Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Silly McSilly Face]

On politics I would say after Trumps comments today on Ukraine Starmer should be kicking out US diplomats. That is how serious I take it.

Starmer so far is a 7.5 out of 10, been pretty solid. Needs to get rid of Rachel from accounts but overall solid. This is a big test and I hope he stands up to Trump.

I've said it before on here but Trump has got a point:
- The problem with Ukraine stems back to the drawing of borders in the breakup of the USSR and it's the same problem that happened in the breakup of Yugoslavia. They applied a legal principle called uti possidatis juris, which is an established principle of international law that really does go towards the saying "the law is an ass".
- The principle states that new countries must be formed based on the borders they had before independence. Only a lot of the time what was convenient as an administrative boundary within a larger state isn't necessarily a good idea when applied to an independent state. Like in the former Yugoslavia, the arbitrary setting of borders during the break up of the USSR saw ethnic and cultural peoples left in a country in which they were a minority and separated from the country with which they had greater affinity.
- In Ukraine's case, the drawing of their new borders left a sizeable chunk of their territory and population in the east inclusive of ethnic and linguistic Russians.
- This wasn't so much of a problem while Ukrainian governments and presidents were largely pro-Russia or Russian leaning in teens of outlook.
- The problem started with the overthrowing of the pro-Russian president who was from the east (Donetsk) after he refused to ratify an application for Ukraine to join the EU. Mass protests by the Ukrainian majority which turned violent forced him to flee to Russia in what became known as the "revolution of dignity" in 2014.
- In response, Russia invaded Crimea and began supporting pro-Russian separatists in the east who wanted independence from Ukraine, which was growing more anti Russian and pro-west in outlook.
- The west began a campaign of economic sanctions against Russia and encouraged Ukraine to seek applications to join NATO and the EU.
Trump's points (which i agree with):
- Ukraine could have attempted to do a deal in relation to separatist Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.
- Ukraine could have decided not to court NATO and EU membership and attempt to remain neutral such as Finland did for a long time.
- when the rhetoric from Russia ramped up they could have attempted to do a deal then, rather than openly increase their dialogue with the west in relation to providing "protection from.Russia".
- Ukraine is now asking western states to burn through billions of £ a year and leave themselves open by donating endless amounts of their ammunition and equipment reserves while steadfastly insisting that no peace deal will be acceptable that doesnt basically involve a complete international humiliation of Russia, and the handing back of all pre-2014 territory (which, as I've pointed out, includes many people that see themselves as Russian and had formed armed separatist militias to attempt to break free from Ukraine as it was).
- Meanwhile, the entirety of eastern Ukraine lies in rubble and Ukraine demonstrated during its 2023 "counter offensive" and subsequent loss of territory through 2024 that even with the current eye watering rate of western aid thar it cannot realistically defeat Russia on the battlefield.
- Because Ukraine will not move from the "victory plan" or the idea of victory backed by huge western military aid, the US (their largest and most vital backer) is faced with a choice: give them what they want and let them endlessly plough onwards, or cut them out of talks, come to an agreement with Russia and then present it to Ukraine as a "take it or leave it" condition of further support, including economic and structural rebuilding costs.
- Ukraine's decision to invade Kursk as part of this "victory plan" while hailed by some as catching Russia by surprise has largely now been seen as backfiring and dangerously escalating the conflict. It has drawn many of Ukraine's best troops away from the Eastern front, accelerating Russian gains. It hasn't drawn Russian forces away from the front and has allowed North Korea to legitimately enter the conflict under the principles of international law in defence of its ally by putting significant numbers of troops into combat in Kursk, materially risking a legitimate escalation into a global conflict the longer this goes on. Chinese economic, technical and manufacturing support has also stopped western sanctions biting Russia as many expected and has kept Russia supplied with huge amounts of ammunition, missiles and equipment. The West can't easily counter this other than by imposing sanctions on China which would be economically crippling to enforce.
- And it isn't just China. Key countries such as India, Brazil, African states etc do not see the conflict in the same light as the west does. They do see the wests actions in supporting and encouraging Ukraine to lean westward as imperialist and provocative and many of these countries have maintained normalised relations with Russia. Basically, Russia isn't as isolated internationally as it needs to be for a Ukrainian/westetn "victory" to occur.

I don't see a way out of this conflict other than Trump's way. You might not like it, but its the reality of the situation.

 

[SpurMeUp]

So people are all the same when they have the power right?

I guess you could say that democracy has tempered the power hungry and pushed vested interests into the shadows. Because of democracy exploitation is subtle and hidden far more. Which relatively speaking is a good thing, but in absolute terms is still abusive.

The role oil has played shaping the Middle East and the wests interventions for example. Or Hilary Clinton’s personal role in destroying Libya, turning it into a failed state - getting the oil into partisan hands was one motive, but almost more dangerous was her righteousness and a will (or itch) to exercise her power. The upshot for people on the ground is deeply disturbing. A nation undermined, all stability and foundations destroyed with ongoing conflict. You could easily argue that the damage done then under the well meaning Democrats, far outweighs anything imposed by Trump who’s mostly guff and hyperbole.

 

[Lost Mango]

I've said it before on here but Trump has got a point:
- The problem with Ukraine stems back to the drawing of borders in the breakup of the USSR and it's the same problem that happened in the breakup of Yugoslavia. They applied a legal principle called uti possidatis juris, which is an established principle of international law that really does go towards the saying "the law is an ass".
- The principle states that new countries must be formed based on the borders they had before independence. Only a lot of the time what was convenient as an administrative boundary within a larger state isn't necessarily a good idea when applied to an independent state. Like in the former Yugoslavia, the arbitrary setting of borders during the break up of the USSR saw ethnic and cultural peoples left in a country in which they were a minority and separated from the country with which they had greater affinity.
- In Ukraine's case, the drawing of their new borders left a sizeable chunk of their territory and population in the east inclusive of ethnic and linguistic Russians.
- This wasn't so much of a problem while Ukrainian governments and presidents were largely pro-Russia or Russian leaning in teens of outlook.
- The problem started with the overthrowing of the pro-Russian president who was from the east (Donetsk) after he refused to ratify an application for Ukraine to join the EU. Mass protests by the Ukrainian majority which turned violent forced him to flee to Russia in what became known as the "revolution of dignity" in 2014.
- In response, Russia invaded Crimea and began supporting pro-Russian separatists in the east who wanted independence from Ukraine, which was growing more anti Russian and pro-west in outlook.
- The west began a campaign of economic sanctions against Russia and encouraged Ukraine to seek applications to join NATO and the EU.
Trump's points (which i agree with):
- Ukraine could have attempted to do a deal in relation to separatist Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.
- Ukraine could have decided not to court NATO and EU membership and attempt to remain neutral such as Finland did for a long time.
- when the rhetoric from Russia ramped up they could have attempted to do a deal then, rather than openly increase their dialogue with the west in relation to providing "protection from.Russia".
- Ukraine is now asking western states to burn through billions of £ a year and leave themselves open by donating endless amounts of their ammunition and equipment reserves while steadfastly insisting that no peace deal will be acceptable that doesnt basically involve a complete international humiliation of Russia, and the handing back of all pre-2014 territory (which, as I've pointed out, includes many people that see themselves as Russian and had formed armed separatist militias to attempt to break free from Ukraine as it was).
- Meanwhile, the entirety of eastern Ukraine lies in rubble and Ukraine demonstrated during its 2023 "counter offensive" and subsequent loss of territory through 2024 that even with the current eye watering rate of western aid thar it cannot realistically defeat Russia on the battlefield.
- Because Ukraine will not move from the "victory plan" or the idea of victory backed by huge western military aid, the US (their largest and most vital backer) is faced with a choice: give them what they want and let them endlessly plough onwards, or cut them out of talks, come to an agreement with Russia and then present it to Ukraine as a "take it or leave it" condition of further support, including economic and structural rebuilding costs.
- Ukraine's decision to invade Kursk as part of this "victory plan" while hailed by some as catching Russia by surprise has largely now been seen as backfiring and dangerously escalating the conflict. It has drawn many of Ukraine's best troops away from the Eastern front, accelerating Russian gains. It hasn't drawn Russian forces away from the front and has allowed North Korea to legitimately enter the conflict under the principles of international law in defence of its ally by putting significant numbers of troops into combat in Kursk, materially risking a legitimate escalation into a global conflict the longer this goes on. Chinese economic, technical and manufacturing support has also stopped western sanctions biting Russia as many expected and has kept Russia supplied with huge amounts of ammunition, missiles and equipment. The West can't easily counter this other than by imposing sanctions on China which would be economically crippling to enforce.
- And it isn't just China. Key countries such as India, Brazil, African states etc do not see the conflict in the same light as the west does. They do see the wests actions in supporting and encouraging Ukraine to lean westward as imperialist and provocative and many of these countries have maintained normalised relations with Russia. Basically, Russia isn't as isolated internationally as it needs to be for a Ukrainian/westetn "victory" to occur.

I don't see a way out of this conflict other than Trump's way. You might not like it, but its the reality of the situation.

All true in a certain light but it doesn't take into account Putin's stated goal to recreate the Russian Empire which he sees the Ukraine as the first integral part of.

An analysis of Putin's imperial ambitions and Ukraine's 300-year road to statehood | University of Oxford

www.ox.ac.uk

Putin’s history lecture reveals his dreams of a new Russian Empire

Vladimir Putin turned his hotly anticipated interview with Tucker Carlson into a history lecture that laid bare the dangerous delusions and imperial ambitions driving the invasion of Ukraine, writes Peter dingdonginson.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Putin's Imperial Ambitions: A Historical Perspective on Russian Aggression - Tactics Institute for Security and Counter-Terrorism

History has always acted as an ideological battleground, but few monarchs in the modern era have weaponized history quite as ruthlessly as Vladimir Putin. For more than two years, the Russian autocrat has sought to explain Europe’s largest invasion since World War II by showing it as a sacred...

tacticsinstitute.com

There are Russian speakers in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia ..... where does his 'justified' expansion stop?

The EU is pouring billions in partly in advance of having to do the same for Poland, Finland or anywhere else.

And in response to your point about neutrality, don't (or shouldn't) Ukrainians get to choose whether they want to lean towards Europe and NATO or Moscow? Have they (as in a democratic majority) no say in the direction of their country? You suggest they could have chosen to remain neutral but I would imagine they understood that this wouldn't have stopped Putin from doing this at some stage either. I fully agree on the stupidity of international boundaries being based on extinct historic concepts (Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Israel, Balkans, Zimbabwe etc etc) but once that is done is there no legitimacy to them that has recognition?

Trump's 'solution' (and yours by what it sounds like) is basically appeasement.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

All true in a certain light but it doesn't take into account Putin's stated goal to recreate the Russian Empire which he sees the Ukraine as the first integral part of.

An analysis of Putin's imperial ambitions and Ukraine's 300-year road to statehood | University of Oxford

www.ox.ac.uk

Putin’s history lecture reveals his dreams of a new Russian Empire

Vladimir Putin turned his hotly anticipated interview with Tucker Carlson into a history lecture that laid bare the dangerous delusions and imperial ambitions driving the invasion of Ukraine, writes Peter dingdonginson.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Putin's Imperial Ambitions: A Historical Perspective on Russian Aggression - Tactics Institute for Security and Counter-Terrorism

History has always acted as an ideological battleground, but few monarchs in the modern era have weaponized history quite as ruthlessly as Vladimir Putin. For more than two years, the Russian autocrat has sought to explain Europe’s largest invasion since World War II by showing it as a sacred...

tacticsinstitute.com

There are Russian speakers in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia ..... where does his 'justified' expansion stop?

The EU is pouring billions in partly in advance of having to do the same for Poland, Finland or anywhere else.

And in response to your point about neutrality, don't (or shouldn't) Ukrainians get to choose whether they want to lean towards Europe and NATO or Moscow? Have they (as in a democratic majority) no say in the direction of their country? You suggest they could have chosen to remain neutral but I would imagine they understood that this wouldn't have stopped Putin from doing this at some stage either. I fully agree on the stupidity of international boundaries being based on extinct historic concepts (Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Israel, Balkans, Zimbabwe etc etc) but once that is done is there no legitimacy to them that has recognition?

Trump's 'solution' (and yours by what it sounds like) is basically appeasement.

I'm not disputing anything you say but the reality of taking on Russia and their allies militarily and economically is what I'm talking about. America is (rightly) no longer willing to bankroll European security. So in the situation where we've ran down our defence spending over decades to the point where we can't take on Russia, then, yes, we have to do a deal, and keep on doing deals on Russia's terms until we have the means to take them on ourselves....its not right, it's reality.

You know, America has sat there over the years, watching us think we don't need a proper military because there's fu**ing McDonalds in Russia and their oligarchs own half of London and Germany buys loads of gas from them and the Chinese are totally fine too. The yanks had to intervene to slap our government round the face and say "wake up" when we were going to let the Chinese install our 5G network. They've been there watching us head in hands for years while we get ourselves balls deep with Russia and China and drop our defence spending below NATO agreed targets and now when we are all whinging to big daddy about "we need a US backstop" they're like "no, f*** off!" And they're 100% right to do it.

 

[DubSpur]

I've said it before on here but Trump has got a point:
- The problem with Ukraine stems back to the drawing of borders in the breakup of the USSR and it's the same problem that happened in the breakup of Yugoslavia. They applied a legal principle called uti possidatis juris, which is an established principle of international law that really does go towards the saying "the law is an ass".
- The principle states that new countries must be formed based on the borders they had before independence. Only a lot of the time what was convenient as an administrative boundary within a larger state isn't necessarily a good idea when applied to an independent state. Like in the former Yugoslavia, the arbitrary setting of borders during the break up of the USSR saw ethnic and cultural peoples left in a country in which they were a minority and separated from the country with which they had greater affinity.
- In Ukraine's case, the drawing of their new borders left a sizeable chunk of their territory and population in the east inclusive of ethnic and linguistic Russians.
- This wasn't so much of a problem while Ukrainian governments and presidents were largely pro-Russia or Russian leaning in teens of outlook.
- The problem started with the overthrowing of the pro-Russian president who was from the east (Donetsk) after he refused to ratify an application for Ukraine to join the EU. Mass protests by the Ukrainian majority which turned violent forced him to flee to Russia in what became known as the "revolution of dignity" in 2014.
- In response, Russia invaded Crimea and began supporting pro-Russian separatists in the east who wanted independence from Ukraine, which was growing more anti Russian and pro-west in outlook.
- The west began a campaign of economic sanctions against Russia and encouraged Ukraine to seek applications to join NATO and the EU.
Trump's points (which i agree with):
- Ukraine could have attempted to do a deal in relation to separatist Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.
- Ukraine could have decided not to court NATO and EU membership and attempt to remain neutral such as Finland did for a long time.
- when the rhetoric from Russia ramped up they could have attempted to do a deal then, rather than openly increase their dialogue with the west in relation to providing "protection from.Russia".
- Ukraine is now asking western states to burn through billions of £ a year and leave themselves open by donating endless amounts of their ammunition and equipment reserves while steadfastly insisting that no peace deal will be acceptable that doesnt basically involve a complete international humiliation of Russia, and the handing back of all pre-2014 territory (which, as I've pointed out, includes many people that see themselves as Russian and had formed armed separatist militias to attempt to break free from Ukraine as it was).
- Meanwhile, the entirety of eastern Ukraine lies in rubble and Ukraine demonstrated during its 2023 "counter offensive" and subsequent loss of territory through 2024 that even with the current eye watering rate of western aid thar it cannot realistically defeat Russia on the battlefield.
- Because Ukraine will not move from the "victory plan" or the idea of victory backed by huge western military aid, the US (their largest and most vital backer) is faced with a choice: give them what they want and let them endlessly plough onwards, or cut them out of talks, come to an agreement with Russia and then present it to Ukraine as a "take it or leave it" condition of further support, including economic and structural rebuilding costs.
- Ukraine's decision to invade Kursk as part of this "victory plan" while hailed by some as catching Russia by surprise has largely now been seen as backfiring and dangerously escalating the conflict. It has drawn many of Ukraine's best troops away from the Eastern front, accelerating Russian gains. It hasn't drawn Russian forces away from the front and has allowed North Korea to legitimately enter the conflict under the principles of international law in defence of its ally by putting significant numbers of troops into combat in Kursk, materially risking a legitimate escalation into a global conflict the longer this goes on. Chinese economic, technical and manufacturing support has also stopped western sanctions biting Russia as many expected and has kept Russia supplied with huge amounts of ammunition, missiles and equipment. The West can't easily counter this other than by imposing sanctions on China which would be economically crippling to enforce.
- And it isn't just China. Key countries such as India, Brazil, African states etc do not see the conflict in the same light as the west does. They do see the wests actions in supporting and encouraging Ukraine to lean westward as imperialist and provocative and many of these countries have maintained normalised relations with Russia. Basically, Russia isn't as isolated internationally as it needs to be for a Ukrainian/westetn "victory" to occur.

I don't see a way out of this conflict other than Trump's way. You might not like it, but its the reality of the situation.

In other words Ukraine should just roll over, come under the influence of an evil dictator, watch the Russification of their country, and let their country be raped of all resources that Russia want? They shouldn't aspire towards joining the EU or improving their country?

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

In other words Ukraine should just roll over, come under the influence of an evil dictator, watch the Russification of their country, and let their country be raped of all resources that Russia want? They shouldn't aspire towards joining the EU or improving their country?

Yep. Well, actually, Ukraine can keep fighting if it wants, without US support.

 

[DubSpur]

Yep. Well, actually, Ukraine can keep fighting if it wants, without US support.

It's up to Europe and other allies to step up and provide the needed support or watch Trump, Putin, and Xi carve up the world to their liking.

 

[LutonSpurs]

The issue is that there is a desperate search for some level for some level of ethics or morality in geopolitics. Unfortunately the duplicity from the EU and the West on Gaza has shown they are not good faith either. Nobody can scream "omg that is wrong" because that is established as a "who cares" now.

If you let a state just take land in one place, and then help them do it with weapons. then defend genocide and ethnic cleansing then the people in non western countries are like whatevs when it comes to Ukraine (this is a terrible place we have got to)

It is sad as all human life, and state sovereignty should be respected indiscriminately, however that's dead and gone. And people like Biden and the EU and Starmer pretty much created this problem and Trump is just saying I can do what I want.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

It's up to Europe and other allies to step up and provide the needed support or watch Trump, Putin, and Xi carve up the world to their liking.

Yes it is. Unfortunately it will take years and huge investment to get us militarily to the place we need to be and therefore right now, we have to sit back and suck up whatever Trump agreea with Putin. Reality bites

 

[DubSpur]

Yes it is. Unfortunately it will take years and huge investment to get us militarily to the place we need to be and therefore right now, we have to sit back and suck up whatever Trump agreea with Putin. Reality bites

We don't. There's plenty more equipment that can be provided to Ukraine. 3 years in and Russia still can't defeat Ukraine. Do you really think that Russia is just going to roll over the rest of Europe when it can't roll over Ukraine, even allowing for the support provided to them?

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

We don't. There's plenty more equipment that can be provided to Ukraine. 3 years in and Russia still can't defeat Ukraine. Do you really think that Russia is just going to roll over the rest of Europe when it can't roll over Ukraine, even allowing for the support provided to them?

It's ammunition. The key US aid was its huge stock piles of ammunition. While Russia isn't "rolling over" Ukraine, it is steadily advancing and pushing Ukraine back, village by village, town by town. When the last US aid package got stuck in Congress, Ukraine almost ran out of ammunition and their front line almost collapsed. Their forces in Avdiivka retreated in a disorderly manner to prevent being surrounded and having to surrender. Without US aid Russia will roll over them and quickly. Europe's industrial military base cannot supply enough artillery shells, ammo, bombs and missiles to fight a war on this scale for more than a few weeks whilst Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are churning out missiles, drones, ammo and shells at an incredible rate. Russia has maintained a consistently brutal level of fire over almost 3 years now. It's incredible to think anyone other than the US at current levels can hold the sheer fire power back for long.

 

[Rorschach]

We don't. There's plenty more equipment that can be provided to Ukraine. 3 years in and Russia still can't defeat Ukraine. Do you really think that Russia is just going to roll over the rest of Europe when it can't roll over Ukraine, even allowing for the support provided to them?

As bad as Biden was in drip-feeding Ukraine with weapons, just before he left office he pushed out a massive amount of equipment right at the end I believe. One last shove before Trump got in. Obviously nowhere near enough but it was something at least.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think another thing that has to be taken into account with all of this imo, is the reneging on not having countries that border Russia like Ukraine etc being invited into NATO.
That was a big red line for Russia; i mean how would the US feel if Mexico was invited to be a part of Russia's military treaty and have Russian bases installed in Mexico?

 

[DubSpur]

It's ammunition. The key US aid was its huge stock piles of ammunition. While Russia isn't "rolling over" Ukraine, it is steadily advancing and pushing Ukraine back, village by village, town by town. When the last US aid package got stuck in Congress, Ukraine almost ran out of ammunition and their front line almost collapsed. Their forces in Avdiivka retreated in a disorderly manner to prevent being surrounded and having to surrender. Without US aid Russia will roll over them and quickly. Europe's industrial military base cannot supply enough artillery shells, ammo, bombs and missiles to fight a war on this scale for more than a few weeks whilst Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are churning out missiles, drones, ammo and shells at an incredible rate. Russia has maintained a consistently brutal level of fire over almost 3 years now. It's incredible to think anyone other than the US at current levels can hold the sheer fire power back for long.

Russia is in war mode, Europe isn't. If Europe was it would be producing far more than Russia. The industrial base of Europe is far bigger than Russia's. Russia is even desperate enough to have to go to North Korea for shipments of ammo and Iran for drones.

You seem to be caught in this Trump version where US is giving all the aid to Ukraine, Europe has given more aid to Ukraine than US and is continuing to do so.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I've said it before on here but Trump has got a point:
- The problem with Ukraine stems back to the drawing of borders in the breakup of the USSR and it's the same problem that happened in the breakup of Yugoslavia. They applied a legal principle called uti possidatis juris, which is an established principle of international law that really does go towards the saying "the law is an ass".
- The principle states that new countries must be formed based on the borders they had before independence. Only a lot of the time what was convenient as an administrative boundary within a larger state isn't necessarily a good idea when applied to an independent state. Like in the former Yugoslavia, the arbitrary setting of borders during the break up of the USSR saw ethnic and cultural peoples left in a country in which they were a minority and separated from the country with which they had greater affinity.
- In Ukraine's case, the drawing of their new borders left a sizeable chunk of their territory and population in the east inclusive of ethnic and linguistic Russians.
- This wasn't so much of a problem while Ukrainian governments and presidents were largely pro-Russia or Russian leaning in teens of outlook.
- The problem started with the overthrowing of the pro-Russian president who was from the east (Donetsk) after he refused to ratify an application for Ukraine to join the EU. Mass protests by the Ukrainian majority which turned violent forced him to flee to Russia in what became known as the "revolution of dignity" in 2014.
- In response, Russia invaded Crimea and began supporting pro-Russian separatists in the east who wanted independence from Ukraine, which was growing more anti Russian and pro-west in outlook.
- The west began a campaign of economic sanctions against Russia and encouraged Ukraine to seek applications to join NATO and the EU.
Trump's points (which i agree with):
- Ukraine could have attempted to do a deal in relation to separatist Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.
- Ukraine could have decided not to court NATO and EU membership and attempt to remain neutral such as Finland did for a long time.
- when the rhetoric from Russia ramped up they could have attempted to do a deal then, rather than openly increase their dialogue with the west in relation to providing "protection from.Russia".
- Ukraine is now asking western states to burn through billions of £ a year and leave themselves open by donating endless amounts of their ammunition and equipment reserves while steadfastly insisting that no peace deal will be acceptable that doesnt basically involve a complete international humiliation of Russia, and the handing back of all pre-2014 territory (which, as I've pointed out, includes many people that see themselves as Russian and had formed armed separatist militias to attempt to break free from Ukraine as it was).
- Meanwhile, the entirety of eastern Ukraine lies in rubble and Ukraine demonstrated during its 2023 "counter offensive" and subsequent loss of territory through 2024 that even with the current eye watering rate of western aid thar it cannot realistically defeat Russia on the battlefield.
- Because Ukraine will not move from the "victory plan" or the idea of victory backed by huge western military aid, the US (their largest and most vital backer) is faced with a choice: give them what they want and let them endlessly plough onwards, or cut them out of talks, come to an agreement with Russia and then present it to Ukraine as a "take it or leave it" condition of further support, including economic and structural rebuilding costs.
- Ukraine's decision to invade Kursk as part of this "victory plan" while hailed by some as catching Russia by surprise has largely now been seen as backfiring and dangerously escalating the conflict. It has drawn many of Ukraine's best troops away from the Eastern front, accelerating Russian gains. It hasn't drawn Russian forces away from the front and has allowed North Korea to legitimately enter the conflict under the principles of international law in defence of its ally by putting significant numbers of troops into combat in Kursk, materially risking a legitimate escalation into a global conflict the longer this goes on. Chinese economic, technical and manufacturing support has also stopped western sanctions biting Russia as many expected and has kept Russia supplied with huge amounts of ammunition, missiles and equipment. The West can't easily counter this other than by imposing sanctions on China which would be economically crippling to enforce.
- And it isn't just China. Key countries such as India, Brazil, African states etc do not see the conflict in the same light as the west does. They do see the wests actions in supporting and encouraging Ukraine to lean westward as imperialist and provocative and many of these countries have maintained normalised relations with Russia. Basically, Russia isn't as isolated internationally as it needs to be for a Ukrainian/westetn "victory" to occur.

I don't see a way out of this conflict other than Trump's way. You might not like it, but its the reality of the situation.

Thanks for such a detailed commentary and review. A lot of food for thought imo.

What Trump is doing would seem like total anathema in the circles of Washington; what would be the reaction of the CIA/NSA/FBI to all this though?
Surely Trump's actions undo decades of their work, no?

 

[DubSpur]

I think another thing that has to be taken into account with all of this imo, is the reneging on not having countries that border Russia like Ukraine etc being invited into NATO.
That was a big red line for Russia; i mean how would the US feel if Mexico was invited to be a part of Russia's military treaty and have Russian bases installed in Mexico?

Ukraine hadn't been invited in though. They may have been looking for it but there was no guarantee. It would have been a decade or two before they got into EU as well, they were far from meeting the criteria for entry.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Russia is in war mode, Europe isn't. If Europe was it would be producing far more than Russia. The industrial base of Europe is far bigger than Russia's. Russia is even desperate enough to have to go to North Korea for shipments of ammo and Iran for drones.

Would Europe be able to be in "War mode" without US/NATO?
Were the 'Allies' 'desperate' when they enlisted conscripts from their empires?

You seem to be caught in this Trump version where US is giving all the aid to Ukraine, Europe has given more aid to Ukraine than US and is continuing to do so.

In that case, surely then it doesn't matter what Trump is doing then, no? Europe can just ignore USA and continue to aid Ukraine?

 

[DubSpur]

Would Europe be able to be in "War mode" without US/NATO?
Were the 'Allies' 'desperate' when they enlisted conscripts from their empires?


In that case, surely then it doesn't matter what Trump is doing then, no? Europe can just ignore USA and continue to aid Ukraine?

Of course it could be in a war mode without the US/NATO. Europe has a large defence industry. It's the willingness to pump money into it that is the issue on both those points. Not saying it can be ramped up over night but it can be done if the willingness is there. Will the average person in the street be happy to see money going into Ukraine and not being spent to make their lives better? That is going to be one of the biggest problems with doing it.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Of course it could be in a war mode without the US/NATO. Europe has a large defence industry. It's the willingness to pump money into it that is the issue on both those points. Not saying it can be ramped up over night but it can be done if the willingness is there. Will the average person in the street be happy to see money going into Ukraine and not being spent to make their lives better? That is going to be one of the biggest problems with doing it.

Indeed that is the issue. USA spend big on defence (attack) as a standard operation. It could be said that the real rulers there are the Military Industrial Complex in any case..

 

[SpurMeUp]

It's ammunition. The key US aid was its huge stock piles of ammunition. While Russia isn't "rolling over" Ukraine, it is steadily advancing and pushing Ukraine back, village by village, town by town. When the last US aid package got stuck in Congress, Ukraine almost ran out of ammunition and their front line almost collapsed. Their forces in Avdiivka retreated in a disorderly manner to prevent being surrounded and having to surrender. Without US aid Russia will roll over them and quickly. Europe's industrial military base cannot supply enough artillery shells, ammo, bombs and missiles to fight a war on this scale for more than a few weeks whilst Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are churning out missiles, drones, ammo and shells at an incredible rate. Russia has maintained a consistently brutal level of fire over almost 3 years now. It's incredible to think anyone other than the US at current levels can hold the sheer fire power back for long.

Moreover, who wants to see all these munitions destroy a country? Not those whose country it is, but those in far flung places who are using Ukraine and its young men as a buffer.