Do you back Zelensky, or do you back Putin and Trump? Poll

[noblegiraffe]

I dunno what I'm starting this thread for, tbh. I just really, really felt like I wanted to click a button saying I support Zelensky and reject Trump and Putin tonight.

So I ask you how many of you, sitting in your comfortable homes, would still cheer for war if the price was watching Europe burn?

So I ask you, sitting in your comfortable home, would you still cheer for Trumps deal if the price of that deal was handing territory of your country to a dictator?

I don’t think I am cheering for war. I mean I don’t feel well versed enough to comment with my own opinion but when every single European leader is saying Putin cannot be trusted then I get worried. And previously the US were in agreement. Putin is spending hugely on military on arming himself up it’s worrying when the US has parted ways with Europe when we all need to stand together and say - we will stand against you, you can’t invade countries and get rewarded for it.

Also everyone, even Putin himself, should be treated with respect, dignity. We’re not in a mafia movie. That’s my main issue with this.

You speak of handing over territory as if it's a moral failure, but tell me what is the alternative? Endless war? Bleeding a nation dry for the sake of principle while the world moves on? If a deal secures peace, if it strengthens a greater position, then it is not surrender it is strategy. Because in the end, what matters is not what you hold today, but what you control tomorrow or could regain control of eventually. Besides what use is a pile of Ashes ?

No. We show Putin that NATO is united, unbeatable and that European countries won’t capitulate to an aggressor within our continent. Nobody is going to be carted off to the front lines. As if.

But is the argument not more about a US backstop. Which trump won’t provide.

To basically say to Russia look if you come at another country again we’ll fight against it.

Ah, the noble illusion of a “backstop.” A promise wrapped in steel, meant to make tyrants tremble. But tell me, when has a threat alone ever stopped a man like Putin? When has a red line, drawn by those unwilling to bleed for it, ever held firm?

A backstop is only as strong as the man holding the gun, and Trump love him or loathe him is not in the business of writing checks he has no intention of cashing.

I back zelenskys morals. However I don't think there's a perfect solution and I think elements of trumps solution are necessary when dealing with someone as powerful and dangerous as putin.
I don't like how trump is trying to get financial gain for the US out of it though. I would have agreed more with his aim if that wasn't part of it.
But there will need to be some level of compromise with putin to stop this, and that needs to be the priority.

Ah, the luxury of certainty from the comfort of a well-lit room. “NATO is united.” “Unbeatable.” “Nobody is going to the front lines.” Tell me, how many times in history have those words been spoken right before the march of boots and the roar of artillery shattered the illusion?

You say we must show Putin something. But what exactly? A press conference? A strongly worded statement? A few more shipments of weapons to be used by someone else’s sons while we pat ourselves on the back for “standing firm”? Strength is not a slogan, and unity is not a given. It’s easy to declare NATO unbreakable until the price of proving it comes due. Until energy costs bite, until economies strain, until the day comes when someone has to bleed for that high-minded resolve. Then we’ll see who’s willing to pay and who’s just making noise.

It’s stopped him before and it’ll stop
him now. Russia is a bit screwed at the moment when you think of it. It’s just a shame that trump is so sympathetic towards him. Any peace deal needs strong safeguards against further Russian aggression

Oh please. I take it you’re sitting in a nice cosy room and not fighting for your survival?
I think your points don’t make sense and are overly and unnecessarily emotive. I strongly disagree with your viewpoint.

I think it would be a huge mistake to capitulate to Putin. That doesn’t mean we’re all going to be frogmarched to the trenches. I think your arguments don’t hold water.

recognizing power plays for what they are isn’t the same as advocating surrender. No one is suggesting capitulation to Putin. The point is that Trump, by signaling conditional support, fundamentally altered Ukraine’s strategic position. That’s not emotion it’s cold, hard reality.

You can dislike it. You can wish for a different world where U.S. backing is automatic and unquestioned. But that’s not the world Trump operates in. His message was clear, Ukraine will have to prove its worth in a way it never had to before.

Whether that’s a mistake or a stroke of strategic pragmatism depends on whether you view foreign policy as a moral obligation or a series of transactions.

But let’s not pretend this is about cozy rooms versus battlefields. This is about power, leverage, and the brutal truth that Ukraine now faces a White House that sees its war not as a cause, but as a deal to be negotiated. And that is the real shift that just took place.

Trump is not a man of morals. He’s not a man to honour his words. I feel uncomfortable with the whole - we need to arm up stuff too - I’d like us all to get on. But when most politicians in Europe is saying Putin is a danger. When we know there has been Russian funding of division in Europe, when we know Russian spyships have been escorted out of Irish waters (where 75% of the northern hemispheres internet cables pass through) then are we left with any other alternative? Unity against an aggressor.

Europe’s politicians can call for unity all they like, but without hard power behind it, unity is just a slogan. But it also means that when America steps in, it won’t be out of sentimentality it will be because the deal makes sense.

Sentimentality??

How fucking ignorant of history and geopolitics can one be??

But surely it does make sense to include Europe and Ukraine in negotiations about the war? Why put repairing relations with Russia as a top priority which Trump seems to have done? Why did he concede key things to Russia before talks had even started? Why is he trying to paint Zelensky as a dictator and Putin as a guy who has been given a hard time? Why is he trying to get financial gain for the US from the situation?

None of it makes sense.

Thank you and yes I agree to an extent. I believe foreign policy should not be purely transactional and that it must be guided by a degree of ethics and obligation to international laws and conventions. Obviously a ceasefire must be negotiated but we must somehow reorganise to ensure that aggression and invasion of a state can never happen again within Europe.

And I’m not wishing for a different world :) I’m supporting our govt and EU leaders in their opposition to Putins invasion of Ukraine

Im not clear what you’re suggesting actually

Real geopolitical maneuvering isn’t based on goodwill or history. It’s about calculating risks, understanding who’s in the driver’s seat, and knowing that the strongest hands don’t always show their cards in public.

Stop viewing it through the lens of good vs. evil and start thinking about interests, alliances, and leverage. That’s where power lies.

Let’s break this down, shall we? Repairing relations with Russia isn’t about rolling out the welcome mat it’s about reducing risk, mitigating threats, and securing America’s strategic interests. A relationship with Russia, when handled correctly, can avoid the kind of escalation that no one wants. But of course, you wouldn’t know that from the way the media spins it. They’d have you believe that Trump is somehow giving up America's power. What he’s doing is resetting the board to negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness.

As for conceding key things to Russia before talks have even started welcome to the real world of negotiation. You don’t walk in demanding everything from the start. You build leverage, you create space for dialogue, and then you push when the time is right. But that’s too complicated, isn’t it? Easier to just cast Trump as the villain and call it a day.

Now, painting Zelensky as a dictator and Putin as misunderstood? Let’s not be naïve. Zelensky is a wartime leader, not a saint. And Putin? Well, he’s a ruthless player in a high-stakes game.

And the financial gain for the U.S. let’s not kid ourselves. This is exactly what politics is about. Power, leverage, and influence. Trump is positioning America to benefit from this, because the game isn’t about altruism. It’s about the long game. You either play it or you get played.

The Russian army under Putin are the ones beating the war drums. Ukrainians are defending their homes, their businesses, their land and themselves.

I grew up in smouldering ruins and streets paved with ghosts,🙄 it isn't nearly as romantic as you put it. It's awful in ways you couldn't begin to understand. With hindsight I am angry, sad and grateful.

I am more free and have more rights than my parents did growing up. And way more rights than my grandparents. My own children take these things as normal.

So take your flowery words and shove them @Rosesducks. You have no fucking idea!🤬

I’m not here to romanticize war.

No, you here romanticising bullshit. Oppression is not Peace. Oppression is Violence.

No I don’t think that Trump is a master negotiator. He admires Putin basically as a dictator. He doesn’t have a belief in democracy, he doesn’t have any value in human rights.

Trump is definitely a villain here. He either has a simplistic view where he admires men who run tight ships (by tight I mean putting people in prison who disagree with you for example) or else he is happily aligning the US with North Korea, Russia ect.. because he wants to support authoritarianism, abandon allies and undermine democracy.

either way it’s not good.

Ah, there it is. The all too familiar appeal to moral clarity oppression is violence, peace is pure. It's easy to stand on a moral pedestal, but the reality of global power dynamics isn’t so tidy, is it?

Oppression, yes, is violence. But what is the alternative? Do we simply turn a blind eye when a tyrant decides to rewrite the rules? When power grabs occur, they don't ask for permission. They take, they consume, and they rearrange the world as they see fit.

You want to talk about oppression as violence? Fine. Let me ask you this: what do you think happens when the world lets aggression slide? When we sit back, virtue signaling from the sidelines, and pretend that diplomacy will always work while regimes push for domination? There’s a reason people like Putin aren’t scared of words they’ve seen what happens when weakness is mistaken for virtue.

Let’s not get too carried away with the "good vs evil" narrative because, in the world of realpolitik, it’s never that simple. Trump may not be the great negotiator you’re hoping for, but let’s be honest about one thing the man knows how to leverage power, and that’s what this is really about. Whether he admires Putin or not is irrelevant to the outcome. What matters is Trump is playing a game, and his moves are designed to secure U.S. interests by any means necessary. It’s a strategy, not a moral philosophy.

Let me ask you this: what do you think happens when the world lets aggression slide?

People like Putin invade other countries and men like Trump become POTUS.