So … Russia no longer a cyber threat to America? America's cybersecurity chiefs in recent days have been sending mixed messages about the threat posed by Russia in the digital world. On Friday, reports emerged that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered US Cyber Command – the part of the military that among other things launches cyber-attacks against adversaries – to pause …
In this case I think it's less Trump's love for Russia and more his complete ignorance of cybersecurity risk. He basically doesn't use computers. Drugs, immigrants, headlines, expense lines, names, places to invest - these are the things he can see with his own eyes. Trump 1.0 would have listened to advisors telling him the cyber threat is real. Trump 2.0 just sees money spent on invisible actions to combat supposed faraway threats in a virtual land, he's replaced advisors who use words he doesn't understand, and chilled the speech of Republicans who dare to call him out on his ignorance.
When talking about Trump, the golden rule to remember is: he's not stupid, he's evil.
In his case, never ascribe to ignorance that which is more plausibly explained by malice. He's told his people to back off Russia because he wants to carve up the world with Putin and Xi. We could call the resulting blocs "Eastasia", "Eurasia" and, let's say, "Oceania". Catchy, huh?
Nah he's ignorant on many subjects, and worse, lacks the humility to know which subjects. This is the "can we inject disinfectant" or use "very powerful light" to cure people of Covid-19 guy, don't forget.
That doesn't preclude him being evil too (for whatever definition of evil you like).
I'm going to go with more evil than stupid. After seeing what he's done over the past four days, he might even end up invading Greenland while a European force is tied up fending off Putin in Ukraine.
"Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia..."
"The loss of confidence globally from less capable nations could be significant," Gray noted.
Nah. We all have seen what Trump is up to (and his pet Nazi - it was the Nazi salute, he did it twice, stretched arm and all, he thinks the Nazi party in Germany is great). We have all the confidence in him continuing that way.
Chamberlain was a bloody idiot who threw Europe into WW2, and so was Stanley Baldwin who refused to support France when Hitler made the remilitarisation of the Rhineland.
Appeasement led to WW2. Trumpsky's alignment with Putin Khuylo could mean WW3.
All Europeans were respsonsible for allowing Germany to remilitarise and start WWII, but it was Hitler that started the war.
Clemenceau's demands for compensation in the Treary of Versailles, ruined the German economy and sowed the seeds of discontent. The Popular Front in France, filled with WWI veterans, was just as keen to avoid war as anyone else. Sweden stayed neutral, while both Finland and Norway were invaded… the list is endless.
"appease the aggressor"
Except the USA has been the aggressor in the last 30 years.
You likely didn't bat an eyelid when Dub-yah was schmoozing Putin and driving him around Texas or when Obama praised Putin.
Remember when Obama did nothing in 2014 over Crimea? Remember when Germany and France helped negotiate the Minsk agreements that basically ceded eastern Ukraine to the Russians? Or maybe the admission from high up US diplomats that they funded and backed the coup that ousted the Ukranian president they didn't like?
Are you sure?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1392791.stm
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/16/1092811802/russia-putin-bush-texas-summit-crawford
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/15/opinions/ghitis-obama-putin/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG-pe5wDBGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IGBxBAYWgk
Chamberlain had experience of total war and was determined if at all possible to avoid it for his country. He was wrong, but his motives had honour.
Chamberlain did at least serve in administrations that progressively ramped up re-armament, ensured the RAF had modern fighters and the rudiments of air defence. When Poland was attacked his government declared war, and it is rumoured his was the casting vote in the 1940 cabinet which decided not to sue for peace after the fall of France.
Chamberlain was flawed but it would be a travesty to compare his flaws to the wilful mendacity of Trump, Vance, Musk and others. Treachery is a better word for their actions.
Munich was 1938. Chamberlain had started rearmament before then.
The Spitfire prototype flew in 1936 and orders placed but delays meant first production aircraft delivered in 1938. The Hurricane was delayed by a change from Mk 1 Merlin engine to Mk 2 but were reaching British squadrons before Chamberlain hopped on a plane to see Adolf.
The expansion began in 1934 with a plan to increase number of RAF airfields from ~50 to ~140 and orders for new aircraft types.
And thinking of military aircraft...
Seeing a Typhoon coming off the civil airport this morning, either the local Draken outpost is getting ambitious or...
Normally, seeing - hearing! - one of those means there is an airshow nearby, grab a chair and watch all the interesting flights go by, away from the crowds.
Today, wondering if I should go out and buy some larger garden waste bags and gaffer tape: I've put on weight the last few years and wouldn't want to be a bother, feet sticking out and all that. The wife is a surgeon and knows where to cut, but there is only so much you can do with a hedge trimmer.
This eternal Chamberlain bashing is not deserved. Mr. Chamberlain was a good man, who witnessed the horrors of the great war, and tried all means in his power to prevent another war to save humanity from another disaster.
It is so easy to be this great armchair strategist, blabbering about this and that whilst being far from the war zone, not sitting in trenches where the smell of rotting corpses increases with every day Spring comes closer. It is easy when ones kids or fathers are not drafted by great statesmen like Mr. Starmer, who is unable and unwilling to defend his homeland from child predators.
The bashing of the Chamberlain of our generation, named president Trump is equally revolting, it is like Goebbels said, propaganda sells anything, even wars.
Never fall for war propaganda, it is always supported by people who will be shielded from its consequences.
I don't really see a parallel between Chamberlain and Trump when viewing either their words or deeds. I'm not sure if Chamberlain was a great man, but he certainly wasn't the villain he was later made out to be. Trump, well we've had over 8 years of his lies, and, although we're just a bit into his second term, his policies, when not illegal or unconstitutional are looking poor.
The comment about Starmer is straight from Musk's bag of bullshit. Believe if you want, but it pretty much discredits the rest of what you say.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-reiterates-dictator-for-one-day-wisconsin-rally-1235127435/
It is all transitive from that.
Even a baby raised by wolves knows there is no such thing as a *dictator for one day*, there is only *one day, a dictator*.
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-blames-ukraines-zelenskiy-starting-war-with-russia-2024-10-17/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-comments-urging-russia-to-invade-delinquent-nato-members
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/18/us-intelligence-trump-putin-threat
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/deep-roots-trump-isolationism-america-first
https://economics.td.com/ca-trump-tariffs
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-wants-control-justice-department-fbi-his-allies-have-plan-2024-05-17/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/25/project-2025-trump-plan-fire-civil-service-employees
in ddg or google, you can set a date range to search through.
There are no surprises, even the stupid looks on the faces of those who didn't know what they were voting for were predicted by Brexit.
A bit of disagreement on the analogy.
When Europe faced the Munich crisis, none of the participants were in a position to actually project force into Czechoslovakia to defend it or strike at Germany. The other nations were all building up their armed forces. (UK had a powerful navy but apart from applying external sanctions in the form of a blockade, a navy can't stop one country's army crossing a shared border). Coordination between the (major and minor) countries in Europe was also limited. In those circumstances and the recent horrors of the Great War, the possibility of averting another European War by trading land or at least buying time to prepare for a coming conflict made some sense and was popular.
But in this situation the differences are that the war has already started, we have seen appeasement can be a bad choice, and countries are prepared to work together.
Trump's #2 is Elon the Nazi but he's also supporting Putin in his special military operation to "denazify" Ukraine from their Jewish Nazi president Zelensky (all while Russians soldiers hoist up Soviet hammer and sickle flags in the conquered territories and fight alongside North Koreans).
2025 is just wild.
All of this calls into question how serious of a cyberthreat the US government actually considers Russia to be, or how much it really cares about whatever Russia gets up to
There is no "US government." There's just a bunch of variously-inclined people, with various amounts of shoutiness, sitting in a bunch of offices.
Expecting that mob to be anywhere close to monolithic is unreasonable, so let's not write about it as if it were monolithic.
For too long too many European countries relied on the US. This was such a mistake. Only a strong, united, determined Europe can face the threats coming from the East and from the West.
First of all, let stop buying US weapons. We have more than enough competences and factories in Europe to be able to defend by ourselves. Let stop giving money for Trump's minions, having in exchange weapons that could be left unusable if the US decides so. Independence starts by arming ourselves, without the need to rely on unreliable countries.
It's time for UK to make a choice between Europe and the open sea, being part of the Continent or becoming a US dominion.
"For too long too many European countries relied on the US. This was such a mistake"
I don't think the Europe/US alliance was ever a mistake. True, it is probably facing it's strongest test right now and might even fall apart, but that doesn't mean it was ever a mistake in the past.
The threat to the US/Europe alliance is really only coming from one person (and the lackeys he has surrounded himself with). They are the mistake.
Do it, this rhetoric was brought out the last time the orange idiot was in office...then Biden got elected. To be fair Europe has been encourage to spend more, it only took Crimea to light a fire under some political butts and now a full scale invasion. I am sure European defense contractors would love a steady stream of procurement contracts.
Problem is we're now becoming dependent on China for manufacturing, and they're spending on increasing their military while eyeing up Taiwan.
I agree we shouldn't be reliant on US arms and munitions and with the way the US is going: We shouldn't be reliant on China for our manufacturing, either. We can't be fully self-sufficient, but diversifying our supply chain goes a long way to maintain agility if there are problems with any one of our suppliers.
Just like any business in that regards, really: Diversify for resilience.
<......"We have more than enough competences and factories in Europe to be able to defend by ourselves."....>
Sadly, I am rather afraid that we don't.
Blame the European politicians frothing at the mouth at the 'Peace Dividend' when East European communism collapsed in the 1980's; because of course Russia would never again be a threat to its neighbours. A lot of us could clearly see the folly in that belief at the time.
And to think that within the last 20 years there was a proposal to replace the military organisations of EU countries with a slimmed down 'European Defence Force'. As if the current situation isn't bad enough, it could have been so much worse!
@nobody who matters
"Sadly, I am rather afraid that we don't."
If you fancy a dark chuckle, the EU seems to be holding an emergency get together to discuss how they can change their rules so members can fund having actual armies. This seemingly in response to Trump cutting support for Ukraine after Europe talked a big game.
@nobody who matters
"I don't. It really isn't funny."
No kidding, Trump warned them in his first term and the idiots laughed. The Germans even commented they wouldnt know what to spend the money on, at a time when they had little that worked. Hence the dark chuckle comment- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_comedy
I must say that seeing so many wannabee wold-savers fume here and not understand what's going on produces its fair share of Schadenfreude. You still didn't get-it that there is a new sheriff in town, replacing to former senile corrupt one, did-you ? The previous one inflicted the covid and Ukraine scam on the world, so good riddance, this one can hardly be worse.
Has anyone else noticed that the majority of commenters who write this sort of MAGA / conspiracy drivel don't seem to be able to put together a basic sentence or a paragraph? They seem to get so angry that any attempt to write something sensible or readable becomes almost impossible for them. They work so hard to convince others that they possess a superior wit or intellect and then blow it all with brain-fart of right-wing conspiracy nutjob nonsense.
There's nothing quite like listening to someone who is both convinced of their own abilities and yet can dream up such absolute drivel. It's a modern joy. It's everywhere.
"as the commander-in-chief's words and actions contradict those coming from CISA and Homeland Security."
And you cant understand why? The President is trying to make a peace deal and stop war, while the cyber people are actually tasked with protecting the states against any attackers and that includes Russia. Maybe they have paused offensive operations against Russia, can you think why? To try and make a peace deal.
Watching the oval office 'event' was insane. Zelensky screwed up badly and if you watch the long interview instead of selective clips it is clear he screwed up. But I dont know if its entirely Zelensky's fault or if in his prior meeting with his political supporters (where they blow smoke up his arse) they egged him on to demand more. He certainly thinks Europe/Eurpoean NATO is more willing than it is to back him. Europe talks big but wont do anything without the US being involved heavily.
It seems Zelensky has been told how badly he screwed up on Friday (possibly by Starmer) and has now changed his tune to wanting to sign Fridays agreement as if it is still on the table. Unfortunately for Ukraine there is no victory to be had. They either come to some peace agreement (and Russia needs to abide by it too) or be ground down as Russia is doing to them.
Trump doesn't want a peace deal, he wants an economic deal that makes him and his gang rich.
Zelensky wants his country to survive in safety. He's spent the last 3 years standing up to a bully that thought they could just walk all over "the little country"; he's not going to be phased by two tag-team schoolboys bullying him for an hour on camera because he won't grovel to them.
"an economic deal"
And what do you call giving billions to the likes of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin? Or giving the EU an excuse to take seized Russian assets? You don't think people have been getting rich already?
"spent the last 3 years"
Do you really think this whole thing just started in Feb 2022?
I'm not the one that needs to keep pace with reality, it is the people who suddenly think that Putin randomly invaded for absolutely no reason at all in 2022 and prior to that everything was just perfect. Hence calling out the previous poster who seems to think that Ukraine has only been dealing with Russia 'for the last 3 years'.
No, he invaded in 2014, with the illegal annexation of Crimea. His "no reason at all" follows the pattern of annexing, or installing puppet governments in anything around him that he can see.
The world should have stepped up to support Ukraine and stop Russia's aggression a decade ago, rather than the cowardly moves of appeasement and kowtowing that trump is making now.
"installing puppet governments"
LOL! How many US puppet govts have there been?
"cowardly moves of appeasement"
A decade ago Trump was not in power. It was some other guy in the white house. I recall he was a Democrat. He loved 'red lines' but never did anything other than talk about them.
The French and the Germans were busy appeasing Russia at the time. Just look at the Minsk agreements. Cede eastern Ukraine and stop shelling civilians and Russia might stop. When Zelensky took power Ukraine had already lost the eastern regions. Germany has had a plan to normalise relations with Russia for many decades yet somehow it was just fine for them and allowed them to become the powerhouse of Europe (and look how fast they fell when cut off) yet if Trump tries to do it everyone loses their collective shit.
> No, he invaded in 2014, with the illegal annexation of Crimea
Obama, Biden and Nuland arranged for Ukraine to be taken out of Russia's sphere of influence.
That include Crimea which, because of Sevastopol, was a red line for Russia and they took it back forthwith.
We were satisfied with that as it wasn't unexpected, we came out tops, and didn't have to fight a war which Russia would have pursued if opposed.
The notion we had always stood against Crimea being annexed only arrived in 2021 with the subsequent invasion.
"The notion we had always stood against Crimea being annexed only arrived in 2021 with the subsequent invasion."
And I am really looking forward to the increase in the chocolate ration.
We've also memory holed the fact that Macron was really rather against helping Ukraine until late 2023 and that in early 2022 he was having calls with Putin to try and appease him and stop any invasion. Germany was similar as they didn't want to upset their main source of energy. Only once nordstream unexpectedly blew up that they decided to join in. For all of Macron's posturing about how much 'Europe' has given to Ukraine he was very late to the party and France is quite low down on the leaderboard.
<......."We've also memory holed the fact that Macron was really rather against helping Ukraine until late 2023 and that in early 2022 he was having calls with Putin to try and appease him and stop any invasion. Germany was similar as they didn't want to upset their main source of energy".....>
No, we haven't 'memory-holed' that. As a result of those moves we are very well aware that appeasement, negotiation and peace are not within Putin's vocabulary. Attempts at finding a peaceful resolution were tried and failed.
Why do sufferers of 'the orange mist' think Trump will succeed - all he will do is let Putin off the hook, give hime time to re-arm, and will guarantee that Russia will strike again. That will be the result of Trumps 'Peace', and the price will be to sell Ukraine (and possibly the rest of Europe) down the river.
"Trump will succeed"
Simples, Macron is a nobody. He talks a lot and does nothing. France is no real threat and has shown this by contributing half of nothing to the cause.
Trump on the other hand has the biggest stick in the playground.
Really sad to see the 'progressives' who would have been out there protesting against the Vietnam war are now the ones shouting loudest for the continuation of the meat grinder in Ukraine.
Actually the EU is using them to pay for the billions in loans it has made to Ukraine.
https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-solidarity-ukraine/eu-assistance-ukraine/eu-financial-support-ukraine_en
"This loan cooperation mechanism is to be financed by extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilised Russian sovereign assets"
@DuchessofDukeStreet
"Trump doesn't want a peace deal, he wants an economic deal that makes him and his gang rich."
The US has shovelled billions into Ukraine and the Obama/Biden administrations allowed this war to happen in Ukraine. Or as Biden called it a 'minor incursion'. Trump is trying to put a peace deal together to stop the fighting and you say he doesnt want a peace deal? What are you smoking? Trump is putting a peace deal with the US having some stake in Ukraines future and yes he wants the US to get something for all their support.
"Zelensky wants his country to survive in safety."
By not accepting the ceasefire and instead demanding more. The result being more people dying and Ukraine being ground down.
"The President is trying to make a peace deal and stop war"
Where to start?
Don't be so naive.
Trump's "deal making" will kill thousands of civilians.
Freezing the conflict now is what Putin needs. There's no peace in a ceasefire.
There's coercion going on. Extortion.
Trump doesn't give shit about lives. In that he's exactly like Putin.
@anonymous boring coward
"Trump's "deal making" will kill thousands of civilians."
Explain. Note that conscription is killing thousands of civilians who get pressed into war.
"Freezing the conflict now is what Putin needs. There's no peace in a ceasefire."
Russia has more manpower while Ukraine is struggling. Russia has weapons and equipment, Ukraine is reliant on NATO to provide. Russia can continue this war far longer than Ukraine.
"There's coercion going on. Extortion."
In what way? I agree that big bully Putin is doing so. He has taken Crimea and Donbas and the only way for those to be returned to Ukraine is for NATO to declare war on Russia. NATO has already said no and European NATO wont do anything without US support and Trump is backing that off. So the choices left are a peace deal that both sides must respect or Ukraine is defeated. Ukraine cannot realistically retake the borders pre-2014.
Russia has failed to respect four peace deals (Budapest, Minsk 1, Minsk 2, Steinmeier), what makes you think they'll respect a fifth?
If Russia gets its way they'll shortly be knocking on Poland's door and you'll be here posting that Poland should roll out the red carpet, let them in, and give the poor dears some schabowy.
You're just as much an appeaser as Trump is.
@AC
"Russia has failed to respect four peace deals (Budapest, Minsk 1, Minsk 2, Steinmeier), what makes you think they'll respect a fifth?"
The west influenced Ukraine to kick out its leadership and exile them Thats the start of the war in 2014. There are continued efforts to try and get Ukraine NATO membership and Russia just isnt going to go for that.
"If Russia gets its way they'll shortly be knocking on Poland's door and you'll be here posting that Poland should roll out the red carpet, let them in, and give the poor dears some schabowy."
Poland is in NATO. That is a bit of a difference.
"You're just as much an appeaser as Trump is."
What about Obama? He was accepting of Russia taking territory. Biden was ok with Russia's 'minor incursion'. They are also ok with sending weapons and money to keep a war going and refused to talk to Putin to try and resolve the issue. Trump is talking to Putin and trying to put an end to the war.
I could say you are just bloodthirsty wanting people to keep dying in this war.
The west influenced Ukraine to kick out its leadership and exile them Thats the start of the war in 2014.
Ok, you can stop there. Ukraine didn't join NATO. This was nothing to do with NATO. This was about EU accession which was approved in Ukraine's parliament. This led to demonstrations and votes in parliament to remove Yanukovych, who eventually fled to Russia.
Ukraine can change leaders whenever it wants for the reason it wants. If Russia doesn't like the new leader, it can stop dealing with Ukraine or set up economic sanctions. Instead, it invaded Crimea, held sham elections, and then took it over.
I could say you are just bloodthirsty wanting people to keep dying in this war.
Your pal Putin is bloodthirsty, nobody else. He could stop the invasion any time he wants and pull his soldiers out respecting Ukraine's borders.
Your argument is pure sophistry. Russia can invade any country it wants and the invaded country must surrender to prevent bloodshed which is entirely on Russia's hands? Utterly ridiculous even for you.
"This was nothing to do with NATO"
False. The plan for the best part of 10 years has been to get Ukraine into the EU and NATO. In 2019 the Ukranian parliament voted to amend the constitution to state their plan to join the EU and NATO.
As for choosing new leaders, how much blithering and bleating has been made about Trump winning the US election. Not my president and all that. And lets not forget that Ukraine was formerly part of the USSR and Russia was leasing the port of Sevastopol from Ukraine for naval use.
Wrong. Joining NATO is not a prerequisite of joining the EU, although since the Russian invasion of Ukraine EU countries have joined NATO which is the opposite of what Russia wanted.
NATO said they would stand by their decisions taken at Bucharest and subsequent summits (i.e. Ukraine would not be joining). NATO is just an excuse given by Russia for their bloody expansionism.
"Wrong. Joining NATO is not a prerequisite of joining the EU"
Nor is joining the EU a prerequisite for joining NATO. But Ukraine wanted to join both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#2019_amendments
"On 7 February 2019, the Verkhovna Rada voted 334 to 17 to amend the constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objectives as joining the European Union and NATO."
https://www.unian.info/politics/10437570-ukraine-s-parliament-backs-changes-to-constitution-confirming-ukraine-s-path-toward-eu-nato.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vx01evp9o
"Zelensky willing to give up presidency in exchange for Nato membership"
Seems like they are desperate to join NATO.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3455199/leaders-agree-to-expedite-ukraines-nato-membership/
"NATO leaders agreed to a package that will ultimately make Ukraine a member of the alliance,"
A clear 'no' you say?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/apr/14/ask-politifact-whats-ukraines-history-trying-join-/
**** Seems like they are desperate to join NATO.
NATO was formed to oppose the expansion of the Soviet Union.
The Russian Federation inherited the vast majority of the Soviet Union after it fell, including its permanent Security Council seat at the UN, and the opposition of NATO.
The Russian Federation invaded Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. Had Ukraine been a NATO member they would not be dealing with a war right now.
So yeah, I'm quite sure they would be desperate to join NATO. The only reason they aren't is because the NATO countries didn't want to piss off the Russians. So much for that plan. It's no wonder that Sweden and Finland couldn't join fast enough after Ukraine was full on invaded.
It has all been posted in this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#2019_amendments
"On 7 February 2019, the Verkhovna Rada voted 334 to 17 to amend the constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objectives as joining the European Union and NATO."
https://www.unian.info/politics/10437570-ukraine-s-parliament-backs-changes-to-constitution-confirming-ukraine-s-path-toward-eu-nato.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vx01evp9o
"Zelensky willing to give up presidency in exchange for Nato membership"
Seems like they are desperate to join NATO.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3455199/leaders-agree-to-expedite-ukraines-nato-membership/
"NATO leaders agreed to a package that will ultimately make Ukraine a member of the alliance,"
A clear 'no' you say?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/apr/14/ask-politifact-whats-ukraines-history-trying-join-/
@AC
"Ok, you can stop there. Ukraine didn't join NATO. This was nothing to do with NATO."
The line you quoted didnt even say NATO (well done) but since 'the west' is made of a lot of NATO countries and it was EU/US influence in Ukraine which resulted in the exile of the Ukrainian leadership which started the war you can cut that out.
"This was about EU accession which was approved in Ukraine's parliament. This led to demonstrations and votes in parliament to remove Yanukovych, who eventually fled to Russia."
We agree on this, which sparked Russias panic.
"Ukraine can change leaders whenever it wants for the reason it wants."
Of course. So didnt Romania have an election which they are not allowed to change leadership because EU says no? In Ukraine it was the west influencing, in Romania they claim Russia interfered. So should Romania kick off and exile its leadership? How would the EU react do you think?
"Your pal Putin is bloodthirsty, nobody else."
Not my pal, and I dont think he really cares about the blood just what he can get. Yet you seem to be against peace because Trump, just like the blood thirsty who want the war to continue.
"He could stop the invasion any time he wants and pull his soldiers out respecting Ukraine's borders."
He could but why would he? YOU say he is bloodthirsty so using YOUR assessment why would he? Pragmatically he has no reason to unless a big force threatened him (NATO) and that isnt going to happen. So why would he?
"Your argument is pure sophistry. Russia can invade any country it wants and the invaded country must surrender to prevent bloodshed which is entirely on Russia's hands? Utterly ridiculous even for you."
If thats what you take from my comments you are too stupid to discuss this rationally. Obama and Biden did nothing as Russia invaded. The war stopped while Trump was in charge and his administration seems to be the only one interested in ending the war. So why do YOU want continued bloodshed? Why do you not want the fighting to stop?
Or maybe you think NATO should declare war on Russia. I dont think its a good idea but its understandable as about the only way for Ukraine to reclaim what it lost. Is that what you suggest?
since 'the west' is made of a lot of NATO countries and it was EU/US influence in Ukraine which resulted in the exile of the Ukrainian leadership
Ah, so "NATO-adjacent" is a thing now?
Of course. So didnt Romania have an election which they are not allowed to change leadership because EU says no?
No, the supreme court found proof of Russian meddling in the election.
He could but why would he?
Why do you excuse Russia's aggression but attack Ukraine's self-defense?
@AC
"Ah, so "NATO-adjacent" is a thing now?"
Are you one of those people who gets confused thinking the EU and Europe are the same thing?
"No, the supreme court found proof of Russian meddling in the election."
And the west meddled in Ukraine.
"Why do you excuse Russia's aggression but attack Ukraine's self-defense?"
At no point have I done that. Seems you really are confused. Try rereading the comments and see if you can get a better understanding
Are you one of those people who gets confused thinking the EU and Europe are the same thing?
No, but you are clearly one of those people who gets confused thinking the EU and NATO are the same thing.
And the west meddled in Ukraine.
When? Ukraine and the EU were in accession talks, NATO said sorry but no.
At no point have I done that.
Your whole argument is based around that.
" ... Are you one of those people who gets confused thinking the EU and Europe are the same thing? ... "
No, but you seem confused by the fact that most of Europe are part of the EU.
" ... And the west meddled in Ukraine. ... "
Actual proof?
" ... At no point have I done that. ... "
Um ..... Okay. But neither have you condemned it. So you know.
@georgezilla
"No, but you seem confused by the fact that most of Europe are part of the EU."
Are your the confused coward? Or just making a stupid comment but forgetting to tick that cowardly box?
"Actual proof?"
Did you sleep through Ukraine kicking out its leadership who went into exile to Russia? Did you miss the efforts to get Ukraine dealing with the west where its previous leadership was pro-Russia instead?
"Um ..... Okay. But neither have you condemned it. So you know."
So you make a stupid assumption based on not reading my comments. I have agreed with everyone so far about how bad Putin is. Knowing how bad he is and blaming him doesnt change the situation to end the conflict.
@anonymous boring coward
"Do you ever wonder why Putin's puppet went to Russia?"
Yes. Because Ukraines leadership was Russian leaning.
"Ukraine's people exercised its democratic right to have the will of the people decide"
Of course. So western influence which led to Ukraines leadership being exiled to its friendly country Russia. Now look at Romania. The people "exercised its democratic right to have the will of the people decide" and the result was thrown out due to claims of Russian interference. I am not arguing over the validity of the claims only that Russian interference is the claim to STOP the democratic right to have the will of the people decide.
Added to this the election favourite has been arrested and charged for trying to overthrow the constitutional order. The arrested leader being more Russian leaning than west/EU leaning.
"Comprende?"
Yes. Why? Are you struggling?
@ecofeco
"You need to tell the voices in your head that word salads taste better after a short lie down."
If you cannot understand something you are welcome to ask for clarification. Which bit has you confused?
Alternatively if you just cant read that is ok, you just dont need to keep shouting about it.
I could say you are just bloodthirsty wanting people to keep dying in this war.
Or, in other words, "If only you just let Putin invade your country, without any resistance, he won't have to murder all of your people to do so. It's entirely your fault."
I mean, that's the very laziest and stupidest sort of agitprop, but entirely the sort of thing that we have come to expect from CJ.
@Elongated Muskrat
"Or, in other words"
Also known as your words but you will attribute them to me as you cannot formulate a half intelligent response. Instead of talking bollocks and claiming I said it why dont you try responding to my comment? How about you try and present a solution?
Something to remember is that Poland was never part of the USSR. And also part of Ukraine is actually where Poland used to be. Domino theory is also much deboonked.
"Steinmeier"
This was merely a suggestion of a route forward which it appears Ukraine rejected.
Technically the US actions against Belarus in 2013 broke the Budapest agreement, but we won't talk about that.
Minsk 1 and 2 fell apart by seemingly mutual actions.
" ... which it appears Ukraine rejected. ... "
Which is their right. And then there's the fact that they were included in those talks. Only told what is was after the fact.
So how do you have "peace talks" with out both sides being involved? The US has no right to make decisions for Ukraine. And then demand that they accept them.
<........"Something to remember is that Poland was never part of the USSR. And also part of Ukraine is actually where Poland used to be".....>
Poland (along with the USSR) was a signatory of the Warsaw Pact - an act performed a few years after the USSR invaded Poland during WW2 and effectively installed a communist Government. Technically not part of the USSR, but in reality under Soviet control. Many Poles left Poland after WW2 to get away from the unspeakable evils that the invading Russians had commited against the Polish people, and most never forgave the Russians for what they had done in/to their country.
Poland only occupied part of what had formerly been Ukraine after the First World War - Ukraine was effectively divided up between Romania, Czechoslovakia , Poland and the Soviet Union. Ukraine was then re-unified as one within the USSR after being invaded by the Red Army as it drove the Nazi army back from whence it came.
The Soviet part (in the East of Ukraine) was subjected to a an anti- nationalism policy by the USSR during which Ukranians were forcibly moved out of Soviet Ukraine and Russians were moved in to dilute the national identity - which in itself shows up the claims that the eastern part of Ukraine is Russian as being more Putin Propaganda.
"Many Poles left Poland"
There wasn't much left of Poland after it had been land grabbed. Lviv had been a major Polish city and the Poles had to get the heck out of town when it got absorbed by the USSR.
"Poland only occupied part of what had formerly been Ukraine after the First World War"
The Polish/Lithuanian empire occupied most of what became Ukraine since the 1600s. The rest of what became Ukraine was occupied by the Ottomans and the Tatars. Ukrainians only really gained some form of statehood after WW1. Prior to that they were just one of the many subsets of central European Slavic people.
"Ukraine was effectively divided up between Romania, Czechoslovakia , Poland and the Soviet Union."
Romania lost territory to the USSR after WW2, as did Poland. They didn't gain any part of Ukraine. Poland shifted significantly westwards.
"The Soviet part (in the East of Ukraine) was subjected to a an anti- nationalism policy by the USSR"
All of it was the Soviet part.
In the USSR you spoke Russian and nothing else. I do not believe this was imposed on the Warsaw pact countries.
<........"Romania lost territory to the USSR after WW2, as did Poland. They didn't gain any part of Ukraine.".....>
That is not what I wrote - Ukraine became divided up after World War ONE, and as I said, it was split between Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Your eference to "all of it was the Soviet part" only applies much later - NOT to the period after the FIRST World War.
The history of Ukraine in previous centuries is the same as the story for large tracts of Europe, and not really relevant to its emergence as an entity in its own right, and to its becoming an independant nation state at the end of the 20th century.
On several of your points, I think you need to re-read your history books ;)
> Russia has failed to respect four peace deals (Budapest, Minsk 1, Minsk 2, Steinmeier), what makes you think they'll respect a fifth?
Nato supposedly promised that in return for agreeing the reunification of Germany Nato would not expand eastward. Then did exactly that and may soon include Ukraine.
Russia has seen this as an existential threat for years.
As Farage (spit) put it; what did we think poking at the bear with a stick for years would do?
" ... and may soon include Ukraine. ... "
Shouldn't that be Ukraine's decision? Don't they have a right to do so if they want?
Part of the reason Russia invaded was a buffer between them and NATO. You remove that buffer, the Ukraine and ........... no buffer.
Imagine that. So what then would keep Russia from invading the next country, who might already be in NATO?
To have any deal that doesn't come with security guarantees would require 2 honourable parties.
Putin is full FSB, a fascist dictator who murders his opponents (both political and otherwise) at home and abroad.
The only real 'solution' that I can see, is that Europe massively steps up support of Ukraine, UK enters much closer ties with Europe and we no longer buy anything American. All purchase of Russian gas in any format is banned. All weapons, vehicles, aircraft we build in European countries. With proper Ukraine support, Russia wouldn't stand a chance.
The big problem is Trump, unfortunately, if you look closely, Putin's hand is so far up that every time Trumps lips move you can see the fingers. I can quite see America suddenly pushing to remove all sanctions. Trump is a disgusting traitor and these past few days have made me wish that the guy hadn't missed.
@2460 Something
"To have any deal that doesn't come with security guarantees would require 2 honourable parties."
It depends what you mean by that. If the US has economic interests in Ukraine then the US is more interested in protecting the peace. If the US sends troops to Ukraine with the bloodthirsty lot who want to keep the war going and drag NATO into it then you are looking at WW3.
"Putin is full FSB, a fascist dictator who murders his opponents (both political and otherwise) at home and abroad."
No disagreement there. So why did the west provoke him with Ukraine and why is the west so bloodthirsty to keep the war going? Not willing to directly get involved but also not wanting it to end?
"With proper Ukraine support, Russia wouldn't stand a chance."
It would take more than economic messing about. For one Europe is worthless in this war without the US, our 'leaders' have made that clear, so cutting off our nose to spite our face is stupid. But also the only support that will 'win' the Ukraine war for Ukraine is NATO declaring war on Russia, and NATO is not willing to do so.
"The big problem is Trump"
Of course. He is trying to end a war everyone wants to continue. He must be bad to try and stop the killing. Horrible horrible man. Note that there was no war during Trumps first term and he is trying to end this war. So he must be bad man because the blood thirsty say so.
@codejunky
"To have any deal that doesn't come with security guarantees would require 2 honourable parties."
"It depends what you mean by that. If the US has economic interests in Ukraine then the US is more interested in protecting the peace. If the US sends troops to Ukraine with the bloodthirsty lot who want to keep the war going and drag NATO into it then you are looking at WW3."
Trump is just trying to profiteer from his position, nothing would go 'back' to the American people, it all would go to make him, his family and his sponsors/controllers richer. Trump is Corruption with a capital 'C'. He will grift, lie, cheat and steal anything from anyone to make more money. This is the person who kept going to his 'MAGA club' to grift millions not just throughout his presidency, but also after as well.
"Putin is full FSB, a fascist dictator who murders his opponents (both political and otherwise) at home and abroad."
No disagreement there. So why did the west provoke him with Ukraine and why is the west so bloodthirsty to keep the war going? Not willing to directly get involved but also not wanting it to end?
Nobody did anything to provoke Putin, he is an evil bloodthirsty dictator. He invaded Ukraine in 2014 to steal Crimea, and because nobody did a damn thing he continued to destabilise the Donbas and surround regions with both deployed military (dressed as civilians/seperatist fighters) and massive amounts of funding along side disinformation campaigns.
"With proper Ukraine support, Russia wouldn't stand a chance."
It would take more than economic messing about. For one Europe is worthless in this war without the US, our 'leaders' have made that clear, so cutting off our nose to spite our face is stupid. But also the only support that will 'win' the Ukraine war for Ukraine is NATO declaring war on Russia, and NATO is not willing to do so.
I disagree. Europe has already provided more financial assistance than America. America has provided $106bn aid that directly benefits Ukraine, about 50% of this is in the form of military hardware/missiles etc... Europe has provided $145bn so far, with another $53bn committed. Given that Trump/Vance/Musk had a little paddy party and threw their dummy's out because Zelenskyy didn't grovel at their feet, there is much more we need to do, as Europe, to support a democratic nation on our continent from Putin, a mad, vicious, rabid dictator.
"The big problem is Trump"
Of course. He is trying to end a war everyone wants to continue. He must be bad to try and stop the killing. Horrible horrible man. Note that there was no war during Trumps first term and he is trying to end this war. So he must be bad man because the blood thirsty say so.
I think it's time you and musk put the waccy baccy down, it has obviously already affected your ability to see what is right in front of your eyes. Trump couldn't care less about the war, other than his puppet master Putin has told him what to say and do. Putin wants the war over, with the current areas he has invaded declared 'Russian' so he can save face at home for his disastrous invasion of Ukraine. Putin will happily carve up Ukraine with Trump. And both would extract as much as possible from Ukraine.
There was no 'war' during Biden's term either. Yet all them continued to pursue military engagements abroad (it just wasn't declared a 'war'), the increase in conflicts with Iran (in which 100 American soldiers were killed) are directly at the feet of Trump. The disastrous 'deal' with the Taliban that the orange buffoon apparently negotiated and agreed to and the fallout from that, is directly his fault. Biden's hands were tied in many respects because people be stupid, he couldn't counter the deal without dropping massive forces back into a very long engagement in Afghanistan.
Trump is not a savvy businessman, he is just fortunate to have inherited stupid amounts of money from his father. He has declared bankruptcy 6 times already, He is a serial sex offender, a fraudster, a felon, a snake oil salesman grifter, who has realised just how stupid MAGA are and is extracting from them everything he can, along with every other idiot who wants to buy the favour of the Emperor.
@2460 Something
"Trump is just trying to profiteer from his position, nothing would go 'back' to the American people, it all would go to make him, his family and his sponsors/controllers richer."
You seem confused. The deal isnt with some Trump company but with America. Biden has left office so you can calm down a bit now.
"Nobody did anything to provoke Putin, he is an evil bloodthirsty dictator."
They did regardless of whether we like it or not. Hence exile for the Ukrainian leader and Russia kicked off to stop Ukraine joining the west. I am happy to agree with your opinion of Putin, so provocation was not a wise thing to do to such a guy.
"and because nobody did a damn thing"
I am happy to agree. I do note one comment Trump made about Obama sending blankets and he sent javelins. I dont know how true the disparity is but if it was false I would expect the usual groups to have shouted loud about it. But it is true that under Obama there was a Russian invasion and under Biden too, but in Trumps first term they didnt. And now Trump has inherited Bidens mess in Ukraine I notice he is the one talking peace and anti-Trumpers trying to claim he is the villain. Very upside down.
"I disagree. Europe has already provided more financial assistance than America."
I think the worthless part has been proven and very quickly. I called Europe worthless as they have publicly and loudly been shouting support for Ukraine but are not willing to do anything without the US. I dont like that. The US paused funding and supplies (and satellite assistance etc) and now Zelenskyy has changed his tune drastically from friday. A complete 180.
"Given that Trump/Vance/Musk had a little paddy party and threw their dummy's out because Zelenskyy didn't grovel at their feet"
Unfortunately there seems to be some sort of propaganda effort to claim this against all evidence. Watch the whole meeting. Its 45 minutes of Trump being very gracious and Zelenskyy having a tantrum. Then at the end Vance is spot on telling him this stuff should be aired in private and Zelenskyy makes a total clown of himself and finally ended up thrown out without a deal.
It is starting to come out that it was even worse than we saw! Apparently pre the cameras Zelenskyy was constantly increasing his demands for 40 minutes meeting with Trump as well as his tantrum on camera. Then after being thrown out he was asking to come back (at least one call, but some say he kept trying). At some point (some say it was Starmer) he was told to go make things right with Trump and now the support has dried up he is begging for Fridays deal that HE rejected on the friday.
"Trump couldn't care less about the war"
Then why is he the one trying to stop it? If you think it takes wacky backy to prefer peace over war then I think you are the one smoking it.
"There was no 'war' during Biden's term either."
Russia invaded again under Biden.
"conflicts with Iran (in which 100 American soldiers were killed) are directly at the feet of Trump."
What was this? There was 100 injured in a strike BY Iran into Iraq which was an inherited war. The strike didnt hit the fort btw.
"The disastrous 'deal' with the Taliban that the orange buffoon apparently negotiated and agreed to and the fallout from that, is directly his fault."
Trump didnt get to withdraw forces, it was Bidens deal. Trump left office and Biden changed the timeline and made his own plans for withdrawal. Trump cannot be blamed for the Biden failure which also left all that nice shiny kit behind (something Trump was very much against).
"Biden's hands were tied in many respects"
Then why did Biden campaign on leaving Afghanistan? He made the rod for his own back.
@anonymous boring coward
"Just go away. There's no explaining anything to you. You just can't think."
Thats ok you spouted bullshit and I asked you to explain. But no I wont go away, you can feel free to do so if you cannot explain YOUR OWN comment. And if you wish to consider that as 'I cant think' then that is your choice. But it will continue to stunt your ability to reason YOUR OWN thoughts.
"The President is trying to make a peace deal and stop war,"
He was going to stop the war on day one with a phone call or something, probably be making a deal to sell Ukraine to Putin. It was going to have been his geat legacy. Then he found he couldn't and is looking for someone to blame, largely Ukraine for not wanting to be sold. He's really, really pissed off.
"largely Ukraine for not wanting to be sold"
FAR too late for that!
But realistically, what are the options for a 'win'? Without incredible external help Ukraine would have been overrun in a matter of weeks. Without escalating to full on WW3 there is very little that Europe or the US can actually do except send munitions to Ukraine and let them slog it out with Russia. At some point one side will run out of people and it is a safe bet it won't be russia.
There is no 'win'. There is only minimising the loss. Winning would have involved doing something prior to 2014, or rather more accurately a case of NOT doing something which was interfering in the democratic process in a sovereign nation.
It's amazing that the US thinks its military might is so great, but I'm willing to bet that nobody who speaks up for them can name one single conflict that the US has won, since the end of WW2. Let's see, the Korean war, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the list is very long of their failures.
NATO, on the other hand, did a pretty good job with the Balkan war and stopping the genocide that was going on there in the '90s. On the whole, though, the threat of US military might isn't what it once was. The US seems to forget that the EU is much larger, in population terms, than their comparatively sparsely-populated country (not only in terms of population, but also in culture and history).
< "On the whole, though, the threat of US military might isn't what it once was. The US seems to forget that the EU is much larger, in population terms..."
Much larger? I guess if 35% larger counts as "much larger" in your eyes, you are correct. On the other hand, the US has a GDP that is 80% larger than the EU. In the case of an all out war between the US and EU (hopefully not in the cards), both would suffer horrible losses but if I had to bet on a victor I would put my money on the side with more GDP, bases all over the world, and already existing massive military industrial complex.
That's probably correct, but it begs the question what does the US do with all that extra money? Where is all this wealth accumulating? The US have just elected the orange gobshite on the premises that he'll "make America great again", so the yokels and hillbilly b*mf*cks (such as Vance) don't believe the US has been doing well in recent years do they? And that wealth certainly isn't reducing inequality, isn't building competent civil aircraft, doesn't make cars the rest of the world wants, spends more but gets worse outcomes on healthcare....
One could almost conclude that (even by the dismal standards of GDP reporting everywhere) the US GDP numbers are essentially a giant Ponzi scheme against the rest of the world. Perhaps the peasantry of Kentucky, Indiana and Alabama are correct, the US has been letting them down economically, and the reported numbers are hugely inflated by counting the paper wealth of digital currencies and the totally unsupported share prices of FAANG stocks?
" ... it is a case of knowing. ... "
Lol. Now what's just to damn funny.
Russia hasn't been able to beat poor little Ukraine in the 2, 3 years. Just what chance do you think they would have against the combined power of the rest of Europe?
Ukraine doesn't have a Navy. Russia does. And what good has that done them? No Navy and yet the Russian Navy is totally ineffective.
Russia's Air Force is about as their Navy.
Korea supplies ammunition and troops making little difference.
Europe on the other hand ................. well lets just say a snowballs chance in Hell would be an understatement.
Russia using nukes? Come on, they would be fucked if they did. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey have them too. And if Russia used the, even tactical ones, what makes you think that they wouldn't use theirs? Any use of them by Russia would threaten them.
The Russian Navy would be useless if not destroyed in hours. Europe would have air superiority in the same amount of time or less. Both are utterly useless against the poor little Ukraine.
World War 3? Pfffttttt.
That is knowing.
"Russia hasn't been able to beat poor little Ukraine in the 2, 3 years. Just what chance do you think they would have against the combined power of the rest of Europe?"
Oh cool, you mean all the money and bombs we've sent them were not needed?
The sad reality is that Ukraine has not been able to beat Russia WITH the combined power of Europe and the USA behind it.
<.........."Russia using nukes? Come on, they would be fucked if they did. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey have them too"..........>
Apart from the UK and France who have control of their nuclear arsenal, the other European nations that have nuclear weapons in effect have them courtesy of the USA, and need the authority (ie.authorization codes) from the USA to be permitted to use them. with the current USA position of appearing to have changed sides and become an ally of Russia, I doubt if those authorization codes would be forthcoming, so unfortunately, Putin is unlikely to see them as much of a threat :(
@Doctor Syntax
"He was going to stop the war on day one"
Yeah, what happened after he said that? Suddenly NATO weapons that were not authorised to use in Ukraine against targets inside Russia were suddenly allowed and as much money as they could funnel went to Ukraine to ensure the fighting continued and nearly dragged NATO into war as the aggressor. That was a severe escalation by Bidens administration in response to Trump trying to end the war.
"probably be making a deal to sell Ukraine to Putin"
I get it you dont like Trump no matter how many people die.
"largely Ukraine for not wanting to be sold"
Ukraine is screwed. They are in a war they cannot win or survive. The only way to continue dragging it out is to keep supplying Ukraine to the last Ukrainian soldier or Ukraine to win with NATO stepping in and kick Russias ass and NATO isnt willing. It would probably kick off WW3 and maybe a new cold war if we are lucky (dont want nukes flying I hope).
Ukraine isnt being sold. They have been offered a lifeline and Zelenskyy just screwed that up badly. He is now realising Europes support isnt as good as he hoped. That Europe needs the US or wont do anything helpful. He even requested to return after being thrown out and Trump has had enough being messed about.
" ... I get it you dont like Trump no matter how many people die. ... "
< shakes head > That does not even part of the calculation as to why Trump isn't liked.
Actual reasons .........
Convicted of 34 felonies.
Found liable or sexual assault (rape).
Thief of and mishandling of highly classified documents.
Interference in elections and the peaceful transfer pf power.
Narcissism.
Pathological lying.
Utter ignorance.
Trying to violate, ignoring, invalidating the Constitution.
Just to name a few. So yea lots of actual, factual reasons to not "like" him. If you have been paying ANY attention.
Jesus you really are as clueless as Trump. Sit back and let Russia take Ukraine. What will happen do you think? Do you think they may possibly use all those resources and move into Poland next and other European countries. China will also want land so will then end up attempting to attack Russia for some or agree to be gifted some land. So lets assume Russia and China now own Europe. They won't stop there, next they WILL eye up America. Who will America trade with when there is no one left to trade. Russia won't need their goods as they'll have all the resources of Europe. That is the issue.
Have you not read about World War 2 or are you just a maga fuck whit?
@steviebuk
"Jesus you really are as clueless as Trump. Sit back and let Russia take Ukraine."
Who said that? Trump isnt saying that. I aint saying that. I have even said the only way for Ukraine to win (take back its territory) is for NATO to declare war on Russia and it could be the start of WW3. Of course NATO has backed out of that idea and Europe is now panicking about the state of its forces.
Dont forget Obama was ok with Russia taking Crimea and Biden excused Russias minor incursion. But somehow its all Trumps fault even though in his first term the war paused and now he is trying to end it.
"What will happen do you think? Do you think they may possibly use all those resources and move into Poland next and other European countries."
I am confused by the schrodinger's enemy. Russia is a huge powerful military that will roll through Europe but also a weak and uncoordinated force that can be stopped merely by the sheer will of Ukraines underwhelming army.
"Have you not read about World War 2 or are you just a maga fuck whit?"
Calm your tits and take a breath. Then think about the situation rationally instead of silly scenarios. Ukraine cannot beat Russia. They are holding on just while they get great amounts of 'supplies' and 'support' but Russia can wait them out. The only way to retake Ukraine is if NATO declares war and goes in to kick Russias ass. The final option which Trump seems to be trying for is ending the war and Ukraine needs to (reluctantly) accept it lost some of its territory.
You might note I am not arguing for any of the options, only stating the situation as it is.
Its all about power., really. Those of us who grew up alongside the Cold War know that our post-WW2 economy has needed some kind of enemy to focus us and to keep what President Eisenhower called "The Military-Industrial Complex" in business. Its sustained us through, among other things, the Missile Gap, the Vietnam War, assorted Middle East crises and wars and even the treat from tiny Central American countries (or islands) that few of us could find on a map. The problem is that Russia just isn't the threat it used to be -- Russia is a lot smaller and less powerful than the old USSR and Warsaw Pact area -- and with decades of travel and other interactions its turned out to be a fairly normal country despite our best efforts to portray it differently. The Cold Warriors rumble on, though, because its really all they know.
Meanwhile, a real threat to us has emerged. Like all the most credible threats its not military but economic. Despite the desperate attempts to portray it as a backward society of oppressed, fearful, people who can only make a living by copying and stealing our ideas the reality is now front and center. China is a large, modern, advanced society with serious economic capability and so global clout. Its in serious danger of becoming our world's Ankh-Morpok -- "We can rule you wholesale (touch us and you'll bleed)". The European mindset about Russia just doesn't make sense any more. Resources need to be reallocated and that means that this meaningless civil war in the center of what was once Russia needs to be wound down.
Learning to put a lie behind us is something we all have to do. Ukraine should never have been allowed to happen.
I don't know whether up vote or down-vote based on your last sentence.
Yes, China is the upcoming big dog for this century.
Russia is now exposed as a parer tiger, USA has gone WAY round the bend and may have taken itself out of the game in the future, and the EU is being forced to flex some muscle. UK? Who?
Sphere's of influence are rapidly changing.
So no, the Russian invasion of Ukraine should have never happened, but we now see Russia is not the bear everyone thought.
Let's not forget there is brewing trouble in Siberia. Nothing new, but it's persistent.
We've been poking the bear for centuries. The UK got into the Crimean War because of our concerns about the Russian Empire expanding into the Balkans and so threatening the Ottamans (although we found out 50 years later that invading Turkey wasn't a cakewalk)(Gallipoli). The UK got into the North West Frontier -- Afghanistan -- because it was concerned about the Russian threat to India (with predictable results -- the British got its butt kicked by a bunch of tribesmen, something that came back to haunt us 100 years later when we attempted to conquer and pacify the descendants of those tribesmen). All the while there's this steady drumbeat of menace -- Tsar Nicholas II was "the bad boy of Europe". Even the "Railway Children", the children's book from 1908, got in on the act with the absent father being absent due to being hauled off by the government, accused of selling submarine secrets to the Russians.
We did rehabilitate them for a bit in the 1910s when Kaiser Bill took over as Public Enemy #1. Then there was the Revolution(s) and -- worse -- the Armistice which left a power vacuum in what was German occupied (west) Ukraine. That sowed the seeds of the modern conflict.
But then you have to ask yourself what this has to do with the UK or US? Germany, maybe -- it was the quest for Libenstraum that was at the bottom of WW2, a quest that failed because the Russians might initially be inept fighters but they're damned resilient ones. Fast learners, too. So in 1945, as in 1812, once they've got themselves organized they end up rolling over half of Europe (in 1812 elements of their army got as far as Paris). But historically the Golden Rule is that if you leave them alone and don't bother them then they're not going to bother you, at least not as a nation.
Calm down everyone.
Putin has never stated that he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union - if he did, please provide an actual reference.
Either Russia is a serious threat, and therefore European countries should be spending more on Defence, or it is struggling and failing in Ukraine fighting with shovels. Which is it? It can't be both.
If you want to learn about the history of this conflict, read what Glen Deisen or John Mearscheimer have written about it, instead repeating the utter nonsense that Sir Keir has been vomiting.
Well that's The Reg added to the looney left media outlets list. When it comes to any story that might intersect with politics. No matter how obliquely. Just like Daily Kos, The Nation etc and my absolute favorite - KPFA in Berkeley, CA
So Jessica. Never heard of this thing call "checking sources". Back in the old days that was the first thing beaten into cub reporters . After the 6 W's. The excuse "well everyone else is publishing it" is a pathetic excuse and would have got you fired in the old days. From actual newspapers. Remember them?
Follow back to the original source of the story. Does the outlet and more importantly the by-line journalists have a history of publishing stories based on "anonymous sources" that prove later to be untrue / unsubstantiated. Which is all the outlets who carried the story initially by the look of it. If you know anything about Mark Felt you would treat anything from the WaPo as untrue until independently verified. And with the NYT its been just as unreliable since the day Abe Rosenthal last walked out the front door of the Times Building. Quite a few decades ago. And the Networks, where do we start. And so on.
So a junk story. To be believed and lapped up by credulous political partisans. Because it fits their preferred political narrative.
What are you guys going to do when its President Vance? Up the meds? Get a better therapist?
So best stick to pure tech stories. With verifiable sources. You know., something that The Reg has been so good at for 25+ years. And drop the political posturing. Just makes you look like low information idiots. There are already enough of those out in the media.
If you rummage around a bit you find that a lot of these unattributed stories -- the "anonymous sources" -- tend to originate in three letter agencies. This is what's behind the recent complaints about USAID -- sure it dispenses needed help here and there but the bulk seems to be lubricating behind the scenes political maneuvering and propaganda.
(My go-to reference for this sort of thing is an old biography -- "A Man Called Intrepid". It describes people and events in WW2 but the nature, depth and creativity described in it are hardly likely to have been forgotten once the Japanese signed on the dotted line.)
If politics intersects with technology, it is still technology news.
You can disagree with the characterization or the editorialization of the article, and while I don't care, personally, about attacking Russia electronically, I do find the willingness of the federal administration to cozy up to Russia unsettling. I help operate and secure OT technologies and all the short-sighted, sometimes knee-jerk behavior that this administration has openly shown to IT security, its seemingly unguarded attitude to a country that has been borderline hostile for the last 80-100 years to be worrisome. The back-and-forth on tariffs, calling back fired federal workers, backtracking on policies clearly illustrates no understanding of the systems created or a lack of clarity to a purpose, which to me clearly demonstrates lack of expertise, callousness, and dangerousness through ignorance.
The idiot would be the person who takes unverified sources as truth and constructs their daily operations around water cooler gossip. But I would also say it would be foolish to completely ignore all gossip and not have it a part of your risk assessment. Assessing all the statements put forth by the federal administration, their actions, and any anonymous sources in the federal government, the position that Russia is considered less of a security threat by federal agencies or that wouldn't take active countermeasures is not fantastical assertion. I may not be able to do anything about it or change my day-to-day, but it does mean that I might be more on my own when it comes to mitigating external threats.
This administration doesn't have to be actively destructive to our national security to create issues, apathy is just as bad. You can argue not putting on your seatbelt isn't actively destructive to your safety, but it doesn't stop your face from being rearranged by a windscreen/windshield.
By using your own judgement and assessments, you should be able to determine the effort you should put into assessing the danger described by the anonymous sources. Should you panic and up your OT budget by 200%? No. But would 5-10% increase because of federal uncertainty be in order? Probably wouldn't hurt.
Trump wants to make yada yada yada.
Thing is, he is acting like the schoolyard bully and as well as pulling military support for Ukraine, his chief henchmusk has threatened to block Starlink while Maxar has been leant on to stop providing commercial grade satellite imagery to Ukraine. And NATO will soon be toast. And then there are the tariffs.
All this sends a clear message - trumpville is not a trustworthy partner. So while corporations are announcing how many billions they will invest to keep the emperor happy, you can bet that globally many are now looking at how to decouple from usa.
So give it a year or three and you will start to see a reduction in companies using US based cloud services or manufacturing. Defense contracts will go elsewhere and gradually trumpville will see a reduction in trade, with a lot of countries establishing or strengthening ties elsewhere.
Oh, and those big investment announcements? You can bet they will hit delays, regrettable changes in priorities etc. once the companies have moved sufficient resources out of trumpville.
MAGA? Making America Go Away.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
