UniParty* sabatogued mineral deal and potential cease fire

New York Post: Disaster in the Oval Office: Dems lead Zelensky, Ukraine off a cliff with pressure to reject mineral deal

By Michael Goodwin

"Actually, the Ukrainian president did read a room but it was the wrong room.

"Before meeting Trump, Zelensky met with anti-Trump Democrats who advised him to reject the terms of the mineral deal the president was offering, according to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

"The earlier meeting with Dems undercuts wild claims that Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance staged an ambush. In fact, it was Zelensky who came with an ulterior motive.

"The purpose of the meeting was to sign the mineral agreement he and Trump representatives had negotiated. He had twice refused to sign it after promising to, and thanks to Murphy, we now know he had no intention of signing it Friday.

"By listening to the nakedly partisan advice of Dems instead of dealing forthrightly with the current president, Zelensky betrayed his countrymen and, for now at least, leaves them without the military and diplomatic protection that only America can provide."

"...The logic is twisted beyond description, but any port in a storm will do. And with Trump off to the fastest start of any president in modern history, Dems are desperate to be relevant....

"The plan went through several drafts and the latest would have America and Ukraine form a partnership to mine the eastern European nation's plentiful rare earth deposits, with much of the proceeds going to help rebuild Ukraine....

"...Murphy and other Dems are no better, celebrating Zelensky's stupendous failure as if it were a victory. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote that "Trump and Vance are doing Putin's dirty work" and the always repellent Sen. Adam Schiff called Trump a "coward."

* = corrected from Dems to UniParty

https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/opinion/dems-lead-zelensky-ukraine-off-a-cliff-with-pressure-to-reject-mineral-deal/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=message_app&fbclid=IwY2xjawIwvu5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHal-Phs1-l1oBxX4pAtNUeFW6HZzDsM_E_pDFgGevtCi0dQatM5nl6s9nA_aem_BWd1JS3b1y3NJU9T30u5yg

They committed no crimes, the DOJ is now full of ideologues who have never tried cases, and Trump is so profoundly detested in this country that the defense attorneys' fees won't be an issue. The court system is no friend to criminals so your side is f@ucked again. Dictatorship is the only way he can punish his enemies and he is circling his wagons to create one.

Committed no crimes? Here's a summary of the Logan Act:

The Logan Act is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1799 that prohibits unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was created to prevent private individuals from undermining official U.S. foreign policy, particularly in response to George Logan's unauthorized diplomacy with France.

If Blinken, Rice, Nuland et al have been coaching Z, how is this not a violation of the Logan Act, a CRIMINAL OFFENSE?
Newsflash. We had an election and your crew of incompetent neocon ghouls was voted out. They don't get to make US policy anymore. It's called democracy. If they are trying to sabotage the peace deal and commit the US to providing Ukraine a security guarantee, they are violating the Logan Act and should be prosecuted.
Three years in prison. Get it done, Biondi.

Indict and prosecute. Let a unanimous jury decide. Go lay a $10K wager on conviction.

Logan Act: Why it could be illegal for Trump to call Putin


https://www.axios.com/2024/10/09/logan-act-trump-putin-calls-explained

*Trump/Musk and most of his appointees are unqualified to govern…..and it's Bondi, not Biondi….and like so many lawyers that fell under Trump's spell, she better not fall into the trap of undertaking unlawful conduct at his direction and on his behalf or she will end up without a law license at the end of her ride. This makes Pam a potential candidate for early exit from the clown car….then she will get a feature in my thread dedicated to early exits.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyers-disbarred-law-licenses-suspended-chesebro-giuliani-cohen-1978351

Well, we know where this is headed.

I agree https://t.co/ZhjBXCTQfp

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 2, 2025

Funny how they threw everything they possibly could at Trump and didn't see fit to go after him for that.
Remember when Trump declined to prosecute HRC for her illegal email server? Where did that get him? We've had 8 years of scorched earth politics and lawfare. It's time to turn the tables. At this point, I don't even care. You don't try to rehabilitate a rabid dog.

*Blinken, Nuland and Rice are unfit for any office.

Bit Blondie seems a poor hire, and Kash lives in... Las Vegas?

Zippergate said:

---

They committed no crimes, the DOJ is now full of ideologues who have never tried cases, and Trump is so profoundly detested in this country that the defense attorneys' fees won't be an issue. The court system is no friend to criminals so your side is f@ucked again. Dictatorship is the only way he can punish his enemies and he is circling his wagons to create one.

Committed no crimes? Here's a summary of the Logan Act:

The Logan Act is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1799 that prohibits unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was created to prevent private individuals from undermining official U.S. foreign policy, particularly in response to George Logan's unauthorized diplomacy with France.

If Blinken, Rice, Nuland et al have been coaching Z, how is this not a violation of the Logan Act, a CRIMINAL OFFENSE?
Newsflash. We had an election and your crew of incompetent neocon ghouls was voted out. They don't get to make US policy anymore. It's called democracy. If they are trying to sabotage the peace deal and commit the US to providing Ukraine a security guarantee, they are violating the Logan Act and should be prosecuted.
Three years in prison. Get it done, Biondi.

---

You are recommending prosecutions based on an unverified Internet rumor. There is no actual evidence of this.

This is the main problem with the post-truth online information ecosystem in a nutshell.

A MAGA user claimed last night that Democratic politicians "Blinken, Rice Nuland and Vindman" had a conference call with Zelensky on his flight to Washington and advised him to "stand… pic.twitter.com/UOsQpHQnge

— Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) March 1, 2025

Zelensky is shady.

Early in the war, Ukraine sent a missile to Poland (NATO) and then Zelensky tried convincing the world that Putin did it.

It could have started WWIII. pic.twitter.com/7YsiRkL6EC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 2, 2025

movielover said:

---

Zelensky is shady.

---

Zelensky is a savior figure to the left and someone who filled the void left by Obama and couldn't be filled by Biden. Remember the Democrats fawning over him in Congress and the Hollywood stars visiting him in Ukraine?

Oh?

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

What is the alternative?

Is there some amount of funding that lets Ukraine win? If so, is Ukraine winning in our national interest? Is it a good ROI? Would US troops have to be deployed? Is Europe really (finally) step up and spend like it's supposed to? And most importantly, are there other ways to achieve our national interest?

I don't Trust Putin and I am absolutely not an isolationist. But I see no path forward where Ukraine wins or beats back Russia to retake its territory. And a massive Hell No to US boots on the ground.

---

It sucks. Welcome to real politik. But I believe that American interests are served by less proliferation, strong international institutions and economic integration. In a real way keeping Russia from "winning" is the cost of doing business in a mean and Hobbessian world.

And I am not one to look back and Monday morning quarterback (except about Coach Wilcox game calls). I think we can now agree that NATO and EU expansion eastward was a mistake or at least a mixed bag with good calls being Poland and Finland and questionable ones being Hungary and arguably the Baltics. But it is what it is and we made commitments under Article 5.

So what is the alternative? Stay the course. Possibly provide additional leathalty. Continue to press both sides to the table for a FRAMEWORK (which feels like concessions on Luhansk and Donetsk (sp). I disagree about "boots on the ground". I think a modest trip wire or monitors (5,000? 10,000?) holds the peace. Putin will not risk american casualties and the track record (Cold War Germany) shows that works.

It really comes down (unless one wants to litigate this as a way of trolling the libs or beating up the establishment elites) as to whether US interests are served with a Western tilting Ukraine or a Rump Ukraine akin to Bellarus. For me that is clear - if only because I think the world is dramatically scarier and more dangerous (and a hell of a lot less prosperous) with Western and Eastern European states questioning US commitments to Europe and, consequently, moving to develop their own nuclear deterrent. This is particularly concerning for those that are too small or don't have a big enough economy to support a SLBM fleet because it means they are vulnerable to first strikes.

---

Yes, this next step is the thing that all of the "peace now!" folks aren't considering. If Russia gets to basically absorb Ukraine (or large sections of it), what is the long-term impact of that? What is the long-term impact of the US abandoning its allies? Yes, you might have peace in the short term (though given the recent Oval Office display this also seems like an open question now) but I'm very doubtful this means a peaceful world in the long term.

---

Realistically, we set Ukraine up and used them.

Your argument about the US abandoning its allies is a rehash of the Vietnam domino theory and other arguments in favor of staying beyond year number 20 in Afghanistan.

Bottom line, 800,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed, and about 20,000 more killed every month, with zero hope of dislodging the Russians from their current position, let alone preventing them from further advances.

At some point you need to stop.

Nope. Neo-isolationist left doesn't believe in alliances. THey love you in Moscow.

socaltownie said:

---

Nope. Neo-isolationist left doesn't believe in alliances. THey love you in Moscow.

---

You can't stop this war because MOSCOW!

The isolationism here is really cultural isolationism, or the fact that because of cultural, historical and geographical factors, it is easy to push the narrative of red/yellow/brown peril to maintain forever wars.

Colonel MacGregor estimates that since 2000, we've spent $16 Trillion on these forever wars.

movielover said:

---

Colonel MacGregor estimates that since 2000, we've spent $16 Trillion on these forever wars.

---

And in that period, China spent over $10 trillion on its domestic infrastructure and international Belt and Road trade infrastructure.

So perfect that Bernie Sanders and Liz Cheney not only both support the US/NATO war in Ukraine, but they're enraged in exactly the same way -- using the same worldview -- to condemn Trump for trying to end it.

That's the DC bipartisan war ideology that needs to be destroyed. pic.twitter.com/fsbn2JyoO4

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 1, 2025

Trump keeps NAIVELY yapping about how Zelensky holds no cards.

That's a real stupid narrative that only dumb Kool-Aid Drinkers believe, in my opinion.

It wouldnt take much for Kyiv to jump-start its nuclear program and returning to nuclear status in a matter of months.

Well he doesn't have any cards...Europe's plan is to come up with a peace plan lol, and then Starmer and Macron to bring it to Trump. Why would they need to bring THEIR peace plan to Trump? Just do it. Because they want to rope the US into this stupid conflict.

If that were the case, the Russians would be in Kiev within weeks. They have a quarter million soldiers ready to go, and lots of moles in Kiev.

Zelensky has no cards. His shelf life as a political leader is very limited at this point. He will be lucky to be able to travel to the US without being arrested for fraud and massive embezzlement.

DiabloWags said:

---

Trump keeps NAIVELY yapping about how Zelensky holds no cards.

That's a real stupid narrative that only dumb Kool-Aid Drinkers believe, in my opinion.

It wouldnt take much for Kyiv to jump-start its nuclear program and returning to nuclear status in a matter of months.

---

My household when we play Uno. Family game night champ pic.twitter.com/cyQKzWjV7Q

— memesthatmiss (@memesthatmiss) March 1, 2025

I disagree.

And you'd have to be terribly naive to think that Trump can just walk away from Ukraine. Same with Vance, if he wants to become President some day.

The core interest hasnt changed no matter how much of a "Game Show" Trump allowed the Oval Office to become last week.

And berating Ukraine in front of the entire world will make it harder to achieve.

Turns out all these European countries who “support Ukraine” are actually supporting Russia pic.twitter.com/XyMvvH76U0

— Mostly Peaceful Memes (@MostlyPeacefull) March 2, 2025

Russia holds more UNO cards than Ukraine.

Haloski said:

---

I don't get why some of you just can't say Putin's an ******* for invading a sovereign nation.

Y'all afraid of windows or something?

---

Putin is an ******* for invading a sovereign nation that is the 3rd or 4th most corrupt in the world according to my blue anon sources.

Haloski said:

---

I don't get why some of you just can't say Putin's an ******* for invading a sovereign nation.

Y'all afraid of windows or something?

---

Yesterday, Zelensky's military recruiters snatched another young man off the street, threw him into a black van as he screamed, and left behind his dog.

Thousands of videos online show Ukraine forcibly drafting young men to fight in an unwinnable war.pic.twitter.com/a0UJZQytWC

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 1, 2025

This guy and his dog don't care if Putin is an *******. They just don't want to die!

Fresh in from the Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia Hoax Department:

" Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia, according to a current official and two former officials briefed on the secret instructions. The move is apparently part of a broader effort to draw President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into talks on Ukraine and a new relationship with the United States.

……. But the Trump administration has already begun to dismantle efforts by the F.B.I. and other agencies to warn about Russian propaganda, and the order by the Pentagon would halt, at least for now, any further Cyber Command efforts to interrupt future Russian influence campaigns."
-NYT

It seems the cart is before the horse. The UniParty blew up the Zelensky OO meeting.

UKRAINE: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that the UK is preparing to deploy active-duty troops to Ukraine, putting "boots on the ground." Presumably, this refers to participation in a peacekeeping force following the signing of a peace agreement between Russia… pic.twitter.com/RuWuuM1Ok7

— @amuse (@amuse) March 2, 2025

7 years ago, Trump warned NATO they will one day regret buying Russian oil.

Everyone mocked him for it.

pic.twitter.com/Mm5x1QQVLo

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 2, 2025

PM Keir Starmer now wants to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine. Good luck… pic.twitter.com/qyIgT1IKEY

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 2, 2025

Russian hypersonic missiles take out weapons delivery for Ukraine.

Russian missiles 'sink cargo ship carrying UK weapons for Ukraine' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14452455/Putin-missile-attack-sink-container-ship-British-weapons-Ukraine.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

When Musk purchases the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump, does anyone have any creative ideas for how he can best monetize it?

My idea would be a meme crypto coin.

bear2034 said:

---

Haloski said:

---

I don't get why some of you just can't say Putin's an ******* for invading a sovereign nation.

Y'all afraid of windows or something?

---

Yesterday, Zelensky's military recruiters snatched another young man off the street, threw him into a black van as he screamed, and left behind his dog.

Thousands of videos online show Ukraine forcibly drafting young men to fight in an unwinnable war.pic.twitter.com/a0UJZQytWC

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 1, 2025

This guy and his dog don't care if Putin is an *******. They just don't want to die!

---

These conscripts are detained and sent under supervision to the frontline, where they will not last more than a week or two. Ukraine is losing at least 20,000 soldiers per month. There has been many cases where kidnapped conscripts have turned on their captors once they get live ammunition, so they are closely guarded in barracks and receive very minimal training. The lucky ones will be those who will be in a position to surrender without being shot in the back.

There are still around a couple of hundred hardcore Ukrainian nationalists in their army, most of them are in Kiev, Kharkov, Dnipro, Odessa and other cities to keep an eye on the populace.

If American soldiers got killed in Vietnam at the rate Russian soldiers have been getting killed in Ukraine, 660,000 American soldiers would have died.

*Putin wants to know the shipping address Trump wants to use for those Ukrainian minerals.

" Senator Murphy: "The White House has become an arm of the Kremlin."


"The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations," the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told a reporter from state television. "This largely coincides with our vision."
-The Guardian

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

What is the alternative?

Is there some amount of funding that lets Ukraine win? If so, is Ukraine winning in our national interest? Is it a good ROI? Would US troops have to be deployed? Is Europe really (finally) step up and spend like it's supposed to? And most importantly, are there other ways to achieve our national interest?

I don't Trust Putin and I am absolutely not an isolationist. But I see no path forward where Ukraine wins or beats back Russia to retake its territory. And a massive Hell No to US boots on the ground.

---

It sucks. Welcome to real politik. But I believe that American interests are served by less proliferation, strong international institutions and economic integration. In a real way keeping Russia from "winning" is the cost of doing business in a mean and Hobbessian world.

And I am not one to look back and Monday morning quarterback (except about Coach Wilcox game calls). I think we can now agree that NATO and EU expansion eastward was a mistake or at least a mixed bag with good calls being Poland and Finland and questionable ones being Hungary and arguably the Baltics. But it is what it is and we made commitments under Article 5.

So what is the alternative? Stay the course. Possibly provide additional leathalty. Continue to press both sides to the table for a FRAMEWORK (which feels like concessions on Luhansk and Donetsk (sp). I disagree about "boots on the ground". I think a modest trip wire or monitors (5,000? 10,000?) holds the peace. Putin will not risk american casualties and the track record (Cold War Germany) shows that works.

It really comes down (unless one wants to litigate this as a way of trolling the libs or beating up the establishment elites) as to whether US interests are served with a Western tilting Ukraine or a Rump Ukraine akin to Bellarus. For me that is clear - if only because I think the world is dramatically scarier and more dangerous (and a hell of a lot less prosperous) with Western and Eastern European states questioning US commitments to Europe and, consequently, moving to develop their own nuclear deterrent. This is particularly concerning for those that are too small or don't have a big enough economy to support a SLBM fleet because it means they are vulnerable to first strikes.

---

Yes, this next step is the thing that all of the "peace now!" folks aren't considering. If Russia gets to basically absorb Ukraine (or large sections of it), what is the long-term impact of that? What is the long-term impact of the US abandoning its allies? Yes, you might have peace in the short term (though given the recent Oval Office display this also seems like an open question now) but I'm very doubtful this means a peaceful world in the long term.

---

Realistically, we set Ukraine up and used them.

Your argument about the US abandoning its allies is a rehash of the Vietnam domino theory and other arguments in favor of staying beyond year number 20 in Afghanistan.

Bottom line, 800,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed, and about 20,000 more killed every month, with zero hope of dislodging the Russians from their current position, let alone preventing them from further advances.

At some point you need to stop.

---

You all are VERY confident that Russia will not try to take any more territory if they are allowed to have some now. I am not. My concerns are especially not eased when people who originally predicted that Russia would not invade Ukraine at all are now making assurances that they won't do it again.

But it is what it is. Clearly our newly-elected government believes in pulling back from the world stage and making deals with authoritarian regimes like Russia, while antagonizing Ukraine and the other liberal democracies who joined us in supporting them. Clearly nothing I can say here will convince anyone who likes this course of action that it is a bad one. We'll just have to sit back and see what the consequences are. I sincerely hope they are not bad ones.

One big reason they don’t want this war to end—especially not while Trump is around—is because too many inconvenient truths would come out:

• The Maidan massacre was a false flag
• Confirmation that U.S. orchestrated the 2014 coup, including Biden's and USAID’s role
• Open…

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) March 2, 2025

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

What is the alternative?

Is there some amount of funding that lets Ukraine win? If so, is Ukraine winning in our national interest? Is it a good ROI? Would US troops have to be deployed? Is Europe really (finally) step up and spend like it's supposed to? And most importantly, are there other ways to achieve our national interest?

I don't Trust Putin and I am absolutely not an isolationist. But I see no path forward where Ukraine wins or beats back Russia to retake its territory. And a massive Hell No to US boots on the ground.

---

It sucks. Welcome to real politik. But I believe that American interests are served by less proliferation, strong international institutions and economic integration. In a real way keeping Russia from "winning" is the cost of doing business in a mean and Hobbessian world.

And I am not one to look back and Monday morning quarterback (except about Coach Wilcox game calls). I think we can now agree that NATO and EU expansion eastward was a mistake or at least a mixed bag with good calls being Poland and Finland and questionable ones being Hungary and arguably the Baltics. But it is what it is and we made commitments under Article 5.

So what is the alternative? Stay the course. Possibly provide additional leathalty. Continue to press both sides to the table for a FRAMEWORK (which feels like concessions on Luhansk and Donetsk (sp). I disagree about "boots on the ground". I think a modest trip wire or monitors (5,000? 10,000?) holds the peace. Putin will not risk american casualties and the track record (Cold War Germany) shows that works.

It really comes down (unless one wants to litigate this as a way of trolling the libs or beating up the establishment elites) as to whether US interests are served with a Western tilting Ukraine or a Rump Ukraine akin to Bellarus. For me that is clear - if only because I think the world is dramatically scarier and more dangerous (and a hell of a lot less prosperous) with Western and Eastern European states questioning US commitments to Europe and, consequently, moving to develop their own nuclear deterrent. This is particularly concerning for those that are too small or don't have a big enough economy to support a SLBM fleet because it means they are vulnerable to first strikes.

---

Yes, this next step is the thing that all of the "peace now!" folks aren't considering. If Russia gets to basically absorb Ukraine (or large sections of it), what is the long-term impact of that? What is the long-term impact of the US abandoning its allies? Yes, you might have peace in the short term (though given the recent Oval Office display this also seems like an open question now) but I'm very doubtful this means a peaceful world in the long term.

---

Realistically, we set Ukraine up and used them.

Your argument about the US abandoning its allies is a rehash of the Vietnam domino theory and other arguments in favor of staying beyond year number 20 in Afghanistan.

Bottom line, 800,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed, and about 20,000 more killed every month, with zero hope of dislodging the Russians from their current position, let alone preventing them from further advances.

At some point you need to stop.

---

You all are VERY confident that Russia will not try to take any more territory if they are allowed to have some now. I am not. My concerns are especially not eased when people who originally predicted that Russia would not invade Ukraine at all are now making assurances that they won't do it again.

But it is what it is. Clearly our newly-elected government believes in pulling back from the world stage and making deals with authoritarian regimes like Russia, while antagonizing Ukraine and the other liberal democracies who joined us in supporting them. Clearly nothing I can say here will convince anyone who likes this course of action that it is a bad one. We'll just have to sit back and see what the consequences are. I sincerely hope they are not bad ones.

---

By allowed to have some now, are you referring to the territory Russia has already taken through war and are progressing to take more land militarily? Is the strategy just to say enough mean things about Putin that he will be upset and give the land back?