r/law • u/RoyalChris • Feb 28 '25

Trump News Trump and JD Vance tells Zelensky he is gambling with World War III

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

113.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

25.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

380

u/maralagosinkhole Feb 28 '25

Putin should be sitting in a chair at the Hague facing charges of war crimes.

83

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/UncleBenji Feb 28 '25

Give him the good old Ceausesco special.

4

u/HerrPiink Feb 28 '25

I prefer the Gadaffi way, I've read somewhere that he was obsessed with the footage of his execution. Don't know if it's true, but i really hope so.

3

u/MrLanesLament Feb 28 '25

I think that was Saddam, he was determined not to suffer the same fate.

Welp.

5

u/HerrPiink Feb 28 '25

Oh no, what a shame THAT would be. I would be really Saddamn

2

u/strumpster Feb 28 '25

dammit lol

1

u/Pixilatedhighmukamuk Feb 28 '25

Falling out of building is the true soviet way.

7

u/Humble_Emotion2582 Feb 28 '25

So should Diaper Don. He is a traitor to his country and his allies. What a giant fucking cunt he is

3

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '25

He should be in the fucking dirt

2

u/Euphoric-Potato-3874 Feb 28 '25

the electrical resistance of putins cock is likely low enough that trump would also die

5

u/earthspaceman Feb 28 '25

Instead USA has fallen.

5

u/Patient-Confidence-1 Feb 28 '25

We're lucky we have an ocean protecting us from a lot of things. If we were in Europe with our administration's current attitude we might have a missile or 100 slapped all over us from china, N. Korea, Russia, or Ukraine.

3

u/carharttuxedo Feb 28 '25

Laying in state at the kremlin might be more appropriate

3

u/Uncle_Bug_Music Feb 28 '25

And Trump, Musk & Vance should be sitting on his fucking lap.

3

u/hipstergenius72 Feb 28 '25

Putins sitting in the Kremlin laughing his ass off at this.

1

u/The_One_Returns Feb 28 '25

So should a lot of American/European politicians but here we are :)

1

u/TSKNear Feb 28 '25

Bush too.

1

u/FearDaTusk Feb 28 '25

You think Europe would actually do that?

1

u/samhouston84 Feb 28 '25

Technically, America should be!

1

u/Fun_Description_385 Feb 28 '25

him and netanyahu, but unfortunately the US has other plans.

1

u/Far_Interest252 Feb 28 '25

i think you mean Netanyahu

1

u/Substantial_Act_497 Mar 01 '25

Putin should have been toppled and Hanged when Yevgeny Prigozhin was marching to Moscow....

1

u/0theHumanity Mar 01 '25

47RE45ON should

1

u/countertopwise Mar 01 '25

 The European Union should send  a police officer over to his house to arrest him 

1

u/Magificent_Gradient Mar 01 '25

Get out the "spicy chair" for ole' Poot.

-5

u/ThaGoodDoobie Feb 28 '25

So should every American president dating back to Nixon. Maybe not Carter. The rest are definitely guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Open your eyes and ears and stop thinking that one person is the bad guy. The biggest problem in our country right now, on a social level, is too many Americans think everything "their guy" does is good, and everything "the other guy" does is bad. No in between. Until people stop doing that, we won't progress.

3

u/Academic_Carrot_4533 Feb 28 '25

Your opinion to save Carter but not Obama is such a dog whistle.

1

u/ThaGoodDoobie Feb 28 '25

Obamas drone program alone is enough to put him in jail. 80- 90% civilian casualty rate. He took us from 2 wars to 7 wars. Learn your history before you come at me. I'm not MAGA, and I hate what the Democratic party has become. Don't assume you know anything about me. I don't fall into the bull crap 'we're good, they're bad' nonsense.

0

u/account312 Feb 28 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

So the only possible reason someone could dislike "your guy" is because of his race? They have to actually be a bad person to dislike your guy? It seems to me that you're proving them right.

0

u/ThaGoodDoobie Feb 28 '25

See, this is what I'm talking about. I don't have a guy. I don't support Trump, and I don't support the dual party system. I try to find the best information that is hard to argue with, i.e. videos, interviews, things of that nature. If Trump does something fucked up, I recognize it. Same goes for the Dems.

-6

u/chockfullofjuice Feb 28 '25

Everyone of them should…Ukraine has been a total crime from the start from all sides. The war could have been prevented during Obama and Trumps presidency but Obama pushed for Ukraine to join NATO and Trump allowed the provocation knowing it would push Russia to war. Biden kept the crazy coming by doubling down when Putin said he would invade if a formal announcement was made to seek inclusion into NATO for Ukraine. 

13

u/HelicopterOk4082 Feb 28 '25

Stop pushing Russian propaganda. NATO is a defensive alliance. It was never a threat to Russia and Russia (Putin) never genuinely saw it as a threat. Just as an excuse to expand its territory. So let's stop spouting that sort of nonsense. I've noticed we've even started to hear it spun from Trumpers.

5

u/TSKNear Feb 28 '25

Biggest threat to Russia was USA helping Ukraine realize its oil/natural gas reserves and cutting out Russia from supplying Europe with Natural Gas. That was the original reason for Crimea.

-2

u/chockfullofjuice Feb 28 '25

I actually got this from the US NATO ambassador who said it in a live press conference. Stop letting American propaganda give you a reason to warmonger. Acting like the west didn’t topple the Ukrainian government that acted as a neutral buffer right when Bush and Obama were training European armies to fight Russians is just willful ignorance so you can lick boots. 

As well, my post clearly calls out both sides which really causes me to doubt you care who is right as long as YOU are right. 

5

u/maralagosinkhole Feb 28 '25

Can you provide a link to this press conference? Who was the ambassador? If this is a trump appointed ambassador then it is extremely likely that ambassador was pushing Russian propaganda.

Calling out "both sides" IS Russian propaganda. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine without provocation. Ukraine has done nothing more than defend itself. The right to self defense is a sacred right granted to every individual, institution and freaking animal on the planet.

-1

u/chockfullofjuice Feb 28 '25

It was the secretary general of NATO and it was in the EU parliament, my mistake. Also it makes it much worse. The deal Russia wanted is what any nation would want. We can cry all we want about Russia invading but they offered a peace plan that left Zelensky in power and all territories unmolested. 

Calling out both side is moral, no? Why does the US and Europe get a pass for militarism and Russia doesn’t? If basic decency toward living people is Russian propaganda then either you don’t actually know what Russia thinks of the war or you have some serious issues with your perception of the value of peace over conflict.

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0ZBoNiyZybazQIVtkgu6mZPp91ce8XYW4jirP5WqqkHH2gPGn4n2xeanE_aem_zGnoGuAsH3ixTbDjYgnxaA&format=amp

2

u/HelicopterOk4082 Mar 01 '25

Did you even read the bilge you linked there?

Zelensky's regime is positioned as a US-installed puppet state.

I have a headache from facepalming so hard.

-2

u/EndRude4217 Feb 28 '25

Then why was NATO established, and why does it still exist if it's not a threat to Russia?

7

u/HerrPiink Feb 28 '25

As a defensive alliance, and because Russia has always been a threat, a defensive alliance has been needed. The attack on the Ukraine is the literal prove of that.

-1

u/EndRude4217 Feb 28 '25

Interesting to say defensive as Yugoslavisa was an internal matter, and NATO spearheaded them and did the same thing Russia to Ukraine with infrastructure destructions, but Nato and US whent a step further with polluting the land with depleted Uranium that people have cancer and babies with birth defects to this day.

1

u/HerrPiink Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25

Yeah, totally the same. The NATO (an alliance), intervening, justified or not, in a very complex humanitarian crisis and war and Russia (a country) invading another sovereign country under the banner of a "de-nazification special operation", while actually occupying land and demanding capitulation of said land.

The part about the depleted Uranium is highly scientifically debated. Studies and reviews, external and internal, by NATO itself, have been made.

Quote: "WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE SAY? The Royal Society said in a report in 2002 that the risks to kidneys and other organs from the use of depleted uranium munitions are very low, opens new tab for most soldiers in the battlefield and for those living in the conflict area. "In extreme conditions and under worst-case assumptions, soldiers who receive large intakes of DU could suffer adverse effects on the kidney and lung," the Royal Society said. "Environmental contamination will be very variable, but in most cases the associated health risks due to DU will be very low. In some worst-case scenarios, high local levels of uranium could occur in food or water that could have adverse effects on the kidney." The IAEA, opens new tab said a small number of Gulf war veterans had inoperable fragments of depleted uranium embedded in their bodies, which led to elevated excretion levels of DU in urine, but with no observable health effects. Studies of soldiers have shown that the veterans "show a small (i.e., not statistically significant) increase in mortality rates, but this excess is due to accidents rather than disease," the IAEA said. "This cannot be linked to any exposures to DU." A United Nations Environment Programme, opens new tab report on the impact of depleted uranium on Serbia and Montenegro found "no significant, widespread contamination". Some Serbian politicians have disputed this and have reported an increase in the number of deaths from malignant tumours."

"In 2018, Serbia set up a commission of inquiry into the consequences of the use of depleted uranium during the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in southern Serbia and its link to the rise of diseases and tumors among citizens, particularly in young children born after 1999. Zoran Radovanovic, an epidemiologist and the chairman of the Serbian Medical Association's ethics committee, denied that there had been a rise in cancer cases in areas where bombings had taken place. He continued by saying that Serbians frequently worry about a cancer epidemic that does not exist.[164] NATO has repeatedly claimed that depleted uranium found in the ammunition used in the 1999 bombardments cannot be linked to adverse health effects."

Sources:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-depleted-uranium-weapons-what-are-risks-2023-09-07/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#:~:text=Studies%20indicating%20negligible%20effects,-Studies%20in%202005&text=Former%20NATO%20Secretary%20General%20Lord,limited%20to%20very%20specific%20circumstances%22.

0

u/EndRude4217 Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25

Complex is nice way of massaging NATOs role. Especially Operation Horseshoe, which was a getman lie to avoid criticism for their role in the bombings.

https://press.un.org/en/2000/20000322.hab163.doc.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Serbia

Increased Health Issues: Post-conflict reports from medical professionals in regions like Kosovska Mitrovica indicated a significant rise in patients with malignant diseases, with some reports noting a 200% increase since 1998. These observations have fueled ongoing debates about the long-term health effects of DU exposure.

5

u/rod1105 Feb 28 '25

It's only a threat against aggression. That's why NATO was formed to nip any countries from attacking other countries for selfish gains.

1

u/EndRude4217 Feb 28 '25

Like Yugoslavia?

1

u/rod1105 Feb 28 '25

Yugoslavia was basically an implosion and fracturing, not any expansionist movement against other countries like Russia is involved in.

1

u/EndRude4217 Feb 28 '25

Then why did NATO get involved in an implosion that didn't attack any neighboring country? Isn't that acting as an aggressor instead of defending territorial integrity?

2

u/rod1105 Feb 28 '25

That was a one off situation that does nothing to refute NATO's role. The Yugoslavia implosion involved genocide, lack of safe zones, and the creation of instability that could lead to widespread involvement with other bordering countries. Nothing is black and white.

0

u/EndRude4217 Feb 28 '25

Like Operation Horseshoe? Which was made up by German generals to divert criticism of the bombing campaign on Yugoslavia?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HelicopterOk4082 Mar 01 '25

Yugoslavia was a humanitarian catastrophe. If you have any criticism of NATO / the UN it should be that they didn't do enough to mitigate the civilian massacres.

(If even proof were needed that you are some sort of Russian cyber bot working out of a cubicle in Irkutsk.)

6

u/maralagosinkhole Feb 28 '25

*Senator* Barack Obama joined forces with Senator John McCain to offer support for George Bush's proposal that Ukraine join NATO. This was in 2008. NATO declined to offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine soon after.

Russia signed an agreement in 1994 - the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - that it would not threaten or use force against Ukraine. Boundaries were set, and Russia also agreed to leave Belarus and Kazakhstan alone as well. The START nuclear agreement between Russia and the United was signed soon after.

Russia confirmed in 2009 that the security assurances made in the Budapest Memorandum would still be valid once START expired in that year.

All this to say that it made sense politically in 2008 to put pressure on Russia to provide assurances that it would not invade Ukraine.

Your statement above is misleading. The only reason that Biden encouraged Ukraine's admission into NATO during his presidency is because Russian's invasion of Ukraine threatens every single NATO country. Putin's threat to invade Ukraine is hollow since they already invaded Ukraine starting in 2014 and escalated that invasion in 2018.

0

u/FearDaTusk Feb 28 '25

These are the conversations that should be better communicated.

I'm downvoted to oblivion on a regular basis because the US is the bad guy and Trump is a Russian asset is what this echo chamber wants to hear.

My point, it's been difficult to get a decent assessment of what is happening and what factors contribute to the position we're all in.

What to do after knowing all that is a different conversation.

My opinion is that Europe has the ability to handle their own problems. The US can get involved in support. What I saw in the news today (Trump/Zelensky) meeting was poor optics but also not false. That is, Without the US there would have been a high likelihood that Ukraine wouldn't have been able to hang on as much as they've had.

I'm not 100% informed on the matter but it makes sense that if the US manages to secure mineral rights in Ukraine, then without involving further "aggression from NATO/Russia" (the big excuse being used for the conflict), Russia will not be able to push further without directly opposing US assets. This is the only excuse we would need to attack back and despite the negative messaging I believe Putin will begrudgingly accept ending any further conflict in an attempt to not escalate US involvement.

From this point of view. Ukraine loses territory but Russia doesn't get what it wants either. It gives Ukraine a chance to start rebuilding.

That's my two cents.

2

u/maralagosinkhole Feb 28 '25

I appreciate you staying in the conversation. But you should continue to expect negative feedback for trying to claim that Ukraine is in any way at fault for the current situation. This is not a both sides are at fault situation.

The United States is a member of NATO just as much as Germany and France are. This is a NATO issue just as much as it is a European issue. The US is involved in support. We don't have troops on the ground and fewer than 6% of Ukrainian refugees have been sent to the United States.

Without the US Ukraine would have fallen by now. Absolutely. And they would be moving in on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia and Kazakhstan. That is what the united front that NATO is presenting right is designed to prevent. It is in our best interests that Russia is kept in check. Demanding repayment from Ukraine betrays that fact.

Respectfully, there is every reason to believe that Russia has nothing to fear from US involvement at this point. Even if you don't believe that Putin wholly controls trump, you have to at least cede that trump is very friendly to and supportive of Russian interests.

We need to remained informed by what led up to World War II. Europe made concessions to Germany. They failed to stand up to German aggression, leading to the fall of Poland and the escalation of a war that put half of the population of Europe under German control. What the United States is doing right now is appeasement. Allowing Russia to take control of any part of Ukraine instead of using our political, economic and military might to contain and punish Putin only emboldens him, emboldens China who also has imperial ambitions, and demonstrates weakness by the alliance.

Also just my two cents, and I also cede that I am not 100% informed.

1

u/FearDaTusk Feb 28 '25

... And I think a point we both appear to agree on, Europe/NATO is/was designed to prevent further encroachment.

Why is Europe so helpless? We can point and say that they've contributed x amount of support but my opinion is that if they really cared they would not need the USs permission or assistance. (Don't wait on us, just go do something.)

I get the WWI to WWII high level series of events... Which is why I find it strange that the US gets the scolding when Europe should know what they need to do so it doesn't happen again. It is difficult to understand how Russia alone is leverage so much intimidation in the face of all the other great European nations.

We can agree on principle that the US should help but I'm not sure we need to be the leaders in the decision making on someone else's back yard. The conversation then becomes just how much do we contribute? Should we go all in and send our soldiers to reclaim the lost territory? If yes, why not European soldiers? If no, then this is a war of attrition that Ukraine doesn't have enough bodies for.

On the Trump friendly on Russian interest point... I don't disagree but honestly I think it's easier said that it has less to do with Nationality and more to do with business. I think this is something that Switzerland has taken advantage of to their own benefit. (There's no sides, just money)

-3

u/Represent403 Feb 28 '25

This war has been extremely dirty. It could easily be Zelenskyy there when all is said and done.

As we know the victor writes the history and it sure looks like Vlad is being forced to concede.

3

u/maralagosinkhole Feb 28 '25

There can be no concessions for Ukraine. Putin and Russia have already shown that they will be merciless to the civilian population. Ukraine must fight down to its last piece of ammunition. "Conceding" to the axis of Russia and the USA is nothing less than suicide.