Trump and Putin exchange views during a lighter moment.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 15, 2025 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Trump and Putin speak with a representative of the Alaskan people...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 15, 2025 - 10:34 pm: Edit

The summit ends on a positive moment of common purpose to seek peace...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 15, 2025 - 10:35 pm: Edit

The actual Trish Reagan report on the successful summit...

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1470212227558065?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e&fs=e

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, August 16, 2025 - 12:10 am: Edit

Is that a Canadian bear and does it have the proper papers and security clearance?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, August 16, 2025 - 02:56 am: Edit

So, no Nobel prize this year then.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, August 16, 2025 - 02:58 am: Edit

He's got a number of other nations to stop there wars. Including a Peace Treaty between 2 countries who've been fighting for decades.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 01:55 pm: Edit

First off, if this violates the `Gator rule, I apologize and ask for this post to be deleted. Thank you.

The Alaska Summit. A lot of reports are calling it a failure because it didn't get an immediate cease-fire.

How long did negotiations go on before there was a cease-fire in the Korean conflict?

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 02:06 pm: Edit

It's more a failure because the whole approach is wrong. Ukraine has the correct approach. Russia needs to lose.

A cease fire just gives Russia a breather. Worst of all, it allows Putin to claim a victory.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 04:03 pm: Edit

The Ukraine victory approach is not guaranteed to be a success. It relies on Russia collapsing (dangerous and uncertain if that is even possible). It assumes that NATO and the EU have infinite resources and that the Ukrainians can come up with replacements for the casualties. You can say that Trump’s approach is wrong but you cannot say the Ukrainian victory policy is right. One of them might be the best you are going to get, or both of them could be a highway to madness.

War without end is another way of saying death. Peace at any price is another way to say slavery.

NATO is doubtful to have enough trained divisions to fight a war, but there might be enough air power for an intervention to work if you want to roll the dice on nuclear war.

NATO might well have enough navy to blockade Russian oil exports, if you want to roll the dice on nuclear war.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 04:24 pm: Edit

The problem is. When will you confront the bully. Sooner are latter You have to do so. Or just get out of the playground and leave it all for the bully.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Well I think I am with SVC on this one.

Peace has to be good for both sides.

By the sounds of things, the Ukraine will get a solid Alliance (if not NATO membership), money to rebuild and history will record 'they beat the Bear'.

Russia gets enough to say 'we are now protcted from their evil Ukrainians and NATO expanding further East - and we liberated X Russians from opppression...

A small Nuclear War (i.e. Russia uses a few to put the West on notice... and the War then ends**.) might be ok for 80% of the world - but as I live in the 20% - it's not good for me.

Fingers crossed alot will happen tomorrow.


** - Russia will take 20 x as long to be allowed back into World Trade - so it's a lose lose for Russia and Europe.

If NATO hadn't spend the last 30 years cutting militaty expenditure (outside the US and UK).... Putin might not have thought it was on - so a firm line in the sand can be drawn - NATO is protected with much higher expenditure and Ukraine has 2 or 3 agreements with major Western powers.

Unless Putin/Russia can think they rebuild with much better tech AND they don't steal half if it.... - any next time would be much worse than this time,

(What Putin probably DOES need to do - just like the Ukrainians are doing, is route out Corruption - where did all that money go???).

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Based upon the number of "red lines" that Russia previously set and were subsequently crossed by NATO, one wonders if there really are any nuclear dice at all? Or are we rolling them every day and snake eyes just hasn't come up yet?

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 05:51 pm: Edit

The problem Putin faces isn’t just corruption.

Putin and his cronies have cashed in for billions since Putin resumed his position as head of State.

His only viable option, is to root out all “non-Putin” affiliated corruption and hope that it will be enough to turn things around.

I posted some months back, that a number of Putins Cronies have died under suspicious circumstances (falling out of windows, committed suicide by shooting themselves in the back, car bombing etc…)

An alternative way of looking at the data does leave open the possibility that Putin himself recognizes the danger and has been “Pruning “ the list of “Putin Cronies “ as part of a new anti corruption program… but it hasn’t worked out so far.

Ukraine also has corruption issues, but they seem to have controlled it better than Russia has.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 07:52 pm: Edit

About a month before the Russian attack, I said on this board that I was prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian. I see no real reason to revise that statement.

I freely admit this to be a quite cynical willingness to spend coin and blood which are not mine at a massive cost in humans suffering and destruction. But if modest shipments of weapons can keep Ukrainian armies in the field fighting, then why wouldn't we do so?

A settlement where they return to something very close to the January 2022 border, and Ukraine officially cedes the occupied land while getting NATO membership (either full membership or a security guarantee roughly equivalent to full membership) is probably the "best" available end condition for the various combatants, this war is very bad for both sides, but I'm not at all sure it's a best available end condition for the USA, where continuing to bleed Russia and make an example of aggressive warfare failing has real virtues.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Mike E: If losing wasn't so terrible, I'd consider the gamble.

Say, Operation A would mean a 5% chance of losing a US aircraft carrier but a 95% chance of winning the war. Go for it.

But operation B would mean a 4% chance of a nuclear war and a 96% chance of winning a conventional war. That one isn't one I could responsibly roll the dice for. Could anyone here? If you want to roll those dice I would suggest doing it from the most likely target of the first nuclear bomb. That way you wouldn't have to suffer the guilt of being wrong.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 08:57 pm: Edit

The problem is that the West could do far more than it is doing to win the war.

We can and should pump more resources into Ukraine's drone industry. We can and should send more F-16s.

The notion that fighting back risks nuclear war is exactly backwards.

The greater nuclear risk comes from not fighting back out of nuclear fear. That obviously encourages proliferation. And proliferation is a nuclear risk.

Russia has suffered numerous defeats in this war. That, and only that, demonstrates that nuclear intimidation will fail.

If nuclear intimidation succeeds, it will be tried again and again. That's a nuclear risk.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 09:02 pm: Edit

SVC:

The problem with assigning probabilities is one of accuracy.

MAD (mutual Assured destruction ) assumes both parties are rational.

We can’t make any such assessment of Putin’s sanity or rational thought processes, since 2022 (actually earlier than that, but to use the date line you used, just to be consistent.) Putin has authorized a seemingly endless stream of bad decision.

There is a list of dead Putin underlings strewn all along the path.

Now, to be fair, It could have been Putin who ordered the Russian Army to defeat Ukraine within a week, and the first body on the path was the one officer who said “No”.

There are all kinds of other choices equally suspect, such as sending prime troops to occupy Chernoble , until the soldiers started showing signs of radiation poisoning. Or ordering widespread bombing of civilian population centers (which again proved to solidify Ukrainian support to resist Russia.)
Or to order the Black Sea Fleet to continue engaging the enemy until virtually the entire fleet is under going repair, or worse, under water.

Heck, Putin could order a first strike Nuclear attack on all of the capitals of Western Europe and North America , and perhaps he did, and the next body on the Putin path was the officer who had to report none of the strategic missile forces rockets were available for use.

The available evidence suggests that the leader of Russia is not playing with a full deck.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Rolling nuclear dice in a game against a lunatic. Sounds like something the 20 year old version of me would have done. I've evolved since then. War bad.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 18, 2025 - 03:00 am: Edit

The Bad News - Would Ukraine Roll the Dice?

"If you want to roll those dice I would suggest doing it from the most likely target of the first nuclear bomb. That way you wouldn't have to suffer the guilt of being wrong."

They have the most to gain and most to lose I think 'if' they was about to 'win the war'.

Do you want to control 2/3rds of the Ukraine - and it is is a viable and strong nation.... or a 95%+ chance of contrlling all of the Ukraine - and possible abit of Russia - but there is a 5% chance you control 2/3rds of a Wasteland?

Eastern Europe/Middle East/Western Russia and the Baltic States will suffer if that happens - and then nations within 1,000 miles might also suffer to some extent?

Absolutely agree - the chance is small.... but not zero.


The Good News.

Looks like 3 things have been agreed - Crimea stays Russian, Donbas goes to Russia - and Ukraine does have a Secuurity Ageeement to protect it..... things seem to be moving towards peace again.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, August 18, 2025 - 08:56 am: Edit

By all accounts, Putin is quite sane, with the notable exception of being an extreme [whatever-may-harm-him]phobe; that is to say, he's a germophobe, afraid of being poisoned, etc.

Given that, and in combination with the sheer number of "red lines" he has laid out with his nuclear sabre-rattling routine only to have them crossed without consequence, and the rather dire shortfall in Russia's ability to replenish their tritium triggers over the past three-and-a-half decades (remember, their tritium triggers have a useful life of only about 20 years, far shorter than those the U.S. uses), it becomes apparent that he isn't going to go nuclear...if for no other reason than the fallout from a nuked Kyiv falls squarely on Moscow.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, August 18, 2025 - 08:58 am: Edit

Raven, there's a roughly zero percent chance of Ukraine accepting the loss of Donbas. Nada, nil, zip. Heck, even if Zelenskyy changed his position - one he has held since the start - that he is unwilling to do so, the Ukrainian Constitution prevents it (Chapter I, Article 2).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, August 18, 2025 - 09:24 am: Edit

In other news, Tom Artiom Alexandrovich - head of the Defense Division for the Israeli National Cyber Directorate - was arrested in Las Vegas last week on suspicion of involvement in a ring of child predators. He is currently out on bail and has been allowed to return to Israel.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 18, 2025 - 10:11 am: Edit

Putin isn’t going to agree to any deal without gaining Donbas. He also wants guarantees that Crimea is Russian forever. Also, Ukraine is barred from NATO and NATO is barred from Ukraine.

What he wants is Ukraine disarmed and the Ukraine government is changed to one that is less of a problem for Russia or outright allied to Russia but I think he knows he won’t get it.

He is more willing for the war to continue than anyone and he’s not going to agree to much in the way of backing up from where his armies are today. He would rather keep fighting.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 18, 2025 - 11:19 am: Edit

Jessica

Well the 'let you and him fight' is on my doorstep (and Carl is even closer) so hopefully you will accept, if it all going horribly wrong, it is a valid concern to Europe?

On the 'deal' - we will hopefully find out in perhaps 4-6 hours time.... what is included in it?