Lying and blaming Ukraine for starting the war and taking sides with Russia puts blood on his hands.

That an aggressor nation can walk into another country's sovereign territory and annex it with the blessing of a sitting US president is a disgrace.

> people will stop dying

I think that's an overoptimistic judgement of the fate of Ukrainians left stuck under Russian control. Russia doesn't even care about its own people dying.

How do you know he's trying to stop the war and not just looking for personal benefits? His words are worth little.

This is not unlike saying that rape ceases to be rape when the victim stops resisting.

We have every reason to think that "ending the war" under Chief Cheeto will mean "capitulate to the aggressor," and Russia has already shown its eagerness to commit genocide against Ukraine and eradicate it culturally.

So he is indeed complicit. The unacceptable terms he wants or likely will suggest (and the unacceptable manner in which he pursues those terms, by negotiating without Ukraine's involvement) -- essentially Ukraine's surrender -- amount, by corollary, to a justification of further Russian aggression when Ukraine rejects them.

There are plenty of historical examples showing that appeasement does not work, it enables the aggressor to continue being aggressive.

> Utter nonsense. He's trying to end the war. That may not happen on terms that make you happy, but people will stop dying which is quite the opposite of what you said

I was going to say just like Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler - but realised that would be grossly unfair on Chamberlain as he never tried to exploit Czechoslovakia for half of its mineral resources.

He is trying to "end the war" on terms that enrich himself, in vainglorious pursuit of a Nobel peace prize, and in a way that will almost inevitably result in a wider conflict very soon. Please don't pretend this is about "people will stop dying". That is utter nonsense.

Putting aside every instinct I have to join the choir voicing every issue I have with blaming the victim and cozying up to the agitator, or to challenge your charitable view of Trump's motivations...

I'm genuinely interested to hear your take on the likely and potential repercussions of rewarding Russia/Putin for their aggression. What makes you confident that they won't reasonably perceive this outcome as tacit permission to start coming for other territory?

Putin loves working off maps from the 1800s. Finland, for example, is a likely future target.

Not to be hyperbolic, but there's a good reason you aren't supposed to negotiate with terrorists.