Agree.

Let’s say that there is an honest, clear, standard diplomatic protocol running as you described. Trump’s concurrent activity, specifically mentioned in this interview, sets the tone and not in a positive way.

they are deals between Israel and other countries, without including Palestine. Here the deal would be between the main protagonists Ukraine and Russia.

That’s exactly my point. The present style of negotiations makes the impression like this was a deal between Russia and USA.

If someone ignores all the cues about the discussion’s context (trumpian peace) let it be implied (thread’s topic; my first post), or explicit (“the point I was making” and beside the point of the present discussion), they shouldn’t complain about the discussion’s style either.

The point I was making is that you can’t make lasting peace through flimsy one-sided negotiations, but the trump brand of peacemaking is about quick “results” with single-presidential-term durability that solves very little on the long run, just pushes the problems to the next presidential term (which may be his own this time…).

Your comparison of Hamas and Russia doesn’t only lack nuance but blatantly ignores crucial geopolitical differences in worldwide influence, military might, and general motivations, which are all totally beside the point of the present discussion.

I remain unimpressed by CNN reporters because he has not asked the most important question: What will guarantee Russia’s adherence to any kind of peace deal?

It’s boring to repost it the Nth time but the 1994 Budapest Memorandum was quite clear about these matters:

1. Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories…
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest…
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.

Yet, putin kicked nearly every single point in the memorandum the moment he felt ready. Why would the same leader act differently in the future?

It’s eerily similar in my view to the Abraham accords. Trump negotiated bypassing Palestinians and then we got Oct 7 and the war that spiraled from it. These “deals” are as flimsy as a CyberTruck, but it’s also very trumpy. He gets to act like a peacemaker and then his successor will deal with the consequent shit. Same thing happened in Afghanistan.

*edit: also, if someone wants to be “fair” (i’d rather say naive) one can consider the official Russian narrative, but again that narrative explicitly goes against the Budapest Memorandum, meaning, they are very open about not respecting treaties they sign.

Canada NEEDS to replace political-parties with something intelligent, honest, and responsible!

you missed the “/s”

just let it go. deterioration of North American (not US) international relations meets criteria for World News.

yup, trump’s a symptom not a straight up cause. his demise is expected to be the least consequential of this “elite” trio, as he is already getting sidelined without consequence. Old, virile trump would have fired musk a month ago.

yup. but putin was young. trump is old and aging fast so the direct applicability to the US is limited. at this point that’s the only nice thing. putin’s old, trump’s old, xi jinping is old. At least twp of them go out of commission in the next 5 years.

the only thing that is going to end this war. It’s called ‘Mutually-Assured Destruction’.

The IDF wouldn’t drop a bomb on their own citizens because their prime ideology is jewish supremacy, plus they have the military might without it. Hamas, OTOH would have no qualms about it. I can’t figure out if you are sarcastic here, but mutual destruction is exactly what would happen, so if you’re saying that nuclear annihilation is the only way to stop this war, then you might be right, but generally that’s the least favorable outcome.

I thought you put it together already. Hamas’ willingness to sacrifice Palestinians is only second to IDF. They’d drop that bomb without hesitation if that meant the final defeat of Israel.

Genocide?

Because of this:

Every single European country with a shared border with Russia has mandatory military service (that red exception on the map is Latvia, which also reinstated it in 2024). This is how much Russia is trusted.

so what would you think hamas do with nukes?

The most telling statistic about Russia’s trustworthiness is that every single independent country that shares a border with Russia on the West has mandatory military service and those in the same region without a shared border with Russia don’t.

without criming?

tate is part black.

definitely!

I’ve never seen this part of rediquetteactualy being followed on reddit (also, it was a joke to demonstrate how this community is different because I upvoted, but someone ruined the joke)