US Cyber Command reportedly pauses cyberattacks on Russia US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly ordered US Cyber Command to pause offensive operations against Russia – as the USA’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has denied any change in its posture. The order was first reported by The Record and since confirmed by The New York Times, The Washington …
'Fake reporting' rather than than merely 'false reporting? Good grief it's going south over there.
Not necessarily, but like the article says, CISA shouldn't be engaging in cyberwarfare. But cyberwarfare can cover a multitude of sins from actual hacking to pysops campaigns, which can also extend to other agencies, eg USAID's funneling money into NGOs or 'independent' media organisations. But like the article says-
President Putin therefore remains free to keep using the sophisticated cyber-armory he has many times directed against American targets in operations such as the Sandworm credential-stealing campaign, ransomware sprees, and the phishing.
That rather ignores the point that Putin or the Russian state might not actually be behind those operations and they may just be plain'ol extortion by criminals looking to make a quick e-buck. Some state level stuff almost certainly is happening given there's a virtual war on and the US may be asking for reciprocity. Or a thaw in relations might mean intelligence sharing between LEAs resumes and Russia can then arrest criminals.. Or not, but then would be a pretty strong indication that Russia isn't interested in a 'cyber peace'.
The state level stuff is certainly happening, there's a lot of solid attribution to GRU. The trouble is the US dimension of that mainly centres on election interference and/or is investigated by the FBI, so it's convenient for the current administration to ignore it. It isn't entirely stupid for Trump to buddy up to Russia a bit as a negotiating tactic on Ukraine, otherwise Putin will never go for any peace treaty, but it's definitely dumb to trust a "let's not hack each other" agreement. Why would Russia be interested in cyber peace? It's not only their strongest asymmetrical capability but one most of their allies rely heavily on too, and it's a deniable one so they can easily say "shure we won't hack US, we never hack US" and then just do it a bit more quietly for a few years (cf. 2015 US-China cybersecurity agreement).
Or a thaw in relations might mean intelligence sharing between LEAs resumes and Russia can then arrest criminals
Snowden? I can't think of anyone else famous enough for Trump to really care about extraditing :|
There's not going to be any treaty that brings meaningful "peace", at best we'll see a conflict that's temporarily frozen until conditions improve for Russia to resume it. Concessions will not alter that situation. The only practical option is to ensure conditions remain unfavourable.
Those nations who pretend Hamas's attack on 7 October was unprovoked, who ignore decades of history and conflict preceding it, are unsurprisingly pushing the same narrative with respect to Russia.
Great Britain and Europe are determined to continue the Obama-Biden proxy war even as Trump withdraws from it.
"Putin has always been an aggressor. Russia has always been evil. We have always been at war with Eastasia. If Russia is not defeated then Europe will fall .You are with us or against us."
That's proving a bit tricky with Trump changing sides and becoming the best friend Russia has had in years.
"becoming the best friend Russia has had in years"
You are aware that by halting outright aggression towards a country/person doesn't immediately make you their best buddy?
There is like a spectrum!
The US still has a huge number of nukes pointed right at Moscow.
The best friend Russia has had for a while has actually been Europe. How much gas did Europe buy from them before the nordstream randomly and unexpectedly self-exploded in a completely unrelated way and had nothing to do with Biden saying 'we will bring an end to it'....
A frozen frontline isn't actually a bad long-term result for Russia, because - whatever Zelenskyy might hope - it precludes Ukraine joining NATO. But yes, hard to see it without peacekeeping troops in Ukraine to keep conditions unfavourable for a Russian re-(re-)invasion. That would be very tough for Putin to swallow because he started the war in large part to stop NATO being in Ukraine. The only remotely feasible way to thread the needle is to give him enough other concessions elsewhere that he can spin the opposite result as a victory at home for whatever is left of his days, and then we can hold some small hope his successor is capable of drawing a line and engaging in more constructive relations.
It's also interesting that if this worked, the Europeans might actually worry more about Ukraine re-starting the conflict in the medium-term, in order to regain lost territory (during some opportune moment of crisis in Russia), which in turn means they won't keep donating modern materiel to beef up Ukraine's armed forces beyond what's necessary to deter Russia. Temporarily frozen frontlines have worked essentially peacefully for very long periods in Korea, in China/Taiwan, Cyprus, Kosovo, depending how close a comparison you make. But they're always a balancing act, obviously not ideal, and in this case (to stay on topic) there'd be no chance of frozen cyber front-line.
A frozen frontline isn't actually a bad long-term result for Russia, because - whatever Zelenskyy might hope - it precludes Ukraine joining NATO. But yes, hard to see it without peacekeeping troops in Ukraine to keep conditions unfavourable for a Russian re-(re-)invasion. That would be very tough for Putin to swallow because he started the war in large part to stop NATO being in Ukraine.
I doubt there would be any freeze without some major concessions, and the US is losing the ability to act unilaterally. So the US might offer to lift sanctions, but there was very little trade between US & Russia pre- or post-2014. If the EU doesn't do the same, Russia doesn't really gain anything, and the EU still looks determined to keep the conflict going. Plus some amusing comments from Kaia Kallas that the West needs a new leader. Somehow, I doubt the US would agree to that. Or the rest of the world. Or Ursula as Empress of the West, where people could just dig out stories of German soldiers armed with sticks, or having to buy their own cold weather gear from when she was in charge of Germany's defence.
But the conflict wasn't just about NATO, it was about Ukraine's coup, and their actions following the start of their civil war. That lead to freezes like Minsk, but didn't really freeze anything and that was broken by both sides. Merkel admitting that Minsk was just a ploy to buy time to re-arm and re-train UAF, nor were their build ups around the Donbas prior to invading, and why the SMO kicked off. The supposedly 'full scale' invasion of only 2-300k troops forced Ukraine to pull those forces back, and also forced them to the negotiating table in Instanbul, but then that peace deal was also broken. So I expect Russia to continue the SMO until their objectives are met, or Ukraine is forced to seek terms.
It's also interesting that if this worked, the Europeans might actually worry more about Ukraine re-starting the conflict in the medium-term, in order to regain lost territory (during some opportune moment of crisis in Russia), which in turn means they won't keep donating modern materiel to beef up Ukraine's armed forces beyond what's necessary to deter Russia.
Yup. Zelensky's desperate to get US/EU/NATO boots on the ground to expand the conflict. There's a huge danger that any forces sent in as 'peace keepers' would just be a tripwire force and would be very vulnerable to false-flag operations. A bit like the constant claims of Russia attacking their own NPP in Zap. Or the curious case of the 'Russian' drone that flew into Chenobyl. Russia built the sarcophagus, so it knows exactly how to attack it, if it really wanted to. Or there were the pre-SMO rants from Zelensky at the Munich 'security' conference where he said Ukraine should develop nuclear weapons. Then doubled down on dumb by wanting 'Ukraines' nuclear weapons back. Weapons may have been located in Ukraine during Soviet times, but Ukraine never owned or had control of those, and that's why Budapest happened. Selling an aircraft carrier to China didn't exactly help build trust either, nor has all the arms dealing since.
"Yup. Zelensky's desperate to get US/EU/NATO boots on the ground to expand the conflict."
He was installed to this position for the purpose of running this proxy war.
What has not been widely reported is that prior to the spat at the White House, Zelensky met with a group of Dems and RINOs who pretty much instructed him on what to say when he met with Trump and Vance. Peace in Ukraine does not make for good profit.
Weapons may have been located in Ukraine during Soviet times, but Ukraine never owned or had control of those, and that's why Budapest happened
Not gonna comment on your other double-speak, but they had full physical control of the weapons in 1990 and they were under Ukrainian military command, albeit that command was in turn under CIS (in a different but analogous way to US & British weapons being integrated into NATO command).
Questioning legal ownership, really? They say possession is nine tenths of the law but it's surely ten tenths when you're a sovereign nation state and the ownership in question is weapons capable of obliterating cities. They just needed to re-configure the authorisation mechanisms as I understand it, but even if they needed to dismantle and re-engineer the weapons completely it's an immense advantage having all the critical components as well as the know-how. It's the point South Africa reached with their 'political nukes', except Ukraine had 300 times the warhead count and with much bigger yields.
They gave them up in return for assurances that Russia (and others) would respect Ukraine's borders and never threaten her with nuclear weapons. Both counts Russia has failed on repeatedly. You might also note that the NPT doesn't forbid individual politicians of signatory states from musing how different the world might be if they hadn't given up their nuclear weapons.
Not gonna comment on your other double-speak, but they had full physical control of the weapons in 1990 and they were under Ukrainian military command, albeit that command was in turn under CIS (in a different but analogous way to US & British weapons being integrated into NATO command).
No, they did not. Russia retained both physical and operational control, which was why independence created a bit of a problem and they remained under Russian control until they were moved or fully decommissioned. Even though the UK shares warheads with the US, the UK still retains autonomy and doesn't require US or NATO permission to deploy them.
It's fair to say there were minor questions over allegiance of some Ukrainian/ex-Soviet commanders and Russia had an unusually complete intelligence picture of Ukrainian nukes. If Ukraine had made a move on them with the aim of making them operational there's some risk Russia would have reacted badly, though not much they could have done in practice. We're talking ~20% of the warhead count the US had at the time. It was a huge arsenal, way beyond any outside control.
Caveats aside, they were not under any degree of Russian control or else Russia would have been able to evacuate them without need of a treaty. They were mostly in silos in the ground in Ukraine, or in hangers, guarded by troops who largely considered themselves Ukrainian and were glad to gain independence. Worth noting they were postured Westwards so they were not close to the Russian border in Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, they were in fiercely nationalist areas. (This might all be confusing if your warped perspective is that Ukrainians are really Russians in denial).
Caveats aside, they were not under any degree of Russian control or else Russia would have been able to evacuate them without need of a treaty. They were mostly in silos in the ground in Ukraine, or in hangers, guarded by troops who largely considered themselves Ukrainian
Do you actually have any evidence to support this fantasy? Russia, as owner/successor state quickly transfered the portable stuff out of Ukraine, then there was the Massandra and then Trilateral process between Russia, US and Ukraine, and finally the Budapest Memorardum, and Ukraine signing the NPT. But it's one of those things that constantly puzzles me when people who obviously have no understanding of the history attempt to revise it.
So you really seem to think that the Soviet Union, historically known for it's paranoia and fear of coups would leave nuclear weapons in the hands of member states who might be disloyal. So there was no 'largely considiering themselves Ukrainian' (or Banderites) about it given anyone in proximity to nuclear weapons are heavily vetted and expected to be absolutely loyal. They may have ended up in Ukraine, but they were guarded by Russian troops.
Russia, as owner/successor state
All CIS states (plus many non CIS states) were equal successors of the USSR(*). There was no legal primacy for Russia. I'm curious why you believe otherwise? USSR troops were vetted to be loyal to the USSR not Russia. Beyond that they had differing national loyalties and once the USSR disintegrated many that weren't already deployed in their native countries transferred which meant Ukrainian silos were mainly staffed by Ukrainians. On the creation of CIS Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan agreed to move tactical nukes "to decommissioning sites" which Russia was taking responsibility for. It's not like Russia charged in and took them. I think you underestimate just how weak Moscow was at this time, precisely because loyalties were falling apart over night.
(*) After Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan disarmed and joined the NPT involved states agreed that Russia would become the sole successor wrt to Soviet-agreed international nuclear arms treaties. That's a different issue.
It's not like Russia charged in and took them. I think you underestimate just how weak Moscow was at this time, precisely because loyalties were falling apart over night.
Nope, but that is precisely why securing the weapons was such a hot topic because nobody wanted the breakaway states to become nuclear powers. Then came Yeltsin and a coup attempt in Russia, which is one of those things that lead to Putin's rise to power. Plus this is one of the concerns around regime change and Balkanising the Russian Federation, ie if we force that to break up again, what happens to all the weapons? Or who will succeed Putin and become in charge of those.
Beyond that they had differing national loyalties and once the USSR disintegrated many that weren't already deployed in their native countries transferred which meant Ukrainian silos were mainly staffed by Ukrainians.
Or Russians. But that's one of the reasons behind the civil war and response to the anti-Russian measures imposed by Kiev. Many people who considered themselves Russian were suddenly Ukrainians after Independence. Since '91 that has always been clear in Ukraine's voting patterns, ie east of the Dnipr votes were for pro-Russia parties, then the Banderites in the west.
On the creation of CIS Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan agreed to move tactical nukes "to decommissioning sites" which Russia was taking responsibility for.
Tactical weapons weren't really the problem given Russia shipped those back pretty promptly, especially as Belarus and Kazakhstan were more co-operative. Ukraine of course wasn't, and did their usual thing of demanding money and compensation. The challenge was the ICBMs in silos that were harder to decommission and move. Plus the silos themselves had to be decommissioned and sealed per SALT. The last one was completed in 2000 from memory, and might be the one that got converted into a museum that I visited.
After Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan disarmed and joined the NPT involved states agreed that Russia would become the sole successor wrt to Soviet-agreed international nuclear arms treaties. That's a different issue.
No, it's the same issue. Russia was declared as the successor state pretty swiftly following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the sole nuclear power. Ukraine was the hold-out because money, so the deals to buy back things like the Tu-160s stranded in Ukraine that were part of SALT treaties, being designed primarily as strategic nuclear bombers. But Ukraine also ended up with massive stockpiles of conventional weapons, so tanks, artillery etc which it promptly started flogging off, plus became significant during the civil war when those were turned against the Kiev regime.
The state level stuff is certainly happening, there's a lot of solid attribution to GRU. The trouble is the US dimension of that mainly centres on election interference and/or is investigated by the FBI, so it's convenient for the current administration to ignore it.
I'm thinking more the US (and UK, EU) dimension where there has been a lot of election interfence, or just psyops / political warfare. So years of Russophobia, demonising Putin or just the bizarre way we bigged up Navalny as being a serious opposition leader and challenger for President. That seemed mostly a UK initiative though, and the US never seemed to get behind that one. But his party had very little support inside Russia, where the opposition has always been their Communist Party. The Bbc still runs the (very) odd article trying to prop up 'Yolanda' as a leader-in-exile, but she's even more unknown and unsupported.
There's also the potential for the US to investigate their own election interference, so the Russiagate hoax(s). That's probably another reason why Trump doesn't look favorably on Ukraine given a lot of the 'intelligence' behind that one almost certainly came from Ukraine. I think it was also quite telling that Vance called out Zelensky for campaiging on behalf of Harris. Then again, UK Labour also sent 'volunteers' to do the same thing, which might prove a little awkward for Starmer.
It isn't entirely stupid for Trump to buddy up to Russia a bit as a negotiating tactic on Ukraine, otherwise Putin will never go for any peace treaty, but it's definitely dumb to trust a "let's not hack each other" agreement.
But it's a start. It isn't exactly a friendly thing to hack or e-sabotage another nations CNI, so agreeing not to do that could be a good thing. I also think although the deal that didn't get signed was a bad deal, it did give something to start negotiating with. Like Trump said, Ukraine doesn't have very many cards. Declaring an interest in Ukraines minerals and infrastructure might prevent say, Russia attacking Odessa's ports, if the US can claim a 50% interest. Plus it gives Trump the ability to show the US electorate that there is some potential upside rather than being a bottomless money pit. But the biggest obstacle to peace is Zelensky, and his refusal to repeal his law that prevents any dialogue. He's in no position to dictate terms, as last week showed.
Snowden? I can't think of anyone else famous enough for Trump to really care about extraditing
That would need a pretty major thaw, and Russia to agree to an extradition treaty with the US. I'm thinking more the 'simple' criminals hacking US/Western targets from inside Russia. If we don't share intelligence or evidence of those crimes, then Russia can't prosecute because without that evidence, the charges would be mostly hearsay.
If Navalny wasn't serious why'd you guys need to try and kill him so many times?
Declaring an interest in Ukraines minerals and infrastructure might prevent say, Russia attacking Odessa's ports, if the US can claim a 50% interest
The point has been made that China has very significant mining interests in Ukraine and that hasn't stopped the Russian war-machine putting them out of action. I highly doubt jointly-US-owned civilian infrastructure than can be evacuated when in danger would be any different.
Russia to agree to an extradition treaty with the US
Nah, Putin can strip him of Russian citizenship and forcibly repatriate him to the US. No wider extradition treaty needed. There would be the impact on future Western intelligence exiles wanting to flee to Russia that Putin would need to weigh up of course.
If Navalny wasn't serious why'd you guys need to try and kill him so many times?
You're assuming they did. Or you're making the case that Russia isn't really that dangerous because they can't organise a simple assassination, or arrange an 'accident'.
I highly doubt jointly-US owned civilian infrastructure than can be evacuated when in danger will be any different.
It's about having something to negotiate. Please don't bomb Odessa's ports because smugglers need those to ship drugs into the EU & Russia, and weapons out. But evacuating can be problematic-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c981p3dxnent
Ukraine has confirmed that Russia earlier carried out a successful strike on a training ground in Dnipropetrovsk region, resulting in numerous casualties.
Which according to rumors, also include quite a few foreign trainers. Also the Bbc doesn't do irony-
Over the past week, more than 1,050 attack drones, almost 1,300 bombs and more than 20 missiles were launched against Ukraine to destroy cities and kill people."
"If you want talks, don't target people with ballistic missiles. To make Russia stop the strikes, we need the world to be more united and stronger," Zelensky adds.
When the civil war started, Ukraine routinely bombed and shelled cities and killed people in the Donbas, and the Bbc reported on that.. But a lot of that reporting has been memory holed for some reason. Since the SMO began, Ukraine has still been doing it, including firing PFM-1 'petal mines' into population centres.. But the Bbc rarely reports those war crimes.
Russia isn't really that dangerous because they can't organise a simple assassination, or arrange an 'accident'
They are quite successful but seem incapable of doing it without "an overly elaborate and exotic" Dr Evil nod. It's a bit weird if we're being honest
I think the word you are looking for is war, or at best invasion.
Once again, nope. There have been no declarations of war by any of the parties to the conflict. Well, except that time when Baerbock announced that Germany was at war with Russia. Invasion might be more plausible, but not the 'full scale' meme given Russia started with 2-300k troops, and now has over 1m committed to the SMO. And might now be making moves on annexing Kharkiv.
What Putin wants to call it, and what it is and what history will show it be are not the same thing. Ever hear of the Korean War? Or do you still insist on calling it a "Police Action" at every opportunity?
Or do you still insist on calling it a "Police Action" at every opportunity?
I call it what it is, an SMO. No party to the conflct (other than Germany..ish) has issued a formal declaration of war. In practical terms, and in international law it's an armed conflict, and war-adjacent. But in national law, it's an important distinction. So when the US invaded and occupied part of Syria, that was also a 'war', but not because only Congress can declare war. US Presidents have kind of ignored that principle though by declaring their own SMOs to bypass Congress. This-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_military_operation
Konstantin Gorobets, an associate professor at the University of Groningen, argued that, unlike "war", the term "special military operation" positioned Ukraine as a colony of Russia, denies it equal standing as a sovereign state, and uses the "language of policing". Gorobets says that the implication of the term is imperialistic, "because it assumes that Russia is using force within its own domain, of which Ukraine [in their view] is but a part."
Along with the rest of the article avoids mentioning a very important point. Russia's Constitution limits the ability of the President to use it's military outside of Russian territory. Which was one of the reasons Putin allowed Wagner because Wagner forces could be used to annoy the French as a proxy for Russia's official armed forces. Or why Russia was quick to annex Donbas and formally accept that territory as part of the Russian Federaton.. even though it didn't entirely control it. Or countering Ukraine's invasion of Kursk. Within Russia's borders (even if those are disputed), Russia can use any forces it wants, but it's still limited by it's Constitution outside it's borders.
It's kind of like the way the Falkands campaign gets referred to as the 'Falklands War', even though that's incorrect because war was never declared by the UK or Argentina.
The UK has an extradition treaty with the USA, but it is a bit controversial, as it seems to mean that the USA can extradite people form the UK, but not, or rarely the other way around:
"The allegedly one-sided treaty[3] allows the US to demand extradition of British citizens and other nationals for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see, for example, the NatWest Three), there is no evidence to suggest this is not reciprocal, but no such cases have occurred to date; and there are issues about the level of proof required to extradite from the UK to the US versus from the US to the UK, although it has since been established that they are “effectively” the same levels of proof."
[3] is https://web.archive.org/web/20110611202458/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article680281.ece
"US prosecutors no longer have to provide prima facie evidence of wrongdoing to British courts in demanding the extradition of a suspect; but Britain cannot take such short cuts in American courts."
"US prosecutors no longer have to provide prima facie evidence of wrongdoing to British courts in demanding the extradition of a suspect; but Britain cannot take such short cuts in American courts."
It isn't necessarily about extraditing hackers, but stopping them. Snowden is a lousy example because he didn't committ crimes in Russia, so the US would need to extradite, or convince Russia to volutarily expel him if the US wanted to prosecute him. If a hacker attacks a US business, they've committed crimes in both Russia and the US. The US might want to habeus the corpus, but might be content with Russia just locking up the hacker instead. But Russia can't do that unless they have evidence to prosecute, which would require the US to supply that evidence.
Jellied Eel: The US might want to habeus the corpus, but might be content with Russia just locking up the hacker instead. But Russia can't do that unless they have evidence to prosecute, which would require the US to supply that evidence.
You have a touching faith in the honesty and integrity of the current Russian legal system.
You have a touching faith in the honesty and integrity of the current Russian legal system.
Well, they're not locking up people for mean tweets or confiscating mobile phones like the UK and Germany does. But this is kind of the point with a thaw in relations, and perhaps more co-operation. Russia has arrested and jailed hackers in the past. It might do more, if there was co-operation between LEAs. Russian hacks say, US or British hospital as extortion. US or UK authorities could share evidence with Russia, who could then arrest and charge those hackers. We might want to do that through our courts instead, but that would require an extradition treaty, which is maybe something that could be negotiated, if relations thaw.
Currently though the weekends 'peace' talks have all been about more war. Starmer and the coalition circus talking about how they can spend more money on more weapons and more cash to Ukraine. Keep the killing going because the defence industry needs your money. Zelensky isn't interested in peace either. So while the EU/UK is outright hostile towards Russia, why should it stop hacking, either at the state level, or even bother going after criminal hackers? If they're hacking non-Russian or allied targets, there's no harm and it arguably benefits Russia. The EU/UK is creating insecurity, the US is trying to improve security. Starmer announced £1.5bn for Thales in Belfast, so Russia might want to disrupt or sabotage Martlet production because those weapons are going to be used to kill Ukrainians and Russians. Or possibly further afield given variants like this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martlet_(missile)#/media/File:UA_LMM_Martlet_02.jpg
and if those end up on the black market, either now, or in future with echos of the US supplying Stingers to the Taliban during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, then trying to buy them back after Russia withdrew.
So the US rapprochment might be sensible and improve security. The US says it'll stop hacking Russia, and Russia might agree to stop hacking the US. Or not, given it might still want to target US defence companies like Lockheed, Rathyeon etc who are still supplying weapons to Ukraine. Which gets further complicated, so the US might have now decided to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, but US defence companies still ship indirectly via the EU & UK. Or the US may extend their ban to block 3rd party deliveries, which would get.. interesting.
Jellied Eel: Well, they're not locking up people for mean tweets or confiscating mobile phones like the UK and Germany does.
I am not aware that anyone has been locked up in the UK for posting "mean tweets". People can get locked up for stalking, sending thousands of unwanted or sexually explicit messages to someone, but that is called harassment. OTOH maybe look up Magnitsky, Nemirov, Navalny, or the rather surprising prevalence of 'accidental' deaths or 'suicides' of Russians outside Russia who 'fell out' with Putin. Then there was the Salisbury poisoning, and, of course Alexander Litvinenko.
The Register has loads of articles about Russian hackers attacking Western IT for profit or espionage and those criminals being tolerated by teh Russian state, as long as 'the state' gets paid.
And I'd be interested in your understanding of rapprochement (definition: "Rapprochement is the reestablishment of a happy relationship or arrangement. A peace treaty between warring nations is a kind of rapprochement.") when it relies on the capitulation of Ukraine to unprovoked aggression and the loss of 20% of its territory.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsmanchester/i-didnt-think-for-one-minute-theyd-send-a-detective-around-for-a-perfectly-reasonable-comment-on-social-media/ar-AA1zLW2e
Hmm.. so an MP can say he hopes one of his constituents dies and if you comment that he needs to resign for making such a comment you get a visit from the police. No, that is not abuse of power. The MP has been suspended and stripped of his ministerial position.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
A girl posted some lyrics from a rap song and got arrested. There was no actual complaint, just a PC who took offence.
British police have actually used 'your post might cause someone anxiety' as a reason for arrest.
"relies on the capitulation of Ukraine to unprovoked aggression and the loss of 20% of its territory."
This territory was ceded in 2014, keep up!
OK, let's have a look at this.
A visit from a Police Officer is not the same as being "locked up" as Jellied Eel claimed. Maybe the UK is a bit touchy, but two sitting MPs have been murdered recently (one Labour, one Tory).
I don't know about the rap lyrics, but some of them are extremely homophobic or misogynistic and extol violence. I have been verbally and physically abused for being gay, so if the lyrics were advocating violence then a visit from a Police Officer is appropriate.
As far as Ukrainian territory being 'ceded' in 2014. Some of it was invaded and occupied in 2014. The Ukrainian parliament has not accepted any transfer of Ukrainian territory , the borders of which were decided at the break up of the Soviet Union, to Russia. Since 24th February 2022 Russian forces have invaded significant parts of Ukraine and claimed it for Russia, and indeed claimed the whole of the Oblasts even where they do not have troops or control over the whole territory.
It may well be the case that Russian speakers were not all happy with how they were being treated in some parts of Ukraine, but remember, President Zelenskyy is a native Russian speaker, The Ukrainian presidents immediately after independence were Russian puppets. In April 2014, after the 'revolution' Russia complained that Ukraine owed it US$2bn for gas allegedly provided by Gazprom, conveniently ignoring the fact that if true, it would have accrued during the presidency of Victor Yanukovic, who fled Ukraine and was then a 'guest' of Russia. At the time, Putin denied any Russian involvement in the unrest and violence in the Eastern Oblasts or Crimea. The armed men without insignia seen there were 'not' Russian agents. Then, after seizing control of Crimea, he admitted he had lied and that they were Russian Special Forces.
Maybe see the article "Russia accused of orchestrating unrest after insurrection spreads in Ukraine", The Independent newspaper, Tuesday 8th April 2014, page 8. Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine
This history of this is a lot more complicated than your post would indicate.
A visit from a Police Officer is not the same as being "locked up" as Jellied Eel claimed. Maybe the UK is a bit touchy, but two sitting MPs have been murdered recently (one Labour, one Tory).
The Online Safety Act can lock up people for sending mean tweets, spreading 'misinformation' or just causing offence. But LMGTFY, and here's something the GLC prepared earlier-
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/crimes-social-media
MPS data for the calendar years 2008 to 2017 indicate that in total 5332 people have been arrested and charged for a range of offences under the Communications Act 2003.
Which was for a single authority and only goes up to 2017..
As far as Ukrainian territory being 'ceded' in 2014. Some of it was invaded and occupied in 2014. The Ukrainian parliament has not accepted any transfer of Ukrainian territory , the borders of which were decided at the break up of the Soviet Union, to Russia.
Alternatively, Crimea was home to around 80,000 Russian forces who rolled out of their bunks and secured Russian facilities following the coup in Kiev. The population of Crimea then voted to seceed from Ukraine and then to join Russia. Unusprising given most of Crimea's population identified as Russian rather than with the Banderites. The Kiev regime then retaliated by doing things like cutting off the water to Crimea because NATO wanted the bases there, and Kiev doesn't believe in the UN principles of self-determination.
...the borders of which were decided at the break up of the Soviet Union, to Russia. Since 24th February 2022 Russian forces have invaded significant parts of Ukraine and claimed it for Russia, and indeed claimed the whole of the Oblasts even where they do not have troops or control over the whole territory.
The borders were mostly defined by this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty
... was an agreement signed in 1997 between Ukraine and Russia, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other
Which Poroshenko decided to break in 2017. Around the same time as he said that Ukrainians would enjoy their freedoms, whilst Ukrainians living in Crimea would be forced to cower in basements. Then again, the WLB I think has arrested Parashenko for 'treason'.. again. Because the WLB really doesn't like anyone who might threaten his power.
It may well be the case that Russian speakers were not all happy with how they were being treated in some parts of Ukraine, but remember, President Zelenskyy is a native Russian speaker, The Ukrainian presidents immediately after independence were Russian puppets.
Careful. The WLB could arrest you. According to the WLB, Ukrainian is his mother tongue. According to Ukrainians, he doesn't speak it very well. Or he speaks it well enough to call the US Vice President a 'whore bitch' in a room full of press and microphones. You're also ignoring the leaked phone call between Ass Sec Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt where they were deciding who'd become Ukrainian president.. And Yats it was. Funny how that worked out.
In April 2014, after the 'revolution' Russia complained that Ukraine owed it US$2bn for gas allegedly provided by Gazprom, conveniently ignoring the fact that if true, it would have accrued during the presidency of Victor Yanukovic, who fled Ukraine and was then a 'guest' of Russia.
The gas disputes had been going on for a long while, with Ukraine stealing gas because control over gas and the money that went with it was one of those things that fuelled their oligarchs, their oligarch wars and for those oligarchs to then hire football thugs as muscle, and then as their own private militias. There was also the small matter of the coup instigators deciding Yanukovic had 'fled' and voting to replace him while he was still in Ukraine, and per Ukraine's constitution, still their elected President. He didn't leave Ukraine until Feb 24th. But then Turchynov, one of Yulia Tymoshenko's henchman became interim President. Tymoshenko had been talked up as a possible leader, but her business activities and connections to one Semion Mogilevich was just a bit.. inconvenient, he being on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list.
But such is Ukrainian politics. Yanukovic was removed with the help of Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna/Fatherland party, plus those good'ol boys from Svoboda.
This history of this is a lot more complicated than your post would indicate
Well.. I keep trying to explain that, but it's also true of a lot of history. So the removal of Yugoslavia from maps, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Georgia (then and now), Afghanistan, most of the Middle East etc etc. According to international rules based order, it's fine for us to invade, destroy or destabilise countries, but not fine when others do the same thing.
"A visit from a Police Officer is not the same as being "locked up" "
Despite claims to the contrary, a 'voluntary' interview is nothing of the sort and can result in your arrest.
"but two sitting MPs have been murdered recently"
One of whom was killed by someone known to, but ignored by, the police. Saying you hope that an MP resigns after making extremely inappropriate comments is a far cry from this. I doubt the UK police are investigating any brits suggesting unfortunate things should happen to Trump.
"As far as Ukrainian territory being 'ceded' in 2014"
Here is the law passed by the Ukranian parliament in 2014 giving the eastern areas self-governance: https://cis-legislation.com/document.fwx?rgn=74224
"President Zelenskyy is a native Russian speaker"
Anyone born before the breakup of the USSR would have been taught Russian as their first language. Other languages were forbidden in the USSR.
"after seizing control of Crimea"
Russian troops were already in Crimea and this was a well known fact. Ukraine had been leasing the port of Sevastopol to the Russians.
And I'd be interested in your understanding of rapprochement (definition: "Rapprochement is the reestablishment of a happy relationship or arrangement. A peace treaty between warring nations is a kind of rapprochement.") when it relies on the capitulation of Ukraine to unprovoked aggression and the loss of 20% of its territory.
You're assuming the aggression was unprovoked. Losing 20% of the country is better than Yugoslavia managed, or Syria, Gaza and Lebanon are managing. International rules based order means might makes right, no? So the WLB glossed over some of the aggression from Ukraine following their coup and civil war. Like the 14,000 or so dead killed or injured in Donbas prior to 20222, Ukraine breaking the Minsk agreements and being poised to 'reintegrate' their breakway regions by force.
Think of it like another thing that happened in 2014, namely Scotland's indepence referendum. The EU and UN supported that because the UN (and theoretically EU) support the right to self-determination. But suppose the Scotland won that vote. England rejects the vote, starts air strikes on Edinburgh, Glasgow etc, bans Gaelic as an official UK language, outlaws kilt wearing, bagpipe playing, and Burns Night*. Oh, and seizes all those dour Presbyterian churches and assets because the official UK state religion will henceforth be the CofE. Which is basically what Ukraine did, and could have avoided the SMO by simply allowing regional autonomy, as the UK does.
*one of these would arguably be a good thing, especially south of the border.
Jellied Eel: Well, they're not locking up people for mean tweets or confiscating mobile phones like the UK and Germany does.
I have just (09:00 a.m., Wednesday 19th March 2025) listened to the BBC Radio 4 popular statistical analysis programme 'More or Less' which addressed the idea that the UK incarcerates people because of 'mean posts'. The analysis is that people are only imprisoned because of serious incitement to commit violence, such as starting a group to organise a riot, serial abuse of vulnerable minorities (such as racist or sexist posts) and serial stalking and offensive and threatening posts against a specific individual.
The idea that the UK is somehow a more oppressive regime when it comes to free speech than Russia appears to be one of these 'Internet memes'.
I realise that you probably heard this somewhere, and may have been unable to do your own research on this, so I am not downvoting your post. But please, listen to the BBC programme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0028zxj
> If Navalny wasn't serious why'd you guys need to try and kill him so many times?
Including smearing his underpants with Novichok. They tried the same when they smeared Novichok all over the door handle of ex-spy Skipral's home in Salisbury.
The deadliest toxin known to mankind which kills instantly, used by the bucketload, but it has never killed anyone. Except some druggie and that's not believed by everyone.
The idea of holding back on murdering someone wanted killed until they can do it in the most Hollywood blockbuster way is ridiculous when there are so many easier ways to get that done.That nonsense was popular for propaganda directed at Muslims after 9-11 who were supposedly determined to kill us all, but only once they got their hands on WMD. Meanwhile those who did want to murder jumped in their cars, picked up kitchen knives, went out, and simply murdered people.
The idea of holding back on murdering someone wanted killed until they can do it in the most Hollywood blockbuster way is ridiculous when there are so many easier ways to get that done.
Exploding scooters or car bombs spring to mind. But yes, novichok was a uniquely Russian choice of weapon, almost as if someone wanted to put Russia's fingerprints on the murder weapon. But that fell apart a bit when acdemics pointed out that chemistry grad students could produce it, assuming they had a bit of a death wish. Or that Russia had previously arrested a chap who'd sold it to some gangsters to murder a rival. It was also strange that the USP of novichok was it could be made with easily obtainable chemicals, so didn't have to be transported pre-mixed. And yet the only sample found was found inside a perfume bottle, complete with packaging. Seems a bit risky to transfer something so deadly into a handy container, when there would have been an obvious risk that if stopped, the contents could be given a casual test with a quick spray, sniff and <clunk>.
but only once they got their hands on WMD
WMD's kinda back in the news with Starmer announcing his 'coalition of the willing'. Wonder if Blair fed him that line, recycled from Bush, GW2 and the invasion of Iraq that was based on a dodgy dossier. Then there's also the 'no fly zone' that worked so well in providing air support for Libya's no-so-civil war and our destruction of that country.
Please explain the following:
US of A has suddenly, against decades long held views, decided that Russia is not a threat and in fact is a friend.
(Evidenced by deeds if not language)
Russia has enacted a real 'boots on ground' war in europe with little reaction other than posturing and the arming of an ill-prepared ukraine army.
The world has watched from afar BUT russia has NOT stopped.
US of A does not NOW find that this is of enough concern and contrives to pull back from the role it placed itself in historically.
(The blue tights & red cape are begining to chafe maybe !!!???)
This is not about money or respect, no matter how it has been contrived, it is about the US of A becoming Isolationist because the current President thinks that the rest of the world does not matter.
China is the only *current* concern because it has finally dawned on the US of A that China is the factory of the world and they created that !!!
They cannot fight an economic war with China until they have moved the factories back to the US of A.
US of A modelled itself as 'World Police' because it suited its ego ... now it does not want the role anymore.
Bailing out will destablise the world ... so what ... the US of A will simply build some high walls and ignore it all !!!
Hope those walls are really high & thick !!!
:)
"decided that Russia is not a threat and in fact is a friend."
This has been the way some European states, primarily Germany, has been treating Russia for many decades.
"with little reaction other than posturing"
Again this has been the case for many decades. Many words spoken, very little done. The Russians annexed Crimea in 2014 and all the west did was make soundbites on TV.
"pull back from the role it placed itself in historically"
Would that be the role where the US and EU forced regime change in Ukraine in 2013?
"it is about the US of A becoming Isolationist"
The US has long been this way. The US only acts in its own interest.
"current President thinks that the rest of the world does not matter"
More correctly the current US president is thinking 'why is this MY problem?'.
"Bailing out will destablise the world"
The more important question is has all the previous meddling with USAID, NGOs, CIA/State department backed coups, arms sales etc. done the destabilisation? It more seems that the US deep state messes around in the background, buggers up a country and then the US can roll in with its military and 'humanitarian' aid and finish the job while making a tidy profit.
No surprise, Trumspky is a russian asset.
I wonder how all these so-called 'Republicans' can continue to glorify their leader when he is a traitor who sells the US to Putin Khuylo. Stalinism is coming to the US. Who would have thought this would ever be possible? One could believe every US soldier who died for liberty died in vain.
"I wonder how all these so-called 'Republicans' can continue to glorify their leader when he is a traitor who sells the US to Putin Khuylo"
Easily. They've elevated Him to become their own Orange Jesus. As the new Messiah who is at one with God and speaks with God and as God, He is omniscient and infallible, every word He and His entourage of greasy priests utter is a truth by definition (even it contradicts what He shouted moments before). Anything He does, such as stealing state secrets, dodging taxes, bribing porn stars, inciting unrest, these are all part of His great works, whose might purpose surpasses mere human understanding. Human law cannot bind such a might saviour, and thus it shall be said that this man has done no wrong. You and I cannot divine His mystery, but must accept that we do not understand because of our weakness and ignorance. Only He shall Make America Great Again, by bring his wrath upon the unrighteous Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton. His actions to befriend enemies and undermine allies, to initiate trade wars is all part of His great plan. Only the faithful and loyal shall receive His blessing, they shall march forth carrying a might banner with the letters MAGA.
Now go forth in the blessed peace of our Orange Messiah, knowing that His will shall prevail, my son.
Well, mostly because, like the exemplary Leona Helmsley: 'Only the little people pay taxes'*, or rather, it has never occurred to any of them that they will suffer adverse consequences from their actions.
Like E L Doctorow's 'philosophical conservatives' : "The philosophical conservative is someone willing to pay the price of other people's suffering for his principles."**
Rich, entitled, predominantly white, male Anglo-Saxon protestants, see the world as existing for them. Like teh UK's David Cameron, George Osborn, Boris Johnson, they have never known true poverty, and have no knowledge of how poor people live, or die.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Helmsley
** https://www.azquotes.com/quote/951813
America is not your friend rn. They are more likely to assist russia in a global attack than to help defend against it. Get America out of europe until they can be trusted again. Do NOT let them into any security meetings, do NOT let them freely travel unrestricted. Do not entertain their wild criminal fantasies. Dump America. As simple as that.
It's not ideal, but it's what we have. You cannot continue to enable and entertain criminals, thugs, felons, and dictators. You certainly cannot place any kind of security in their hands. They are not an attribute, they are your enemy now, and are telling you as much. They will sell you out, take , steal, invade, confuse, and destroy if you let them. There is a death cult in charge of America, and they are going to take everyone down with them. Cut all MAGAlomaniacs out of your life.
"There is a death cult in charge of America"
Took you a while to notice. Thankfully Trump is actually making some moves to fix this. For too long the US has been allowed to dictate its desires on the world. Trump warned Europe during his first term and all we did was laugh at him. The DC warmongers sit in their comfy offices thousands of miles away from harm while they destroy countries to make profit.
"Thankfully Trump is actually making some moves to fix this. "
Why aren't you bold enough to post this claim under your regular posting name? As we speak, Trump is empowering and supporting Russia and alienating those countries that have been allies of the US in other times. So the only thing Trump is doing is reducing stability in the world, rewarding aggression.
"Trump is empowering and supporting Russia"
Please explain how he is doing this. What he is doing is waking Europe up to the fact that we've outsourced our defence to the USA and the US taxpayer is a bit sick and tired of footing the bill.
Germany was empowering and supporting Russia for decades by trading with them and buying huge amounts of gas and coal.
Do you really believe in Domino Theory? You sound like the sort of person who would taunt a dog and get all upset when it bit you.
"we need a new mutual defence treaty organisation that doesn't include the US"
Unless you specifically want to expand the area of operation / countries covered - which may be sensible - no need.
US unreliability doesn't undermine the NATO principle of collective defence.
A NATO nation subjected to attack, that invokes Article 5 as a result, gives every other NATO nation a legal basis for engaging in armed conflict against the attacker - there is specific mention of the United Nations' declared rights of individual/collective self-defence.
However, the response from each ally is "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". Each ally chooses how it will react, none are bound to provide military assistance. Ultimately, NATO relies on each ally trusting each other ally to come to their aid if needed. In practice, this is no different from 'binding' mutual defence commitments, since in reality, no nation can be made to go to war for an ally, whatever the words on a treaty might say.
If a NATO nation invokes Article 5, the US can refuse to help, but it cannot stop the other NATO members providing assistance (just as no one expects Hungary or Slovakia under their current respective leaderships to provide any assistance to a NATO ally subjected to attack).
>the US can refuse to help, but it cannot stop the other NATO members
It can if you were foolish enough to buy US weapons systems. Even if there isn't a kill switch they can cut off spares and support if you fight back against their new best friend.
Why do you think Poland is buying Korean tanks?
Even if there isn't a kill switch they can cut off spares and support if you fight back against their new best friend.
There are also tariffs and sanctions which can be applied and that seems to be the Orange Oaf's favoured tactic to getting his way, his Art of the Deal. He can cut off exports and supplies which Europe and NATO members rely upon, particularly LNG these days. He can also coerce those who want to keep their relationships going with America to do the same. Vetoing UN Security Council resolutions isn't terminal but would be problematic for those professing to respect and act in accordance with international law.
Imagine if he ordered Microsoft to brick Windows PCs with the next update, told Google to stop handling searches and analytics, for those designated enemies of America. We have already seen the Tech Bros fold so they don't have to face his wrath.
None of this would be insurmountable but the new world order in the west won't come about quickly nor without a tremendous amount of pain and cost.
The west deluded itself into believing it could never happen, weakened their sovereignty, increasingly put their eggs in one basket, dismissed the risk. Brexit even had the UK abandoning the EU to seek a better relationship with America - ideally with Trump in charge when it came to Brexiteers.
<......"Brexit even had the UK abandoning the EU to seek a better relationship with America - ideally with Trump in charge when it came to Brexiteers.".....>
Seriously - no. It didn't. That may have applied to some, but not to most, and I certainly didn't want anything of the sort. A closer relationship with the US (even under a more same President) would at a stroke have cut us off from the opportunities elsewhere in the world. Sadly, too many of our politicians seemed as though they couldn't think past the USA, and have ignored the rest of the worlwide opportunities, and made a complete pigs breakfast of the ones they did try to grasp.
<........"US unreliability doesn't undermine the NATO principle of collective defence."........>
I am afraid that it absolutely does.
For any collective action to be taken under Article 5 <all> members have to agree that there has been an attack against one or more of their number. It only takes one member to veto that agreement to scupper any further NATO sponsored action. It leaves the other member states either having to act independently, or having to form new alliances.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#:~:text=Article%205%20has%20been%20invoked,the%20United%20States%20in%202001. about various articles in the North All;antic Treaty.
Particularly interesting is Article 6, which states the geographical limits of applicability of Article 5:
"Article 6
Current NATO member territory per Article 6
Article 6 states that Article 5 covers only member states' territories in Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
A clarification regarding the territories to which Article 5 applies was issued by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.[62] Subsequent expansions, such as to West Germany in 1955, were treated in the same way.[63]
In 1954, following India's annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the Portuguese government was precluded from invoking Article 5 due to Article 6, but it was understood at the time that Article 4 could be invoked."
Article 6 states that Article 5 covers only member states' territories in Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Yep, and Article 5 is not mandatory, so NATO members can think about lifting a finger, or not. An attack against one is an attack against all, and members could respond with a stern tweet. But I think that was also why there was so much pressure to fast-track Ukraine into NATO. Then when that became off the table, the pressure for 'security guarantees' that went so badly during Zelensky's meeting at the White House. He was there to sign a deal, instead he wanted to change the terms and now he's got less than nothing. Starmer's trying to do much the same thing with tough talking about boots on the ground, or a no fly zone.. But only if the US provides a back-stop.
I think it's also probably why the Ukrainian training centre got re-Kalibrated at the weekend. Previously when Macron talked tough, Russia bombed French personnel. Then to add insult to injury, hit the French troops sent to repatriate those bodies. It did much the same to Swedes who were training Ukrainians on their AWACs aircraft. Russia's made it pretty clear that if NATO members put boots on the ground, they would be regarded as beligerents.
But something else also struck me about the deal with the US-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-ukraine-100-year-partnership-declaration/uk-ukraine-100-year-partnership-declaration
0.5 PILLAR 5 – ENERGY, CLIMATE AND CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION
3.. (iii) supporting projects to close mines and supporting a just transition of Ukrainian coal regions; (iv) supporting development of a Ukrainian critical minerals strategy and necessary regulatory structures required to support the maximisation of benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources, through the possible establishment of a Joint Working Group;
So an understanding signed on Jan25th, and Zelensky mentioning a deal for oil & gas between EU and Ukraine during the Whitehouse meeting. Details of those deals I don't think have been made public, but perhaps Ukraine couldn't sign the US deal because they've already negotiated away those rights. Which might also explain why Trump is rather unhappy at the moment and keeps raising the subject of loans.. Possibly secured by the stuff Trump is trying to grab now.
"Seems like we need a new mutual defence treaty organisation that doesn't include the US. That does beg the question of whether this would be essentially a European defence pact, a NATO less the US, or more of a global mutual defence organisation."
Indeed and this is what Starmer & Macron are pushing for.
Ironic by the way to see the UK push for an European block, once they're no longer in EU, after some 20+ years opposing it strongly while still inside (Blair and the rest).
Also, it is hard time, for us Europeans, to wake up. In 2011 already, the then US secretary of state was warning all European leaders that "there will be a time when the Americans won't want to pay for Europe security anymore". Sadly, no-one listened to him ...
Ironic by the way to see the UK push for an European block, once they're no longer in EU, after some 20+ years opposing it strongly while still inside (Blair and the rest).
It was also one of the issues around Brexit and the suggestion that the EU would continue to become a federal super state with its own Pan-European Defence Organisation. The Remnants said that was just a conspiracy theory, although it was an obvious continuation of EU expansion and consolidation of control.
Also, it is hard time, for us Europeans, to wake up. In 2011 already, the then US secretary of state was warning all European leaders that "there will be a time when the Americans won't want to pay for Europe security anymore". Sadly, no-one listened to him ...
But equallly, Europe might not want to get involved in US foreign ventures any more, many of which have created massive harm and security problems for the EU. So Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen all created millions of refugees and economic migrants, along with terrorist threats. Plus now of course Ukraine, which created a couple of million refugees/migrants that the EU & UK has had to absorb and pay for. From memory, the UK has around 350k Ukrainians requiring housing, NHS cover, school places etc. Some are working and self-sufficient, but that creates a longer term problem for Ukraine. It had already been suffering a population crisis due to people leaving to work abroad, now the situation is much worse and Ukrainian emigrees may not want to return. But Ukraine will need them*.
But this is pretty much directly a consequence of the US decision to instigate a coup, install a puppet government and then use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia and the EU. When Nuland said 'fsck the EU', she probably didn't realise just how comprehensively she, Biden and the rest of the neocons would succeed. If the US withdraws from the EU, it will save billions. If the EU decides to attempt to replicate US resources in the EU, it will cost the EU billions.. And the US defence companies will make billions supplying the Pan European Defence Organisation anyway.
Biggest problem though is our useless shower of sh*te that consider themselves 'leaders' can't grasp the concept that they've created insecurity for themselves, and us. If instead they considered peace, rapprochment with Russia and restoration of trade.. We wouldn't need to waste so much on security, because Russia would no longer be the 'existential threat' that they've built it up to be. But then a combined EU-Russia economy would be a greater threat to US hegemony. Prior to 2022, the EU had a larger economy than the US. Post-2022, it's been rapidly contracting and falling into recession, not entirely due to Ukraine though. A big reason has been the EU/UKs disastrous energy policy, which has lead to rapid deindustrialisation.
Which is also a problem with the cunning plan to create 'Fortress Europe'. Making tanks, guns, bombs etc requires an enormous amount of energy to power industry, and the 'Coalition of the Whining' just doesn't have that. It doesn't have the chemicals either, and those need energy + fossil fuels. Bombs or bit-barns, which would we rather have, because we don't have the energy for both.
<......."Dump America. As simple as that.".....>
I fear that it isn't as "simple as that". There is a considerable proportion of the defence equipment belonging to European (and Worldwide) nations which was manufactured and supplied by companies in the USA - both hardware and software as well as actual weapons, and much of their continued operation and maintenance requires input from the USA.
I wish it was simple to dump the USA, but it would leave our defences compromised at the least. It would also impinge on virtually every aspect of life as US hardware and software is entwined in the operation of everything from Government departments and businesses to the everyday lives of ordinary people. I wish it could be simple, but it isn't, and it would take many years and much expensive investment and development to put us in a position to manage without the US.
We are caught fairly and squarely 'between the devil and the deep blue sea' to use an age old expression.
The current situation leaves the nations of Europe in particular in a very vulnerable and dangerous position.
Drive the Russian scum out of their country and restore the original borders that Russia guaranteed the integrity of 30 years ago.
Huh? Drive the Russians out of their own country? You also seem a little confused and as usual, ignore this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty
The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, also known as the "Big Treaty", was an agreement signed in 1997 between Ukraine and Russia, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
Ukraine broke that principle of the Treaty by inviting NATO in and declaring it was going to join NATO, and then Poroshenko let that Treaty expire in 2019, so no Treaty, Agreement or Memorandum guarantees Ukraines integrity exists or is in force. The Friendship Treaty also had other provisions that Ukraine violated-
Under the agreement both parties ensure the citizens of the other countries' rights and freedoms on the same basis and to the same extent that it provides for its citizens, except as prescribed by national legislation of States or international treaties.
By limiting the rights & freedoms of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine after the borders were sort of defined following Ukraine's independence. Post 2019, Ukraine has continued to restrict and harm those rights by doing bonkers stuff like banning the Russian Orthodox Church, seizing it's property and the WLB declaring that God has a Ukrainian trident on his shoulder. An odd thing for a Jew to declare, but then that's the WLB for you.
But such is politics. The US has taken NATO membership off the table because that's a very big red line for Russia. The EU still seems determined to bring it into NATO, or the as yet imaginary Pan-European Defence Organisation that may end up replacing NATO.
If Moscow becomes a radioactive crater that will be on Putin, he's the one who keeps threatening to take it nuclear.
Except the WLB declared at the Munich Security Conference in 2021 that Ukraine would seek to become a nuclear power. Obviously that would be unacceptable to Russia. Post-2022 he's also demanded Ukraine gets 'their' nuclear weapons back. Russia just keeps pointing out that use of WMDs against Russia would get a response in kind, along with demonstrating capability by using a non-nuclear Oreshnik missile. So if Moscow gets glassed, so would Kiev, and perhaps London, Berlin, Paris and maybe Talinn for good measure.
Trump seems determined to bring Ukraine kicking and screaming to peace negotiations, the UK & EU seem determined to prolong the conflict and fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. The US has done the logical thing by cutting off the money tap, supply of weapons and now intelligence, which gets interesting if that also includes Starlink. Ukraine has become very dependent on that for their drones and there's no easy replacement for that capability.
