Churchill and Zelensky

[Helmut-WK]

Churchill hated Hitler, Zelensky hates Putin.

While Churchill hated Hitler long before he became Prime minister of the UK, Zelensky first tried to get a deal with Putin, but Putin did not want a deal, and the war escalated.

When Hitler had won the war in France 1940, he made a peace offer to the UK, but Churchill refused to do so. Zelensky also refused to accept a deal without guarantees.

While Churchill was prime minister (1940-45), there was no election in the UK. Same with Zelensky.

As to Zelensky, I only mentioned facts that caused Trump to criticize him: Call him a dictator, blame him to be the one who caused the war. I could add the fact that, while Churchill was appointed prime minister without an election, Zelensky has been elected in a democratic election.

So we can conclude that Trump thinks Churchill was the one who caused WWII, and is a dictator worse than Zelensky.

Unless, of course we think that Trump just repeats Russian propaganda and so dwarfs the USA into a flunky of Putin's demands.

 

[HarleyER]

Churchill hated Hitler, Zelensky hates Putin.

While Churchill hated Hitler long before he became Prime minister of the UK, Zelensky first tried to get a deal with Putin, but Putin did not want a deal, and the war escalated.

When Hitler had won the war in France 1940, he made a peace offer to the UK, but Churchill refused to do so. Zelensky also refused to accept a deal without guarantees.

While Churchill was prime minister (1940-45), there was no election in the UK. Same with Zelensky.

As to Zelensky, I only mentioned facts that caused Trump to criticize him: Call him a dictator, blame him to be the one who caused the war. I could add the fact that, while Churchill was appointed prime minister without an election, Zelensky has been elected in a democratic election.

So we can conclude that Trump thinks Churchill was the one who caused WWII, and is a dictator worse than Zelensky.

Unless, of course we think that Trump just repeats Russian propaganda and so dwarfs the USA into a flunky of Putin's demands.

Your reasoning is flawed. It was Chamberlain who signed a peace agreement with Hitler which he soon broke. Churchill had every right to distrust Hitler and any peace offerings Hitler wanted to make.

 

[mindlight]

Churchill hated Hitler, Zelensky hates Putin.

While Churchill hated Hitler long before he became Prime minister of the UK, Zelensky first tried to get a deal with Putin, but Putin did not want a deal, and the war escalated.

When Hitler had won the war in France 1940, he made a peace offer to the UK, but Churchill refused to do so. Zelensky also refused to accept a deal without guarantees.

While Churchill was prime minister (1940-45), there was no election in the UK. Same with Zelensky.

As to Zelensky, I only mentioned facts that caused Trump to criticize him: Call him a dictator, blame him to be the one who caused the war. I could add the fact that, while Churchill was appointed prime minister without an election, Zelensky has been elected in a democratic election.

So we can conclude that Trump thinks Churchill was the one who caused WWII, and is a dictator worse than Zelensky.

Unless, of course we think that Trump just repeats Russian propaganda and so dwarfs the USA into a flunky of Putin's demands.

Looks like this is all part of Trumps negotiation tactics. He says one thing to connect to one party and then another to connect to the other. In the end the deal will involve compromises and the final statement uniting both parties in a peace agreement will not satisfy anyone but may well save lives. Germany stood more chance of conquering Europe than Russia does with or without US support.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Your reasoning is flawed. It was Chamberlain who signed a peace agreement with Hitler which he soon broke.

It was not Chamberlain who broke the agreement, it was Hitler who broke it.

Churchill had every right to distrust Hitler and any peace offerings Hitler wanted to make.

Churchill had issues warnings all the time, since 1933 (see Wikipedia). But only when Hitler broke the Munich agreement in March 1939, Chamberlain also recognized Hitler's character.

And as to rights to distrust: After all that Putin did to Georgia, after the Anschluss of the Crimea in 2014 (10 years earlier Putin explicitly denied having any interest to get this peninsula), after multiple breaks of the Minsk agreement by Putin - does Zelensky has no reason to mistrust Putin?

The argument of Trump was not that Putin can just be trusted, but that he can be trusted because the agreement will be with Trump, and not Biden or whosoever!

 

[Helmut-WK]

Looks like this is all part of Trumps negotiation tactics.

Very bad tactics.

He says one thing to connect to one party and then another to connect to the other. In the end the deal will involve compromises and the final statement uniting both parties in a peace agreement will not satisfy anyone but may well save lives.

Is there anything he said which could move Russia toward a fair compromise? He seems to have an agreement by any means, and if that implies that after such an agreement Putin will conquer the Ukraine in 2026, it does not bother him.

I fear Trump will only awake when Putin is strong enough to demand Alaska.

Germany stood more chance of conquering Europe than Russia does with or without US support.

Russia does not need direct US support. Support of Elon Musk, who does not stop hate speech, Russian disinformation and so on in his anti-social media, is enough.

Without USA, Europe has poor intelligence (virtually all satellite based information gathering of NATO is done by the US), poor air defense (we heavily rely on the US patriot system).
Germany struggles to get more money for military build-up. This will be more complicated after our recent elections, since the radicals left and right, which both are »anti-war« Putin friendly, now have enough seats to block necessary reforms (including amending the German constitution). Than you, Mr. Merz, for delaying the decision, thank you Mr. Musk, for supporting the AfD party! Thank you, Mr. Vance, for fueling their agenda with over emphasized critic about some deficits in freedom of speech (which are less in Europe than on X, where Musk is the censor).

If things go on this way, the best option for Europe may be to convince China to abandon the now USA-allied Russia and cooperate with Europe, India and so on. But even that is a horror … not only for the USA.

 

[HarleyER]

It was not Chamberlain who broke the agreement, it was Hitler who broke it.

Churchill had issues warnings all the time, since 1933 (see Wikipedia). But only when Hitler broke the Munich agreement in March 1939, Chamberlain also recognized Hitler's character.

And as to rights to distrust: After all that Putin did to Georgia, after the Anschluss of the Crimea in 2014 (10 years earlier Putin explicitly denied having any interest to get this peninsula), after multiple breaks of the Minsk agreement by Putin - does Zelensky has no reason to mistrust Putin?

The argument of Trump was not that Putin can just be trusted, but that he can be trusted because the agreement will be with Trump, and not Biden or whosoever!

It was not Chamberlain who broke the agreement, it was Hitler who broke it.

My statement wasn't clear. Yes, Hitler broke the agreement. So why should Churchill trust Hitler?

Frankly, I don't care whether Putin can or cannot be trusted. I wouldn't trust Putin but I don't trust China either, or Iran, or Hamas, on and on and on. We don't need to be sending $100-$300 Billion dollars to Mr. Z when 1) they can't account for the money, and 2) when we need that money here. I don't know why liberals are so bent on involving us into conflict after conflict wrapped up in some "noble" cause.

 

[Helmut-WK]

My statement wasn't clear. Yes, Hitler broke the agreement. So why should Churchill trust Hitler?

Irrelevant question. Churchill didn't trust Hitler from the very beginning (i.e., 1933), it was Chamberlain who trusted Hitler until 1939.

Frankly, I don't care whether Putin can or cannot be trusted.

Trump wants a peace which is based on trusting Putin. This may be boring to you, but the Ukrainian people definitely wants some guarantees.

I wouldn't trust Putin but I don't trust China either, or Iran, or Hamas, on and on and on.

Are you not alarmed that Trump trusts Putin?

We don't need to be sending $100-$300 Billion dollars to Mr. Z

You did not give that much, which propaganda do you repeat?

when 1) they can't account for the money,

True, there is corruption in Ukraine. But AFAIK less than in Vietnam, or other countries supported and then dropped by the USA. Zelensky is spending the money for defense. He can give more accounts for that money than Mr. T. gave about his personal finances.

and 2) when we need that money here.

You should learn from history.

• In 1936, when the German Reichswehr went into demilitarized Rhineland, the plan was to withdraw at once should the West (UK and F) react. Hitler was not strong enough to stat a war. But the West only sent some protest notes …
• In 1938, the war which was avoided by the Munich agreement (»peace in our time«!) would have been hard for Germany, since the Czechoslovakian border was strongly fortified. But it were the border regions (inhabited by German-speaking people) that Hitler got in Munich. 6 Months later he could get Czechia (the Slovaks, incited by Germany, had left the country) with ease, got almost all weapons and ammunition from that country, and so he could start WWII.
• Hitler was also motivated to start the great war, because he got the impression the West was weak. And indeed: In 1940, he beat the joined UK/France forces. Only better radar technology and the enigma deciphering saved the UK from a German invasion.

The UK was not able to stop Hitler, because the country had needed the money for more important objectives than fulfilling the wishes of Churchill, who always agitated against Nazi Germany.
Putin is no Nazi, but a Fascist (I call him a FasciZt). And he has shown to be as aggressive as Hitler, he also mentioned that he wants the Baltic for Russian, control over East Europe (including Berlin), and in the very end he wants Alaska. He also knows how to use fake news and disinformation to weaken you. Spending money to stop him now is in your own interest - unlike you are content to give up your freedom.

I don't know why liberals are so bent on involving us into conflict after conflict wrapped up in some "noble" cause.

The cause is not »noble«. But if you don't want to fight now, you will have to fight later, with less allies, against a stronger opponent. Mark my words.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Churchill did escalate WW2 by refusing to negotiate and demanding total surrender from Germany. This is kind of obvious. Mind you it was Chamberlain who recklessly garunteed Poland also escalated things.

 

[mindlight]

Very bad tactics.

Is there anything he said which could move Russia toward a fair compromise? He seems to have an agreement by any means, and if that implies that after such an agreement Putin will conquer the Ukraine in 2026, it does not bother him.

I fear Trump will only awake when Putin is strong enough to demand Alaska.

Russia does not need direct US support. Support of Elon Musk, who does not stop hate speech, Russian disinformation and so on in his anti-social media, is enough.

Without USA, Europe has poor intelligence (virtually all satellite based information gathering of NATO is done by the US), poor air defense (we heavily rely on the US patriot system).
Germany struggles to get more money for military build-up. This will be more complicated after our recent elections, since the radicals left and right, which both are »anti-war« Putin friendly, now have enough seats to block necessary reforms (including amending the German constitution). Than you, Mr. Merz, for delaying the decision, thank you Mr. Musk, for supporting the AfD party! Thank you, Mr. Vance, for fueling their agenda with over emphasized critic about some deficits in freedom of speech (which are less in Europe than on X, where Musk is the censor).

If things go on this way, the best option for Europe may be to convince China to abandon the now USA-allied Russia and cooperate with Europe, India and so on. But even that is a horror … not only for the USA.

I had not considered that the election math made it impossible to eliminate the debt brake. Defence spending can still be boosted by special funds like the one Scholz raised, but in the long term, the security of the realm should not be beholden to fifth column looneys on the fringes of German politics. Responsible finances is a good thing but there is no point managing your budget so well if someone if just going to steal it all away. Deal with the thief first, and then balance your finances.

Europe is not ready to take on Russia, and America holds the cards. In the long run, this needs to change. But right now, Trump is probably going to get his way, and Zelensky has no option but to give up some land for peace.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-halts-all-us-military-aid-ukraine-white-house-official-says-2025-03-04/

 

[mindlight]

Irrelevant question. Churchill didn't trust Hitler from the very beginning (i.e., 1933), it was Chamberlain who trusted Hitler until 1939.

Trump wants a peace which is based on trusting Putin. This may be boring to you, but the Ukrainian people definitely wants some guarantees.

Are you not alarmed that Trump trusts Putin?

You did not give that much, which propaganda do you repeat?

True, there is corruption in Ukraine. But AFAIK less than in Vietnam, or other countries supported and then dropped by the USA. Zelensky is spending the money for defense. He can give more accounts for that money than Mr. T. gave about his personal finances.

You should learn from history.

• In 1936, when the German Reichswehr went into demilitarized Rhineland, the plan was to withdraw at once should the West (UK and F) react. Hitler was not strong enough to stat a war. But the West only sent some protest notes …
• In 1938, the war which was avoided by the Munich agreement (»peace in our time«!) would have been hard for Germany, since the Czechoslovakian border was strongly fortified. But it were the border regions (inhabited by German-speaking people) that Hitler got in Munich. 6 Months later he could get Czechia (the Slovaks, incited by Germany, had left the country) with ease, got almost all weapons and ammunition from that country, and so he could start WWII.
• Hitler was also motivated to start the great war, because he got the impression the West was weak. And indeed: In 1940, he beat the joined UK/France forces. Only better radar technology and the enigma deciphering saved the UK from a German invasion.

The UK was not able to stop Hitler, because the country had needed the money for more important objectives than fulfilling the wishes of Churchill, who always agitated against Nazi Germany.
Putin is no Nazi, but a Fascist (I call him a FasciZt). And he has shown to be as aggressive as Hitler, he also mentioned that he wants the Baltic for Russian, control over East Europe (including Berlin), and in the very end he wants Alaska. He also knows how to use fake news and disinformation to weaken you. Spending money to stop him now is in your own interest - unlike you are content to give up your freedom.

The cause is not »noble«. But if you don't want to fight now, you will have to fight later, with less allies, against a stronger opponent. Mark my words.

Chamberlain boosted the defence budget while talking peace. That seems to be the only strategy available to Europe at this time.

 

[HarleyER]

Irrelevant question. Churchill didn't trust Hitler from the very beginning (i.e., 1933), it was Chamberlain who trusted Hitler until 1939.

Trump wants a peace which is based on trusting Putin. This may be boring to you, but the Ukrainian people definitely wants some guarantees.

Are you not alarmed that Trump trusts Putin?

You did not give that much, which propaganda do you repeat?

True, there is corruption in Ukraine. But AFAIK less than in Vietnam, or other countries supported and then dropped by the USA. Zelensky is spending the money for defense. He can give more accounts for that money than Mr. T. gave about his personal finances.

You should learn from history.

• In 1936, when the German Reichswehr went into demilitarized Rhineland, the plan was to withdraw at once should the West (UK and F) react. Hitler was not strong enough to stat a war. But the West only sent some protest notes …
• In 1938, the war which was avoided by the Munich agreement (»peace in our time«!) would have been hard for Germany, since the Czechoslovakian border was strongly fortified. But it were the border regions (inhabited by German-speaking people) that Hitler got in Munich. 6 Months later he could get Czechia (the Slovaks, incited by Germany, had left the country) with ease, got almost all weapons and ammunition from that country, and so he could start WWII.
• Hitler was also motivated to start the great war, because he got the impression the West was weak. And indeed: In 1940, he beat the joined UK/France forces. Only better radar technology and the enigma deciphering saved the UK from a German invasion.

The UK was not able to stop Hitler, because the country had needed the money for more important objectives than fulfilling the wishes of Churchill, who always agitated against Nazi Germany.
Putin is no Nazi, but a Fascist (I call him a FasciZt). And he has shown to be as aggressive as Hitler, he also mentioned that he wants the Baltic for Russian, control over East Europe (including Berlin), and in the very end he wants Alaska. He also knows how to use fake news and disinformation to weaken you. Spending money to stop him now is in your own interest - unlike you are content to give up your freedom.

The cause is not »noble«. But if you don't want to fight now, you will have to fight later, with less allies, against a stronger opponent. Mark my words.

Oh please. Of course we have given that much and much more than Europe.

Please tell me when Germany will stop buy oil from Russia .

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Churchill hated Hitler, Zelensky hates Putin.

While Churchill hated Hitler long before he became Prime minister of the UK, Zelensky first tried to get a deal with Putin, but Putin did not want a deal, and the war escalated.

When Hitler had won the war in France 1940, he made a peace offer to the UK, but Churchill refused to do so. Zelensky also refused to accept a deal without guarantees.

While Churchill was prime minister (1940-45), there was no election in the UK. Same with Zelensky.

As to Zelensky, I only mentioned facts that caused Trump to criticize him: Call him a dictator, blame him to be the one who caused the war. I could add the fact that, while Churchill was appointed prime minister without an election, Zelensky has been elected in a democratic election.

So we can conclude that Trump thinks Churchill was the one who caused WWII, and is a dictator worse than Zelensky.

Unless, of course we think that Trump just repeats Russian propaganda and so dwarfs the USA into a flunky of Putin's demands.

Congratulations to my UK friends. America has passed the "Leader of the Free World" title to PM Starmer.

 

[HarleyER]

Congratulations to my UK friends. America has passed the "Leader of the Free World" title to PM Starmer.

View attachment 361940

Yes. We'll see how many "boots on the ground" England and Europe will provide.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

My statement wasn't clear. Yes, Hitler broke the agreement. So why should Churchill trust Hitler?

Frankly, I don't care whether Putin can or cannot be trusted. I wouldn't trust Putin but I don't trust China either, or Iran, or Hamas, on and on and on. We don't need to be sending $100-$300 Billion dollars to Mr. Z when 1) they can't account for the money, and 2) when we need that money here. I don't know why liberals are so bent on involving us into conflict after conflict wrapped up in some "noble" cause.

Your post contains many inaccuracy.

There is a significant difference between $100 billion and $300 billion. The fact is that U.S. aid to Ukraine amounts to $176 billion, not $300 billion. The majority of this aid has been provided in the form of weapons rather than cash. Therefore, the argument that "they can’t account for the money" is misleading. While it is true that some politicians in Ukraine may have misappropriated aid, this issue is not unique to Ukraine; corruption exists among politicians in every country, including the United States. Finding completely honest politicians is challenging as such individuals are rare globally.

It is not liberal support that drives involvement in this conflict, but rather American foreign policy over the past 80 years. The United States has consistently supported Europe, irrespective of which political party occupies the White House. Additionally, America has maintained its commitment to NATO, regardless of whether Washington is controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

As a Reagan-Bush conservative, I believe American commitment to NATO and Europe has been the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for the past 80 years. This commitment is not solely about noble causes; it is about ensuring global stability through strength. The foundation of this strength lies in the alliance between the United States and Europe.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Yes. We'll see how many "boots on the ground" England and Europe will provide.

The United Kingdom indeed put boots on the ground when the United States was attacked, marking the only invocation of NATO Article 5. A total of 457 British service members sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan, and over 2,000 were either injured or sustained significant injuries such as loss of limbs or eyesight.

Thank you, UK friends, for assisting America in our time of need.

 

[HarleyER]

Your post contains many inaccuracy.

There is a significant difference between $100 billion and $300 billion. The fact is that U.S. aid to Ukraine amounts to $176 billion, not $300 billion. The majority of this aid has been provided in the form of weapons rather than cash. Therefore, the argument that "they can’t account for the money" is misleading. While it is true that some politicians in Ukraine may have misappropriated aid, this issue is not unique to Ukraine; corruption exists among politicians in every country, including the United States. Finding completely honest politicians is challenging as such individuals are rare globally.

It is not liberal support that drives involvement in this conflict, but rather American foreign policy over the past 80 years. The United States has consistently supported Europe, irrespective of which political party occupies the White House. Additionally, America has maintained its commitment to NATO, regardless of whether Washington is controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

As a Reagan-Bush conservative, I believe American commitment to NATO and Europe has been the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for the past 80 years. This commitment is not solely about noble causes; it is about ensuring global stability through strength. The foundation of this strength lies in the alliance between the United States and Europe.

I posted the $100-$300 billion range because no one knows for sure. While we can look at a line item in the Defense Dept budget, far more money has been pushed through USAID and other organizations. Even the Treasury can't account for trillions of dollars it has spend on who knows what.

And to what end is this support suppose to go? I've seen enough of these conflicts in my life to know when they are meaningless. Vietnam, Iraq, and, most recent, Afganastan. We have pumped billions of dollars into these wasteful enterprises all in the name of some noble cause.

Do you really think a war with Russia is in the best interest of the US? Trump has proposed a peace plan that many here reject. Yet I don't see any alternatives for peace.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I posted the $100-$300 billion range because no one knows for sure. While we can look at a line item in the Defense Dept budget, far more money has been pushed through USAID and other organizations. Even the Treasury can't account for trillions of dollars it has spend on who knows what.

And to what end is this support suppose to go? I've seen enough of these conflicts in my life to know when they are meaningless. Vietnam, Iraq, and, most recent, Afganastan. We have pumped billions of dollars into these wasteful enterprises all in the name of some noble cause.

Do you really think a war with Russia is in the best interest of the US? Trump has proposed a peace plan that many here reject. Yet I don't see any alternatives for peace.

The average U.S. budget over the past five years is $6.5 trillion. Therefore, claiming that treasury cannot account for trillions of dollars or 30% to 40% of the budget is not only misleading but completely false.

You are providing an incorrect number again.

War is not beneficial for any country, including the USA. There are no true winners in a war. However, war is an unavoidable aspect of certain situations.

Everyone desires peace and appreciates President Trump's efforts.

What does the peace deal with Russia entail? Will Russia withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territories? Does it ensure that Russia will not invade Ukraine again? Is there a guarantee from the US and Europe to assure Ukraine that, in case of future Russian aggression, they will defend Ukraine?

 

[HarleyER]

The average U.S. budget over the past five years is $6.5 trillion. Therefore, claiming that treasury cannot account for trillions of dollars or 30% to 40% of the budget is not only misleading but completely false.

You are providing an incorrect number again.

War is not beneficial for any country, including the USA. There are no true winners in a war. However, war is an unavoidable aspect of certain situations.

Everyone desires peace and appreciates President Trump's efforts.

What does the peace deal with Russia entail? Will Russia withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territories? Does it ensure that Russia will not invade Ukraine again? Is there a guarantee from the US and Europe to assure Ukraine that, in case of future Russian aggression, they will defend Ukraine?

How do you know it is false? Can you account for where the money has been spent?

Elon Musk's DOGE finds $4.7 trillion in untraceable Treasury payments

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency announced Monday it discovered $4.7 trillion in United States Treasury payments on an untraceable budget line.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I know, fake news. I get that quite a bit.

As far as peace goes, I see that Ukraine is now ready to make a deal. Let's see how long it will be to stop this fighting.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

How do you know it is false? Can you account for where the money has been spent?

Elon Musk's DOGE finds $4.7 trillion in untraceable Treasury payments

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency announced Monday it discovered $4.7 trillion in United States Treasury payments on an untraceable budget line.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I know, fake news. I get that quite a bit.

As far as peace goes, I see that Ukraine is now ready to make a deal. Let's see how long it will be to stop this fighting.

In a $6.5 trillion yearly budget, if $4.7 trillion is missing, over 60% of the US budget would be unaccounted for. This suggests that funding for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare might not have been distributed, payments to federal employees, including military personnel, likely were not made, and most federal agencies possibly did not operate.

Do you have any evidence that this occurred within the last four years? If not, I will rely on your judgment to determine whether the news you provided is accurate or not.

 

[mindlight]

I had not considered that the election math made it impossible to eliminate the debt brake. Defence spending can still be boosted by special funds like the one Scholz raised, but in the long term, the security of the realm should not be beholden to fifth column looneys on the fringes of German politics. Responsible finances is a good thing but there is no point managing your budget so well if someone if just going to steal it all away. Deal with the thief first, and then balance your finances.

Europe is not ready to take on Russia, and America holds the cards. In the long run, this needs to change. But right now, Trump is probably going to get his way, and Zelensky has no option but to give up some land for peace.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-halts-all-us-military-aid-ukraine-white-house-official-says-2025-03-04/

Germany's CDU, SPD agree on major financial package – DW – 03/04/2025

Preliminary talks between Germany's CDU and SPD have yielded an early result, with the parties agreeing on a special fund to boost defense spending, freed from the "debt brake."

www.dw.com