donald Trump is gearing up for another eventful week in Washington, D.C., meeting with foreign leaders as his administration works toward brokering a potential peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.
   
   As he enters his fifth week back in the Oval Office, Trump is set to meet with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, according to national security advisor Mike Waltz, who shared the news on Fox News’ America Reports. The meeting comes after Macron called for an emergency gathering of world leaders in response to the Trump administration's decision to exclude European nations from direct involvement in the ongoing negotiations to end the war.
   
   “Just a few months ago, everyone was treating this war as if it had no end,” Waltz said during the segment, confirming that Starmer and Macron will be in Washington, D.C. “But in a very short period, President Trump has changed the conversation—now everyone, from the Ukrainians to the Russians to the Europeans, is debating the issue seriously. Only President Trump could make that happen, and that has to be acknowledged.”
   
   Last week, Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff traveled to Riyadh, where they met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, Yuri Ushakov, to explore options for ending the conflict. However, Ukraine was notably absent from the discussions in Saudi Arabia, prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reiterate that his country will not accept any peace agreement unless it is directly involved in negotiations. Speaking to reporters in Turkey on Tuesday, Zelenskyy asserted, “Nobody decides anything behind our back.” He has repeatedly emphasized that Kyiv will not agree to any deal that excludes Ukraine from the process.
   
   Trump, meanwhile, has ramped up his criticism of Zelenskyy, questioning his effectiveness as a negotiator. Speaking with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade last week, Trump expressed frustration with Ukraine’s leader.
   
   “I’ve been watching this man for years as his cities are destroyed, as his people are killed, as his soldiers suffer heavy losses,” Trump said. “And I’ve watched him negotiate from a position of weakness. He has no leverage, and honestly, you get sick of it. I’ve had enough.”President Trump
   
   He went on to criticize Zelenskyy’s complaints about being excluded from recent talks, arguing that Ukraine’s participation in previous negotiations under the Biden administration yielded no results.
   
   “He’s been at these meetings for three years with a president who had no idea what he was doing, and nothing got done,” Trump continued. “So, to be honest, I don’t think it’s all that important for him to be at these meetings now. He makes it very difficult to reach a deal.” President Trump
   
   Trump also took aim at Macron and Starmer, arguing that they “haven’t done anything” since 2022 to help bring the war to an end.
   
   His comments have raised concerns among European leaders who have supported Ukraine throughout the war. Macron, in particular, has signaled that he plans to take a firm stance during his meeting with Trump.
   
   “I know Trump, I respect him, and I believe he respects me,” Macron said during a Q&A session on social media. “But I will tell him this: Deep down, you cannot be weak in the face of Vladimir Putin. That’s not who you are, it’s not in your nature, and it’s not in your interest.”
   
   Macron also stressed the importance of Ukraine’s role in any peace deal, saying, “Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue—least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything they have endured, after all they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine. The Ukrainian people deserve a long-term, secure future.”
   
   Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke with reporters following CPAC on Saturday, indicating that a peace deal could be finalized as soon as this week.
   Quotes from Reuters as well as Fox interviews
   
   Will he pull it off with good speed? Going to predict--- I am simply saying I think he will. 
   
   A few questions---
   
   What leverage does Trump have to push for an agreement that previous administrations lacked?
   
   Do Trump’s criticisms of Zelenskyy reflect frustration over stalled progress, or is he trying to shift the negotiation dynamic?
   
   What specific outcomes should we expect from Trump’s meetings with Macron and Starmer?
   
   How likely is it that a peace deal will be reached this week, as the White House suggests?
   
   What role, if any, does Saudi Arabia play in these discussions, and why was it chosen as a negotiation site?
   
   If a peace deal is reached, how will it impact U.S. relations with NATO and other European partners?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      tsmogposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Just shooting from the hip, having a minimal amount of knowledge of the conflict in comparison to Mike or Ken, and not doing any research. Most definitely an opinion while speculation may have a hand in the mix.
      
      A few questions---
      
      What leverage does Trump have to push for an agreement that previous administrations lacked?
      
      It is not a matter of lacking leverage, it is a matter of exerting a force on the lever(age). How, one might ask. By reneging on financial and military equipment / armament support.
      
      Do Trump’s criticisms of Zelenskyy reflect frustration over stalled progress, or is he trying to shift the negotiation dynamic?
      
      Stalled progress? Progress of what? The offensive of Ukraine militarily? Peace talks between Putin and Zelenskyy? I haven't heard of any peace talks since the war began. I plead ignorance on that matter. So, any real sit down peace talks would be shifting the dynamics of seeking peace.
      
      What specific outcomes should we expect from Trump’s meetings with Macron and Starmer?
      
      Digging up the ground to pour the foundation for future building. In other words, coming to an understanding of each position.
      
      How likely is it that a peace deal will be reached this week, as the White House suggests?
      
      I would say it is 70/30 against an actual peace agreement. How could it happen without Zelenskyy there. There 'may' be an outside chance that an agreement on the possibilities of specifics are drawn up.
      
      What role, if any, does Saudi Arabia play in these discussions, and why was it chosen as a negotiation site?
      
      I don't know.
      
      If a peace deal is reached, how will it impact U.S. relations with NATO and other European partners?
      
      If a peace deal is mapped out most European leaders will be disappointed on the one hand and relieved on the other. I don't think it will affect NATO or our position in it. Trump will still have stick in his craw about the financial commitment being met.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

         I agree with almost everything you’ve said, especially regarding leverage—it’s not about lacking it but about applying it effectively. Trump has shown he’s willing to use financial and military aid as a bargaining tool, which could shift the dynamics in a way previous administrations hesitated to do. The lack of real peace talks so far has been a significant factor, and if Trump can push for actual negotiations, that alone would be a major shift. His meetings with Macron and Starmer are likely about laying the groundwork rather than immediate action. While a peace agreement may not happen this week, I do think it will come quickly—and when it does, it will likely be a good deal for both sides. I also believe Trump will secure a big win by negotiating mineral rights from Ukraine, which will benefit both Ukraine and the U.S. in the long run. As for NATO, I agree—Trump will continue to push for financial commitments, and while European leaders may have mixed feelings, they won’t be able to ignore the potential benefits of ending the war. I think we are in for some interesting times ahead.

         replyreport
2. 70

   Ken Burgessposted 3 months ago

   Tragedy Upon Tragedy
   
   That should be the Title when some historian writes about the Biden Administration.
   
   No greater Tragedy than Ukraine... what could have... should have been avoided... the deaths of hundreds of thousands...
   
   Good people, simple folk looking to live a normal life... so many dead, so many displaced... millions lost their homes.
   
   Same for Syria... once a nation... now a pile of rubble that only terrorists want to claim as their home.
   
   Truly, truly sad.  Kinda reminds me of how badly we are lied to, about wars that did not have to happen... about who benefits (not the people of those nations whose lives are ruined)... about the global population itself...
   
   The most IMPORTANT talk on the demographic crisis you will ever hear
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6KptpOuo7E

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      It's so odd to think back to three years ago when this all began. I remember asking, day after day, as months passed, why there were no real negotiations happening. It became clear to me that this was a proxy war, and no one seemed to care about the destruction and death. Now, we have a president who's working towards peace, yet he’s being painted as the bad guy. No credit will be given where it’s due. But I have full confidence that Trump will bring peace, and not just any peace, but a fair one. The U.S. and Ukraine will engage in mutual business regarding the mineral deal, and both nations will come out stronger for it.
      
      I agree Biden brought so much tragedy. He was a man that had no business in [politics at all.  I respect how Trump is handling the situation, and hopefully, he will back away from NATO. We need to worry about America at this point. can't worry about nations that not only lack respect for what we offered over the many years, but at this point, they have become a dinosaur outfit, no longer needed in the nuclear age. NATO was needed decades ago, but they are played out.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

         Does anyone ever blame Putin for absolutely anything?  In Trump World does Putin ever do anything wrong? Takes 2 to negotiate . 
         
         And then we have this ..
         
         
         Not cool.  Many of us here in America don't support Putin or Russia.... Pretty sure we're actually in the majority

         replyreport
3. 60

   Willowarborposted 3 months ago

   President Macron quickly interrupted a Trump lie, fearlessly fact checking him in real time....
   
   https://x.com/meyer_lucas/status/1894101507844301041
   
   Trump says “Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine” and “they’re getting their money back” when Macron interrupted to say, “No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort.”
   
   Pretty bold of trump to try and pass off this lie with Macron sitting right next to him... What is wrong with him?

   replyreport
4. 85

   Sharlee01posted 3 months ago

   My view---The U.S. voted against the Ukraine resolution at the UN because the Trump administration opposed the language used in the European-backed resolution, which explicitly condemned Russia. Instead, the U.S. had proposed its own resolution that focused on ending the war and pushing for a peace agreement but did not directly blame Russia. When European nations amended the U.S. draft to include stronger language against Russia, the U.S. withdrew its support and voted against the final resolution.
   
   Essentially, the U.S. opposed the resolution because it wanted a version that prioritized peace negotiations without assigning explicit blame. The Trump administration—pushing for a rapid resolution to the war—believed that a more neutral stance would help facilitate diplomacy rather than escalating tensions. The vote also reflected Trump's broader skepticism toward European allies' approach to the war, as well as his desire to shift U.S. policy on Ukraine away from direct confrontation with Russia.
   
   Yes, Europe always speaks a harsh game, but they actually need to step aside with their attitudes. They did nothing but condemn, talk, and support 100,000 people being killed—all in the name of a proxy war. Well, time to realize they did nothing and shut up and let a man who hopes to stop the killing and destruction take charge. They are pathetic, as the news conference today with Macron and Trump showed. Macron's liberal words sounded ridiculous—same old, same old. Time for NATO to come to realize they are all but done.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      The U.S. proposed a competing resolution that omitted any mention of Russian aggression.... Why do Republicans have such a hard time admitting the reality that Russia started this war?    Why the trouble facing reality?  Just looks like we're kissing Putin's ass.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

         I can only share my perspective. It was clear from the start that Russia was the aggressor, just as I felt when they moved into Crimea. I've said before that little to no real negotiations took place in the beginning, and for years now, there has been nothing. I fully blame the Biden administration and NATO for this. I think Trump is showing good common sense by not taking sides—he's the one who will have to negotiate. NATO is being blustery now and looks foolish. They need to step back and keep quiet. That’s my view. Let Trump bring a quick and hopefully fair resolution for both countries. NATO looks foolish to even be stepping up at this point.It would appear they hope to take some form of place at the table--- to bad they did not do something 3 years ago. many lives would have been saved. How many have died due to weak NATO leaders.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            So you've absolved Putin as having any part?    No blame for him that he did not participate in a meaningful manner with any negotiations?   Was it America's job 3 years ago to kiss his ass? To hand them whatever he wanted on a silver platter? Capitulation, appeasement?  We look weak as hell right now.
            
            We voted with the dictators today... We voted alongside Iran, North korea, Belarus and Sudan.  My God we sided with Russia. 
            
            Yeah I suppose Biden could have come to Putin to kiss his ass 3 years ago and give him anything he wanted...like trump is about to do.  I've heard of no concessions that Russia is offering in this deal, have you
            
            Not sure why anyone would support a president that calls Zelensky a dictator and blames Ukraine for starting the war.... The overwhelming majority of America to do not support Trump's position on Russia

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

               Yikes! No way can I address your comment. We are 10 miles apart on mindset.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
5. 70

   Ken Burgessposted 3 months ago

   Worth the watch/listen:
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8VKVRiZTNI
   
   Jaffrey Sachs, the other day stated facts, what a wonderfully intelligent and wise man amongst a cesspool of politicians and war mongers.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing. I mentioned a few early negotiations where the U.S. played only a small role. Yes, Zelensky was difficult to deal with, and as Sachs pointed out, he walked away from deals that some leaders thought were very good.
      
      What I find comical is that Macron has stepped up after three years, acting like a hero, as though he could take credit for what Trump is working on. After three years and no peace, Trump is likely the one who will end this war—and probably make a lucrative deal for minerals—But some people will still refuse to give him any doing what we sent him to do. credit. Some will kick the schoolhouse wall, look to the sky, and scream--- He is for the people, and he will not stop
      
      I love her--- no one can say I am a liberal, and proud of it as this wonderful woman--

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

         Macron wasn't acting like a hero but simply fact checking Trump's lie in real time.  Good for him .  Trump didn't look too happy about it. Oh well.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            What I saw was Macron being put in his play and turning five shades of red.
            
            Grants do not need to be paid back. They are essentially gifts from one country or institution to another, provided without the expectation of repayment. Grants are often used for humanitarian aid, military assistance, or economic support.
            
            Loans, on the other hand, do need to be repaid, often with interest. Some loans are offered on concessional terms, meaning they have lower interest rates and longer repayment periods to ease the burden on the recipient country.
            
            During the press conference, Trump highlighted that France, and Europe more broadly, have provided Ukraine with significant financial aid primarily in the form of loans, which will need to be repaid. Macron pushed back, but the numbers support Trump’s point. The EU’s €18 billion macro-financial assistance package in 2023 was largely structured as loans, and the €50 billion Ukraine Facility for 2024-2027 also includes substantial loan-based support. Meanwhile, the U.S. has taken the opposite approach, offering mostly grants that do not need to be repaid. Of the $174 billion the U.S. has committed to Ukraine, the vast majority has been outright grants, with only a small portion, such as the $20 billion loan backed by profits from immobilized Russian assets, structured as a loan. While both Europe and the U.S. have provided aid, Trump's point stands—Europe has relied more on repayable loans, while the U.S. has largely given free cash.
            
            I understood Trump's point of view. I have followed all the funds the US has spent on the Ukraine war.
            
            Reports indicate that Trump is negotiating a deal with Zelensky to secure U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources as a way to offset the financial aid the U.S. has provided during the war. The agreement, which could be finalized soon, would allow the U.S. to partner with Ukraine in developing valuable resources like lithium and titanium. Initially, there were discussions about the U.S. receiving up to $500 billion in potential revenue from these resources, but that demand has reportedly been dropped in favor of a more balanced arrangement. Trump has suggested the deal could be worth up to a trillion dollars, helping to recoup some of the massive U.S. spending on Ukraine. The proposed agreement would establish a joint investment fund, where Ukraine would contribute 50% of the revenue from future resource extraction, reinvesting those funds into rebuilding efforts. This could work out for both the US and Ukraine. I give Trump credit for thinking outside the box.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

               https://youtu.be/IWZU4zrOoLE?si=N2X7pOUdnSBU5Tsh

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I shared what I picked up, and already knew about who and how cash was being poured into the Ukraine. I will say most likely many would not have seen this situation as I did. But Trump ultimately was not wrong. He seemed to be polite when he did not fully come back at him. Anyway, that's how I took Trump's words.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                     Macron explained their funds to Ukraine.  That has nothing to do with Trump or our country.  Honestly, he should have kept his mouth shut

                     replyreport
6. 81

   Credence2posted 3 months ago

   Read this excerpt from an Atlantic Magazine article, is it true?
   
   “The scene in Kyiv earlier this month recalled the darkest days of oligarchic rule. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent slipped a piece of paper across the table to Volodmyr Zelensky. “You really need to sign this,” Bessent told the Ukrainian president, according to The Wall Street Journal. The document was a deal to give the United States the rights to hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Ukraine’s minerals. When Zelensky said that he needed time to consider the proposal, Bessent pushed the paper closer to him and warned that “people back in Washington” would be very upset.
   
   The Trump administration was operating in the old spirit of the kleptocrats who built fortunes in Ukraine and Russia at the dawn of the post-Communist era, wielding veiled threats to bully the nation’s leader into hastily handing over precious resources in a shady deal.”

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      The problem with the article is that the paragraph you provided contains no direct quotes or sources. Failing to cite sources for such a claim is not good journalism—it fosters mistrust. Yet, some people are willing to accept this kind of reporting without question. After reading the article, I did my own research, and it appears that Zelensky is fully on board with the mineral rights deal. His nation stands to gain significant wealth from it, which, along with job creation, will help rebuild a war-torn country. Zelensky is scheduled to visit the White House on Friday, and we may hear more about the deal in a press conference where he can address the issue directly. It’s disappointing that some, like yourself, are unwilling to wait for the facts and instead choose to believe unsourced articles.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

         First of all Sharlee, I did not present that excerpt as fact but only asked, is it true....
         
         You quote so many statistics from Musk's propaganda rags, yet insult an venerable 160 year old institution like the Atlantic Monthly. As far as I am concerned, Musk is unconfirmed and unverified.
         
         
         But to the point. If I were Zelensky, I would insist on security guarantees against Russia taking everything before giving Trump a dime. I would simply say NO to Trump if he does not offer compensation. European allies have paid to support an ally, and we have done so before in the past without extorting them in return.
         
         But, as you say, we will wait and see, I don't trust Trump implicitly, and Zelensky may well get screwed in the deal.
         
         I not certain that Putin is going to like having the United States digging around in the contested area in some sort of mining agreement. We will see how it all plays out.

         replyreport