Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[stefan92]

I realise that this may not be a popular thing to say. But I do believe that Putin is intellectually brighter than Trump.

He is definitely capable of putting together a long term plan and sticking to it.
First take over Crimea. That was a risk but it worked.

Next a Special Operation in Ukraine. Call it that incase it doesn't work.
All the time use the threat of nuclear weapons.
He banked on NATO and the west not directly countering him, while all the time planning for Trump. And it worked. Perfectly.

Whereas Trump simply doesn't have the patience for anything like that and just wants an instant result, even if it means giving Putin exactly what he wants and Ukraine can go and get fcuked.

Putin sets the agenda. Only Russia and US. Because he knows he will get a much better outcome than if Ukraine and Europe were involved. And that way, he immediately drives a huge wedge between the US and Europe. Thereby weakening NATO. And it worked. Perfectly.

It definitely didn't work perfectly for Russia, far from it. But I agree regarding Putin's ability to long term plan. Still he does make mistakes. The current war is so costly for Russia that it definitely wasn't planned anything like what actually happened.

 

[Simbo]

Question should be NATO not UK on its own, I think that would be quite heavily supported. The UK randomly joining alone seems a bit mental, would help greatly but it would just ramp up the death rate without changing much short term in my opinion.

I think that question needs a couple paragraphs of context adding to it.

 

[4bars]

A very close family member is in the Army and he told me today he would be happy to go.

This point is kind of moot because if you join the armed forces it's what you signed up for - the non-null possibility of having to go to war.

Did I like the fact that I had to go rummaging through the Desert and Mountains for 4 years? Hell no, but I cannot complain because I knew what I signed up for.

To be fair if they have chosen to join the army, I assume they are aware of what they might have to do.

thankfully we don’t make decisions as a country based on personal relatability to the context.

It’s why we don’t have the family members of a jury deliberating on a sentence of the accused.

I would only support a draft for example in the absolute direst of circumstances, however serving forces should be deployed when needed, it’s literally what they have signed up to do.

But that was not my question. I am not questioning if someone that is in the army would like or not to go. I am asking if you would be quick on saying. "we should send the troops" if that would mean that your child would go.

I am question the trigger happy solution to get involved in a third party war when maybe there is the solution to provide them with everything that can be provided on Material, intel, logistics and more

I understand the existance of armies and I understand that they join knowingly but I like to think armies as a deterrent and as last resort and I try (not always succesfully) to avoid to ask to send people do die if I am not willing to go myself

 

[Jotun]

I realise that this may not be a popular thing to say. But I do believe that Putin is intellectually brighter than Trump.

He is definitely capable of putting together a long term plan and sticking to it.
First take over Crimea. That was a risk but it worked.

Next a Special Operation in Ukraine. Call it that incase it doesn't work.
All the time use the threat of nuclear weapons.
He banked on NATO and the west not directly countering him, while all the time planning for Trump. And it worked. Perfectly.

Whereas Trump simply doesn't have the patience for anything like that and just wants an instant result, even if it means giving Putin exactly what he wants and Ukraine can go and get fcuked.

Putin sets the agenda. Only Russia and US. Because he knows he will get a much better outcome than if Ukraine and Europe were involved. And that way, he immediately drives a huge wedge between the US and Europe. Thereby weakening NATO. And it worked. Perfectly.

Being brighter than Trump is not very hard.

However, I don't see any long term planning from Putin.

In 2013 he wanted to make a trade deal with Ukraine which would move Ukraine away from EU. Yanukovich signed it and that triggered euromaidan. @AfonsoAlves correct me if I got it wrong.

For some reason he decided to seize crimea and start a separatist movement in donbas. My guess is, this was a purely emotional response for being rejected.

However, over the years he grew unhappy that he can't control ukraine anymore and has no chance of installing a puppet. So again he started a 3 week military operation. He wanted a regime change and Ukrainian Lukashenko. As that failed he was hoping to prolong the war until Trump was elected, as his best hope.

I don't see long term planning, because it doesn't make sense to wait 8 years between crimea and full invasion.

 

[The Purley King]

But that was not my question. I am not questioning if someone that is in the army would like or not to go. I am asking if you would be quick on saying. "we should send the troops" if that would mean that your child would go.

I am question the trigger happy solution to get involved in a third party war when maybe there is the solution to provide them with everything that can be provided on Material, intel, logistics and more

I understand the existance of armies and I understand that they join knowingly but I like to think armies as a deterrent and as last resort and I try (not always succesfully) to avoid to ask to send people do die if I am not willing to go myself

This is a poor argument.
I come from a family of military service although I don’t and have never served myself.
You go where you are told to go. I spent the first 11 years of my life bouncing between England and Germany as that is where my dad was posted. When you sign up that is the deal. If your child has signed up that is what can happen.
The whole point of the army is that it does things most people won’t fancy doing,
I’m nearly 50 now and I wouldn’t like to go to war in fact the only time I would ever willingly go would be if the uk was at risk. When you are a member of the armed forces someone else makes that decision for you.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

But that was not my question. I am not questioning if someone that is in the army would like or not to go. I am asking if you would be quick on saying. "we should send the troops" if that would mean that your child would go.

I am question the trigger happy solution to get involved in a third party war when maybe there is the solution to provide them with everything that can be provided on Material, intel, logistics and more

I understand the existance of armies and I understand that they join knowingly but I like to think armies as a deterrent and as last resort and I try (not always succesfully) to avoid to ask to send people do die if I am not willing to go myself

I’m saying it doesn’t matter if it’s about my child going or not, that’s not a reason to make a macro decision about something. If my kid was murdered by someone, i would want to kill that person, as a society, rightly, it’s not in my hands to decide that and people without the emotional weight would make the decision.

I also take issue with it being labeled in your words as a trigger happy solution and also a third party war. The context being discussed is as a deterrent force in the advent of a peace deal, and as part of a wider nato or EU force.

It’s also not a third party war when frankly, Russia has its eyes on territorial expansion westward and we are part of a defensive alliance.

Nobody wants anyone to die, decisions are not taken on a whim, but I refute the notion that we should be helpless when we have the capability not to be.

 

[WPMUFC]

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact incoming.

 

[4bars]

This is a poor argument.
I come from a family of military service although I don’t and have never served myself.
You go where you are told to go. I spent the first 11 years of my life bouncing between England and Germany as that is where my dad was posted. When you sign up that is the deal. If your child has signed up that is what can happen.
The whole point of the army is that it does things most people won’t fancy doing,
I’m nearly 50 now and I wouldn’t like to go to war in fact the only time I would ever willingly go would be if the uk was at risk. When you are a member of the armed forces someone else makes that decision for you.

How can a question and opinion of what i would do be a poor "argument"?

And if you dont want to answer a clear question going around in circles about you and random people in the army but bot your child, fine. Each their own

 

[4bars]

I’m saying it doesn’t matter if it’s about my child going or not, that’s not a reason to make a macro decision about something. If my kid was murdered by someone, i would want to kill that person, as a society, rightly, it’s not in my hands to decide that and people without the emotional weight would make the decision.

I also take issue with it being labeled in your words as a trigger happy solution and also a third party war. The context being discussed is as a deterrent force in the advent of a peace deal, and as part of a wider nato or EU force.

It’s also not a third party war when frankly, Russia has its eyes on territorial expansion westward and we are part of a defensive alliance.

Nobody wants anyone to die, decisions are not taken on a whim, but I refute the notion that we should be helpless when we have the capability not to be.

Again, is a concise question. Would you ask to send the army to ukraine if that would mean sendind your child to the trenches?

The rest something around that i dont disagree and agree in many parte but has little to do with the question

 

[WPMUFC]

Russia used the first round of talks with the US on ending the war in Ukraine to demand the withdrawal of NATO troops from the eastern flank of the alliance, fueling concerns in European capitals that the Trump administration might make such a concession to seal the peace deal.
Cristian Diaconescu, chief of staff and defense advisor to the Romanian President, stated that the American delegation had rejected Moscow’s request, but that there is no guarantee that Washington will not take this step, A2 writes.
“As far as I understand, the situation could change from hour to hour,” the Romanian official said, in a reference to Trump’s strong criticism of the Ukrainian leader and concessions made to Russia before the talks began.
As part of such a move, Kosovo would also be affected by the withdrawal of American troops from KFOR, as the Bild newspaper previously claimed.
German media reported that Italy is preparing for a possible withdrawal of US troops from Kosovo, as part of negotiations with Russia, leaving only European allies in the Balkans against Vučić’s powerful army.
The withdrawal of NATO forces from former Soviet and communist countries that joined NATO in the late 1990s was one of the main demands Putin made to the US before launching the war in Ukraine in 2022.

https://www.ft.com/content/ac1dcb02-4c5f-4a36-935a-f7ef0a934c7b

Russia wants all the Eastern European countries defenseless. How long til the US caves?

 

[M16Red]

So, Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted Trump to get the money?

No, putin invaded because this idiot thought he'd turn them over in few days and take three elements.

1. Stop EU
2. Stop Nato
3. Secure memorals and pipelines. (Money)

In the feck heads mind this was a strategic risk with zero down side, now the world have seen Russia for what they really are.

 

[Buster15]

Being brighter than Trump is not very hard.

However, I don't see any long term planning from Putin.

In 2013 he wanted to make a trade deal with Ukraine which would move Ukraine away from EU. Yanukovich signed it and that triggered euromaidan. @AfonsoAlves correct me if I got it wrong.

For some reason he decided to seize crimea and start a separatist movement in donbas. My guess is, this was a purely emotional response for being rejected.

However, over the years he grew unhappy that he can't control ukraine anymore and has no chance of installing a puppet. So again he started a 3 week military operation. He wanted a regime change and Ukrainian Lukashenko. As that failed he was hoping to prolong the war until Trump was elected, as his best hope.

I don't see long term planning, because it doesn't make sense to wait 8 years between crimea and full invasion.

I was talking militarily.
His major objective was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
And the US has already agreed to that.
He most likely did not expect to take over the whole of Ukraine.
But he did want to make territorial gains in order to justify the expected damage to the Russian economy.
He will be very happy with what the US has said about Ukraine not taking back lost territory. Slow but sure gains.

He has worn down the appetite of many of the big doners of aid to Ukraine by continuing the war for 3 years.

I agree that he probably got it wrong on the lost gas and oil markets in Europe.
Nevertheless, he can still sell to other different energy hungry markets.

So in summary, he has succeeded in most of his plans and especially driving a wedge between the US and Europe.

 

[68cob]

So in summary, he has succeeded in most of his plans and especially driving a wedge between the US and Europe.

He didn't plan on Finland joining NATO though

 

[Buster15]

He didn't plan on Finland joining NATO though

That is a fair point.

 

[groovyalbert]

Has anyone asked Trump if Zelensky is a dictator, what exactly is Putin?

 

[4bars]

Has anyone asked Trump if Zelensky is a dictator, what exactly is Putin?

A good friend

 

[Desert Eagle]

No, putin invaded because this idiot thought he'd turn them over in few days and take three elements.

1. Stop EU
2. Stop Nato
3. Secure memorals and pipelines. (Money)

In the feck heads mind this was a strategic risk with zero down side, now the world have seen Russia for what they really are.

The problem being "the world" is countries like America, China, India, Saudi, Israel etc who are basically similar to Russia anyways. Power and money is everything and seeing Russia "for what they really are" means feck all.

 

[Jotun]

I was talking militarily.
His major objective was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
And the US has already agreed to that.
He most likely did not expect to take over the whole of Ukraine.
But he did want to make territorial gains in order to justify the expected damage to the Russian economy.
He will be very happy with what the US has said about Ukraine not taking back lost territory. Slow but sure gains.

He has worn down the appetite of many of the big doners of aid to Ukraine by continuing the war for 3 years.

I agree that he probably got it wrong on the lost gas and oil markets in Europe.
Nevertheless, he can still sell to other different energy hungry markets.

So in summary, he has succeeded in most of his plans and especially driving a wedge between the US and Europe.

I disagree and think his plans regarding Ukraine failed spectacularly. He improvised and got lucky with Trump. Now he'll get some of his objectives, but he still won't control all of Ukraine, which is his goal. He will try again, I'm sure.

However his plans for sowing dissent among western allies are going spectacularly well.

 

[stefan92]

The problem being "the world" is countries like America, China, India, Saudi, Israel etc who are basically similar to Russia anyways. Power and money is everything and seeing Russia "for what they really are" means feck all.

What they have seen is that russian military technology is basically worthless against Western equipment, only numbers make them go forward (quantity is a quality in itself) and Russia has to rely on weapons from Iran and North Korea.

Which resulted in a total collapse of interest in Russian weapons, nobody wants to buy those anymore.

So this war really fecked their only high tech industry that was relevant for exports and further reduced Russia to exporting only raw materials. That hurts their economy in the long term and is completely independent from any sanctions.

 

[B. Munich]

Russia needs money. We know US aid to Ukraine will stop, but that won't save Russia. I'm patiently waiting for the "peace deal" to become the "loan deal". Maybe buying Russia oil is how they do it, of course Trump won't actually care about taking deliver and he's established already it doesn't have to make sense, nobody will stop him... Once US-Russian relations are 'normalised' he may just go ahead and buy some government bonds "They are giving 20% return, deal of the century!!".

My point was the US doesn't need Russian oil at all.
What you are basically saying the US will buy Russian oil to finance Putin? Hmm that would put another twist in Trump threatening Canada with 25% tariffs.

Trump seems to be totally deranged and unhinged. Threatening and outraging longtime allies but wooing and cutting the real enemies of the free world courting war criminals and mass murderers.

How he gets aways with this madness?

 

[Desert Eagle]

What they have seen is that russian military technology is basically worthless against Western equipment, only numbers make them go forward (quantity is a quality in itself) and Russia has to rely on weapons from Iran and North Korea.

Which resulted in a total collapse of interest in Russian weapons, nobody wants to buy those anymore.

So this war really fecked their only high tech industry that was relevant for exports and further reduced Russia to exporting only raw materials. That hurts their economy in the long term and is completely independent from any sanctions.

They'll find some corrupt despots who'll happily buy substandard military equipment never intending to actually use it just to make some money on the side. There will be some effects on the economy and perception but unfortunately I don't see any big shift.

 

[stefan92]

They'll find some corrupt despots who'll happily buy substandard military equipment never intending to actually use it just to make some money on the side. There will be some effects on the economy and perception but unfortunately I don't see any big shift.

They made zero deals at the last fairs they were present. That is a big shift for a country that was one of the biggest sellers before.

 

[Mavs]

https://www.reuters.com/world/frenc...ster-starmer-meet-trump-next-week-2025-02-20/

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump will host meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday and with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Thursday, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said.

Why are Macron and Starmer going in two separate meetings with Trump? And do they have any leverage at all to influence Trump?

I'd say we are now at the stage in Trumps negotiation process where he has made all his big threats, and the other party is now expected to back down and concede to his demands to avoid disaster. Will we see Starmer next week questioning Zelenskys legitimacy as president, and pressure him into signing a mineral deal with the US? In return EU representatives will be allowed a seat at the next meeting with Russia.

 

[stefan92]

Why are Macron and Starmer going in two separate meetings with Trump? And do they have any leverage at all to influence Trump?

Why would they go in one? It's not a summit, it's just standard heads of states visiting each other.

 

[Mavs]

Why would they go in one? It's not a summit, it's just standard heads of states visiting each other.

Surely this is more than just a standard meeting. The agenda being future of support to Ukraine and security of Europe, which should be a unified policy (as much as possible) between France, UK and other EU countries. It would be strange to have Starmer and Macron present different talking points here or make different concessions.

 

[stefan92]

Surely this is more than just a standard meeting.

Heads of state visiting the new US president is probably the most standard thing currently happening in international politics.

The agenda being future of support to Ukraine and security of Europe, which should be a unified policy (as much as possible) between France, UK and other EU countries.

But UK isn't part of the EU anymore...

It would be strange to have Starmer and Macron present different talking points here or make different concessions.

...which is why different points wouldn't be strange at all. Macron might represent the EU in a way, but since Brexit the UK is on its own.

 

[Mavs]

Heads of state visiting the new US president is probably the most standard thing currently happening in international politics.

So you feel this is just standard meetings to congratulate Trump on his presidency, shake hands, wish each other good luck going forward?

But UK isn't part of the EU anymore...

I am aware.

...which is why different points wouldn't be strange at all. Macron might represent the EU in a way, but since Brexit the UK is on its own.

Well I completely disagree, when it comes to this matter. Starmer joined the Munich security conference and the emergency meeting earlier this week in Paris. Its clear that the security of Europe involves UK in the same capacity as it does France and EU countries. Same with support and strategy for Ukraine which should be unified. If the UK is going to go their own way against France or others in this negotiations then that is going to end terribly. Macron comes out on Monday, says that EU countries are unified to support Ukraine, no negotiations without Europe, no peacekeeping troops, etc. Then Starmer on Tuesday says UK is committed to a deal and supports Trumps plan, reaffirms commitment to peacekeeping troops, and hints that Zelensky is probably not a legitimate president. Is that a good and completely normal way to proceed here?

 

[stefan92]

So you feel this is just standard meetings to congratulate Trump on his presidency, shake hands, wish each other good luck going forward?



I am aware.



Well I completely disagree, when it comes to this matter. Starmer joined the Munich security conference and the emergency meeting earlier this week in Paris. Its clear that the security of Europe involves UK in the same capacity as it does France and EU countries. Same with support and strategy for Ukraine which should be unified. If the UK is going to go their own way against France or others in this negotiations then that is going to end terribly. Macron comes out on Monday, says that EU countries are unified to support Ukraine, no negotiations without Europe, no peacekeeping troops, etc. Then Starmer on Tuesday says UK is committed to a deal and supports Trumps plan, reaffirms commitment to peacekeeping troops, and hints that Zelensky is probably not a legitimate president. Is that a good and completely normal way to proceed here?

I think good and normal are two different things here. Which means I don't think it would be good if Starmer makes different statements than Macron but it also wouldn't surprise me much. THe UK is somewhat stuck between the EU and US, so to me it would feel normal if they tried to balance some positions.

 

[Mavs]

I think good and normal are two different things here. Which means I don't think it would be good if Starmer makes different statements than Macron but it also wouldn't surprise me much. THe UK is somewhat stuck between the EU and US, so to me it would feel normal if they tried to balance some positions.

Well what is normal has kind of gone out of the window hasn't it with Trump. Trying to balance things with the US and make concessions that are not coordinated with European partners isn't a good move I'd think.

It will be interesting to see though if and how their messages differ following their meetings with Trump. Macron has given some indication as to what his message to Trump will be:

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internati...-against-being-weak-with-putin_6738394_4.html

Macron has sought to coordinate a European response to Washington's shock policy shift in US-Russia relations, hosting this week two emergency meetings with leaders of EU and non-EU nations including Germany, Britain, Canada and Norway.

I'm going to tell him: 'You can't be weak with President Putin. That's not who you are, it's not your trademark, it's not in your interest,'" Macron said about Trump. "I will tell him: 'If you let Ukraine be taken, Russia will not stop," he said. "Not only will it be even stronger, it will continue to invest, but it will take over Ukraine and its army, which is one of the largest in Europe, with all our equipment, including American equipment,'" he added, saying it would be a "huge strategic mistake."

I don't think this message is going to affect Trump much, its nothing new, he'd rather want concessions. If Macron pisses him off, Starmer will likely be in a weaker position coming in the next day. Or stronger, as it will allow him to side with the US and become Trumps ally over Macron, if you look at it that way.

 

[Simbo]

I think good and normal are two different things here. Which means I don't think it would be good if Starmer makes different statements than Macron but it also wouldn't surprise me much. THe UK is somewhat stuck between the EU and US, so to me it would feel normal if they tried to balance some positions.

Starmer's statements are more about sending a message and I'm all for it. Putin/Trump are counting on Europe to disassociate, its important to show solid commitment. Starmer has done that and then some with the 100 year deal, talking about troops, etc. I didn't read his full statement myself, but I'm pretty sure he was only talking about joint deployment with partners and never suggesting the UK acting alone? That story just gains more clicks so obviously will be what media headlines suggest.

Macron also was first to talk about deploying troops to Ukraine, so these two appear very much of the same mind.

 

[Simbo]

My point was the US doesn't need Russian oil at all.
What you are basically saying the US will buy Russian oil to finance Putin? Hmm that would put another twist in Trump threatening Canada with 25% tariffs.

Trump seems to be totally deranged and unhinged. Threatening and outraging longtime allies but wooing and cutting the real enemies of the free world courting war criminals and mass murderers.

How he gets aways with this madness?

The only explanation for everything he is doing right now is that he is working directly with Russia. That doesn't mean he is a 100% puppet under their control, it could just be the usual quid-pro-quo i.e. They help get him elected, he saves Russia from their current situation (existential economic crisis). We may never know the full extent but I don't think there is any doubt now that at the very least he is working with Putin/FSB for each others mutual benefit, among with many others within maga. Which puts him under the definition of being a Russian Asset.

They always need some level of 'plausible' deniability. Sure they have no use for Russian oil and it makes no sense whatsoever, but trade is trade, its not illegal, the propagandists will spin it however they want and nobody will be talking about it after a few days because there will be several other ridiculous things going on.

 

[Pexbo]

I don’t know if this has been discussed yet but what happens if:


Trump and Russia rubber stamp negotiations and sign agreement which includes all concessions - Russia keeping land etc and US/Trump’s cronies looting resources.


Europe/Ukraine/ROW reject these negotiations and with US pulling all aide out of Ukraine, decide to put boots on the ground to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty.


Does that put the US in a position where they have to make a choice:

1. Accept that the outcome of the negotiations cannot be honoured.

2. They are now on Russia’s side in this war to respect the agreement and its Ukraine/Europe/ROW vs Russian and US forces?


It sounds ridiculous writing it out but that seems like a logical outcome here which Trump is cornering himself into.

 

[The Firestarter]

I don’t know if this has been discussed yet but what happens if:


Trump and Russia rubber stamp negotiations and sign agreement which includes all concessions - Russia keeping land etc and US/Trump’s cronies looting resources.


Europe/Ukraine/ROW reject these negotiations and with US pulling all aide out of Ukraine, decide to put boots on the ground to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty.


Does that put the US in a position where they have to make a choice:

1. Accept that the outcome of the negotiations cannot be honoured.

2. They are now on Russia’s side in this war to respect the agreement and its Ukraine/Europe/ROW vs Russian and US forces?


It sounds ridiculous writing it out but that seems like a logical outcome here which Trump is cornering himself into.

I somehow think there would be a coup in the US if Trump turns militarily against Europe.

 

[Lemoor]

I somehow think there would be a coup in the US if Trump turns militarily against Europe.

Trump is a wannabe dictator who's actively trying, not an established one. He's decades away and hundreds of institutions ceding power to him from him unilaterally organising a land invasion.

 

[Pexbo]

I somehow think there would be a coup in the US if Trump turns militarily against Europe.

Which is why I’m musing that Trump is cornering himself here. If “Europe” doesn’t accept Russia/US terms and continues to support Ukraine then he’s got to make a big decision to make which cannot be avoided.

If it gets to this point I think we will begin to understand the extent of Putin’s hold on Trump

 

[Red in STL]

They made zero deals at the last fairs they were present. That is a big shift for a country that was one of the biggest sellers before.

Perhaps that's because they're currently in a war and what they might have sold in the past is being made for their own military

 

[B. Munich]

The only explanation for everything he is doing right now is that he is working directly with Russia. That doesn't mean he is a 100% puppet under their control, it could just be the usual quid-pro-quo i.e. They help get him elected, he saves Russia from their current situation (existential economic crisis). We may never know the full extent but I don't think there is any doubt now that at the very least he is working with Putin/FSB for each others mutual benefit, among with many others within maga. Which puts him under the definition of being a Russian Asset.

They always need some level of 'plausible' deniability. Sure they have no use for Russian oil and it makes no sense whatsoever, but trade is trade, its not illegal, the propagandists will spin it however they want and nobody will be talking about it after a few days because there will be several other ridiculous things going on.

No idea whether Trump is a Russian asset or just the scrupulous business man without any morals he always has been.

Trump wants a deal about the rate earths and other valuable minerals. Many of these sites are in Russian occupied territories.
Maybe he thinks a deal with Putin is easier and more profitable. Putin gets the land and control over it and Trump gets the right to exploit the resources.
Hitler Stalin treaty 2.0.

 

[Lemoor]

No idea whether Trump is a Russian asset or just the scrupulous business man without any morals he always has been.

Trump wants a deal about the rate earths and other valuable minerals. Many of these sites are in Russian occupied territories.
Maybe he thinks a deal with Putin is easier and more profitable. Putin gets the land and control over it and Trump gets the right to exploit the resources.
Hitler Stalin treaty 2.0.

The rare earth debacle is yet another situation where he gets to posture for internal polls that he cares about efficient US spending and long term US interest without actually doing or achieving anything of note. Using foreign policy this way is a staple for antidemocratic strongmen and you should expect that as long as he's in power, there is going to be a lot of it and nearly everything will be a completely worthless bullshit a few months later.

 

[The Firestarter]

Trump is a wannabe dictator who's actively trying, not an established one. He's decades away and hundreds of institutions ceding power to him from him unilaterally organising a land invasion.

Becoming an adversary does not mean immediate land invasion.

 

[F-Red]

No idea whether Trump is a Russian asset or just the scrupulous business man without any morals he always has been.

The theory that he's been an asset has been discussed before, there's no smoke without fire - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia-asset-claims-former-kgb-spy-new-book