Eutelsat in talks with Euro leaders as they mull Starlink replacement in Ukraine Talks are underway between European leaders and Eutelsat about a possible replacement for Starlink in Ukraine. Elon Musk's Starlink has proven invaluable during the conflict following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The satellite broadband tech has helped military units remain in contact and provided a resilient link in the …
@Winkypop
"You make it sound like an option. The only people keeping the war (invasion) going are the Russians."
Not quite. We can agree about the Russians, but there are 3 options I can see-
> A peace deal as Trump is trying to achieve where Ukraine accepts its losses but the killing stops.
> NATO declares war on Russia which would be the best chance of restoring the borders but NATO has already ruled that out. Also potentially start WW3.
> We keep going as we are where Ukraine will be ground down over time with serious loss of life on both sides until Russia wins.
Before some idiot claims I am supporting Russia with that (some people make that assumption) this is just the current set of options that I see. Ukraine has done an amazing job at holding off Russia but they dont have the manpower nor resources to push Russia out alone.
@zimzam
"The problem is that Trump isn't trying to negotiate a peace deal, he's trying to orchestrate a surrender."
Are you sure? Surrender would surely hand control to Russia to decide what to do. Trump is negotiating stopping the killing and putting western interests in Ukraine as a reason for the west to enforce the ceasefire.
What would a peace deal be that is different to what Trump suggests? This is an honest question because I dont see any options beyond the 3 I have mentioned.
The russian economy is near failing, so we could continue with sanctions, increase them to ensure russia extracts itself from a sovereign country.
Everything Trump/US is doing is against Ukraine, and absolutely zero against russia.
The fact that Trump/US has withdrawn support for the smaller nation and has done nothing against russia tells you something about Trump/US intentions and lack of concern for Ukraine people (russia as of now have intensified the killing).
What western backed studies are you basing that on?
They have vast reserves of oil, gas and minerals. Did I miss the memo where China, India, Brazil and others stopped trading with them? They have a 2021.4bn GDP and a world ranking of 11 (World Bank 2023). That doesn't sound like failing to me. It would be nice if it did fail but it's not going to happen.
You are right. But in a new world where sanctions are a reaity the Europeans can squeeze the russian economy by imposing tariffs on the BRICS. It would hurt, but only for 18 months. But doing this would be have be done properly not the half arsed sanctions that have had little effect so far.
@NewModelArmy
"The russian economy is near failing, so we could continue with sanctions, increase them to ensure russia extracts itself from a sovereign country."
So you expect the Russian economy will struggle enough to bring the war to an end? Maybe. I have heard conflicting ideas of what the Russian economy is doing and I am not sure what more we can sanction.
"Everything Trump/US is doing is against Ukraine, and absolutely zero against russia."
Surely against Ukraine would be to kill off Ukraine, just hand the whole place to Russia? Trumps deal may not be the ideal of kicking Russia out, but is NATO willing to go to war? The answer is no so the war grinds on.
"The fact that Trump/US has withdrawn support for the smaller nation and has done nothing against russia"
That isnt true though. As he pointed out Obama sent blankets and he sent javelins. During Trumps first term the war paused and he actually supplied military hardware. Even now he was willing to support Ukraine further but Zelenskyy seriously misbehaved (watch the whole thing) and told everyone the war will go on for a long time, while Trump was ready with a peace deal to stop the killing.
Because Trump is not willing to supply a proxy war against Russia killing thousands for no good reason somehow makes him a bad man or Russian supporter. It doesnt add up. If Zelenskyy doesnt want to work with Trump that is his sovereign choice. But its also the US sovereign choice not to keep supplying the meat grinder.
"The russian economy is near failing"
I don't think that is true. While Russia has lost a huge amount of export revenue due to sanctions, they continue to trade with numerous countries and ordinary Russians don't really see much difference in their daily lives. The shops are still full of goods from China. India and elsewhere. Even exotic goods from European brands seem to make it past the sanctions, probably bought via third countries.
Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower and no longer has the ability to produce sophisticated weapons. In both of these areas Russian capability is steadily diminishing. Ukraine also has a manpower crisis but is manufacturing more and more of its own military hardware. With proper support from the West primarily in air defense and funding, Ukraine can push back the Orcs and force Putin to enter genuine negotiations.
Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower and no longer has the ability to produce sophisticated weapons. In both of these areas Russian capability is steadily diminishing.
Uhuh. Russia's resorted to recycling washing machines, fighting with shovels and it's economy is in tatters, tatters I tell you. Meanwhile, a lot of Ukraine's sophisticated weapons are littering the roads and fields in Kursk for no gain, and a lot of blood. Thos killing fields are also demonstrating Russia's fibre optically guided shovels. There were videos over the weekend showing those prowling around, and flying under bridges Ukraine had rigged for demolition and blowing those up to cut Ukrainian evacuation routes. There was also a video showing a drone being guided into a Ukraiinian position and into a radio set. Which showed how scarey the drone war has become because Russia coud see the displays on the radio before it was destroyed.
Ukraine also has a manpower crisis but is manufacturing more and more of its own military hardware.
Uhuh. But that's like the old joke about the difference between mechanical and civil engineers. One builds weapons, the other builds targets. Russia obviously wants to locate those factories and destroy them. If it does, that might also destroy the machinery, and any skilled staff who are unfortunate enough to be working at the time.
With proper support from the West primarily in air defense and funding
Cognitive dissonance again. Why would Urkraine need air defences when Russia is out of weapons? Plus the problem for the West is we just can't make enough missiles to keep up with Urkraine's demands..
Ukraine can push back the Orcs and force Putin to enter genuine negotiations.
No, it can't. But that's the problem when you believe in fantasy rather than reality. Rather embarrassing when 'orcs with shovels' are so sounding beating the Urkrainian master race. Which is the problem with dehumanising and underestimating your opponent. There was another country that believed in their natural superiority over the untermensch, and they lost as well.. Strange the way history has an inconvenient habit of repeating itself. Kursk then and now..
@Irongut
"How about something that takes into account UKRAINIAN INTERESTS and not just Russian and "western" interests as you put it or Trump's pockets as is more truthful."
Again that sounds nice, and in an ideal world yadda yadda but I asked very plainly- "What would a peace deal be that is different to what Trump suggests? This is an honest question because I dont see any options beyond the 3 I have mentioned."
If you have another option lets hear it.
> How about something that takes into account UKRAINIAN INTERESTS and not just Russian and "western" interests as you put it or Trump's pockets as is more truthful.
Such as? The sentiment is all well and good, but what does that look like? And is there a realistic path to achieving this? What does that path look like?
Specifics can be discussed. This is just random hand-waving. Are you an enterprise architect by any chance?
@Doctor Syntax
"Trump sells Ukraine to the Russians in return for stripping its mineral reserves"
Sounds like a good job he isnt doing that then (I did ask for different). I cant see that being accepted by Ukraine unlike the Friday deal that was agreed in Ukraine and Zelenskyy had turned up to sign (but of course got thrown out for not wanting peace).
I am waiting for someone to tell me what this miraculous deal aught to be that Trump negotiates peace with. One based in reality that doesnt require the evil bully Putin to magically change his personality. This is nothing more than a pragmatic and realistic question that seems to get people upset because the idealistic outcome is not one that lives with reality. Nobody seems able to answer this question but somehow expects Trump to provide a fantasy idealistic peace deal.
"Just another property deal, much as he tried to push onto Gaza.."
It sounds like he has put Hamas on notice finally. Hostages back and Hamas leadership should run. About bloody time too.
I am waiting for someone to tell me what this miraculous deal aught to be that Trump negotiates peace with
I can try :
- Hi Vladimir, what would make your army stop the bombing ?
- Hello Donald, well, when they've marched into Kiev
- Ah, OK, I'll try to sell that to Volodimyr
- Good luck
- But then you sure stop the killing ?
- Only if you lift all sanctions on travel
- Agreed, I'll invite you to Mar-o-Lago
- Cheers
@UnknownUnknown
"You could have stopped WW2 in its tracks and saved countless lives by capitulating to Hitler ?"
I notice in your entire comment you offer no answers to anything. No options to deal with the situation? As your your silly comment you seem to have forgot the year and countries. But even then the current course seems to be heading towards WW3 while Trump is trying to avoid it.
"The Man in the High Castle anyone ?"
You think you aint? You dont even seem to have any ideas beyond your delusional suggestion that Putin magically decides to give up and give the land he now has to Ukraine. That sounds high without a castle
He is but in the harsh realities of the world what are the other options? Ukraine can't beat Russia. It's a nuclear superpower and it's just too big. They can keep throwing troops and weapons at it till the end of time if they wanted. Sanctions will never work. A few Russian billionaires can't do business in Europe and America. Then you have BRICS. A lot of Americas power and influence is linked to the dollar so if that cart is upset such as oil trading for example it'll get messy real quick.
The outcome is going to be security assurances with an American mineral deal. Russia have the other 40% of minerals already so they will accept that. Those minerals are of great importance to the national security of those nations. The cynic in me believes this was planned from the start and they put a literal comedian in power to facilitate it. Why take billions in aid to buy weapons from the countries that supply that aid be told you can't use half of them? The same aid to be paid back through the mineral rights.
Trump isn't orchestrating a surrender he's just completing the deal already made.
I could be wrong on all this of course. I often am but this is how I see it right now.
> Trump isn't orchestrating a surrender he's just completing the deal already made.
Would that be this deal? :
"Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl3ndxglwxo
@Jamie Jones
"Would that be this deal? :"
Its a bit late to try and enforce that deal when Obama ok'ed the taking of Ukraine and Biden ok'ed the minor incursion that is the current war. China is supporting Russia and Russia is reacting to the west interfering in Ukraine leading to the exile of its pro-Russian leader.
The whole situation is a complete mess and its getting scary watching people try to drag NATO into the war.
The USSR invaded Afghanistan, not just Russia. Russia is half the size of the USSR and lost more troops in the battle of Bakhmut that the USSR did in 10 years in Afghanistan.
The Soviet Union was a superpower and did have a vision for it's people (not one I'd like to live under or even one they were likely to achieve but still a vision), Putin just sees them as cattle.
Russia can't beat Ukraine unless Ukraine's allies turn against it too, but they can keep throwing men into the meatgrinder until Putin dies of natural causes (gravity is natural).
Soviet Union including Ukrainian troops invaded and occupied Afghanistan. But continued to fight against resistance for years each battle won and resistance fighter killed led to more resistance fighter joining the cause, and an American weapons supply. It just became more trouble that it was worth.
Decades later, US didn't learn anything from that and neither did the coalition partners dragged into it by the hegemonic USA empire. If the Ukraine military was to collapse, and Russian army overrun Kiev installing a new puppet leader, be certain that it will continue to be a very uncomfortable situation for Russia for the unforeseeable future.
Decades later, US didn't learn anything from that and neither did the coalition partners dragged into it by the hegemonic USA empire.
Yep. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. The regime change business hasn't exactly been great for peace, democracy and prosperity. Millions dead and displaced, all under the guise of 'international rules based order'.
If the Ukraine military was to collapse, and Russian army overrun Kiev installing a new puppet leader, be certain that it will continue to be a very uncomfortable situation for Russia for the unforeseeable future.
Not necessarily. A lot of Ukrainians don't like the Kiev regime, but can't speak out against it either. Ukraine's lost around 1/3rd of their population since the coup in 2014. If the conflict ends, elections are held, maybe some of those displaced people will return to Ukraine and get back to getting on with their lives. It might make for an uncomfortable situation for Ukrainians who've committed war crimes, or profited from the conflict. Some of their ultra-nationalists might try to continue to fight, but if the oligarchs bankrolling those nutjobs are jailed and the funding cut off, that might not last for long.
But it's also pretty much the situation Ukraine is in right now. The West is currently looking for a new puppet leader who'll continue the conflict. Romania is also currenly demonstrating just what 'EU democratic values' really means.
Trump has already made it clear he's only interested in USA interests (at least, those which coincide with or support his self-view). I'm wondering if, by getting Russia's invasion of Ukraine legitimised (which any peace deal not restoring the previous borders would do), Trump is hoping he'd get tacit approval to invade Greenland, etc.
@AC
"Trump has already made it clear he's only interested in USA interests"
He is the President of the United States. I would think his interests are in the US. If the UK would get a government of a similar loyalty it would be a very welcome change.
"Trump is hoping he'd get tacit approval to invade Greenland"
I noticed that Greenland suddenly has defence from the country that is responsible for its defence (Denmark). Due to the comments from Trump who keeps trying to get Europe to do something useful in regards to defence. Maybe Trump has mad ideas of invading Greenland, I doubt it. But Europe has finally seemed to wake up to what Trump has been telling them since his first term.
@AC
"That's true- your cynicism clearly *does* disappear when it comes to the pro-Trump American right that you uncritically fetishise."
Extreme claims which have been a constant attack against Trump and failed to match reality makes me more cynical of the claims without evidence over the anti-Trump extreme claims. If you consider that a fetish thats your problem not mine.
"He is the President of the United States. I would think his interests are in the US."
You are making the same mistake that the voters made !!!
Trump is *only* interested in Trump ... ALL the 'Shock & awe' is about lining Trumps pockets.
Both his 'deals' for Gaza & Ukraine are about lining his own pockets, using the 'might' of the US of A as leverage.
Trump is acting as a power crazed 'King of America', all the resources are there for use to 'improve' HIS own bank balance.
I would keep an eye on the US of A constitution as he will be looking at his options to extend his presidency beyond the 5 years.
Re: Ukraine or Gaza
Trump does not care about the 'war' or the people ... just the opportunity to make money !!!
:)
@AC
"Trump is acting as a power crazed 'King of America', all the resources are there for use to 'improve' HIS own bank balance."
There is a lot in your post but didnt Trump leave poorer than when he went in unlike his predecessor? I am not going to assume he is a good man or that he does everything benevolently. I actually hold him to the same expectation as most politicians (even to ours in the UK) as being in it for themselves, and I am rarely disappointed. So I find it best to look at who's self interest aligns best with the country. We can obviously all have different opinions based on our own ideas of 'best for the country' but of course often people then devolve into personal attacks assuming the other side want harm.
"Trump does not care about the 'war' or the people ... just the opportunity to make money !!!"
I can accept that. I am guessing he wants to be remembered as the peace maker in which both his terms the Ukraine invasion stopped. But to me that aligns with not liking the idea of loads of civilians being pressed into combat and fighting for survival (yes Ukrainians). I dont fancy the idea of soldiers being pushed into a pointless meat grinder for their leaderships ego (Putin and to an extent Zelenskyy).
*Nothing to do with your comment but it hits me that someone elsewhere asked why I care so much about another country (they talked of the US issues) and someone else tried to claim I dont have empathy. Agree with me or not the caring of not wanting people to die against their own will in another country made me think of those two comments.
I have no means to KNOW if Trump made or lost money when last President.
I am quite sure that IF he lost money it was not by any planned intent.
I too care about people being killed in a war BUT my caring is worth nothing because:
1.) Politicians being greedy for power ALWAYS allow others to die for THEIR ideas. This is both Putin & Trump.
2.) Putin has been assessing the limits of the 'West' to endure the 'SMO' in Ukraine, so far he knows that his 'limits' are greater than the 'Wests'.
3.) 2. means that he can do this again in some other country and the 'West' will not stop him ... again.
4.) 3. means even more dead for Putins 'needs', including russians which does not seem to bother Putin.
5.) Trumps lack of conviction regarding protecting Ukraine means we are ALL at risk because Putin knows that without the US of A 'others' will cave in.
6.) The so called 'PEACE Deal' will not be possible unless Putin gets what he wants AND the US of A 'with' others stands up to Putin by defining real limits to future actions.
7.) Ukraine and/or others WILL be invaded AGAIN if the 'West' is seen to be weak & divided. The current President exudes 'Weakness' to Putin.
8.) Dividing your so called 'Allies' is seen as 'Weakness' by Putin and plays to his strengths.
9.) LASTING Peace is the only real objective the 'West' should be aiming for both in Ukraine & Gaza ... yet TRUMP is only interested in the 'quick' win ... 'fill your boots' so to speak and IF the hostilities start again you have 'Agreements' that will be valid after the fighting stops !!!
10.) The current endstate we seem to be heading for is 'Lots of dead' for a temporary peace in Ukraine & Gaza BUT 'Lots of Money' to be made for the next few decades recovering from the conflict(s) and gearing up 'Arms Production/Sales' for the next chapters in this on-going saga.
Cynical ... of course ... History tells me I am more likely to be right than wrong !!!
:)
1.) Politicians being greedy for power ALWAYS allow others to die for THEIR ideas. This is both Putin & Trump.
Don't forget the EU/UK and the coalition of the whining, who've just had their war conference seeking ways to keep the conflict going, and billions flowing into defence businesses and 'NGO's. Latest idea is creating another EU administered slush fund where member states can buy bonds for bombs and avoid vetoes by states like Hungary, Slovakia etc.
2.) Putin has been assessing the limits of the 'West' to endure the 'SMO' in Ukraine, so far he knows that his 'limits' are greater than the 'Wests'.
Russia had been planning for the SMO because the West's cunning plan was obvious. So regime change and coup in 2014, civil war, and Minsk 'peace' agreement. Russia knew that was a ploy to re-arm and re-train Ukraine's forces before Merkel admitted this. It also knew that those forces were going to be used to try and recapture Donbas and Crimea and bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU. It could observe troop movements and built up forces to counter those prior to the SMO commencing. That build-up from 2014 onwards also allowed Russia to plan it's economy to deal with the inevitable sanctions. But the West ignored Russia's 'red lines', encouraged Ukraine, who FAFO'd. Then there was the Istanbul peace agreement that Ukraine almost signed, but the West convinced Ukraine to break.
3.) 2. means that he can do this again in some other country and the 'West' will not stop him ... again.
That of course is the cognitive dissonance thing. Macron's been channeling his inner Napoleon and claiming Russia is poised to invade France and capture Paris. Yet at the same time, Macron and other 'leaders' claim that Russia is weak/incompetent and didn't capture Ukraine in 3 days. Of course that meme originated from Gen. Milley. But the conflict has also demonstrated how weak the West's supply chain and logistics are. So we haven't been able to match Russia's military production, and Russia hasn't even moved to a full war economy. Which is something the West has slowly realised, ie Germany is pretty much out of ammo, so perhaps Europe couldn't stop Russia. But pretending Russia is somehow an existential threat to EUrope keeps the conflict going, and the money flowing. Of course the West's rhetoric also shows that EUrope is an existential threat to Russia.
4.) 3. means even more dead for Putins 'needs', including russians which does not seem to bother Putin.
The body count certainly doesn't seem to bother the West's 'leaders' who are determined to keep the proxy conflict going. Putin's support in Russia is still very strong and he polls way better than most EU 'leaders'. The Russian people also still mostly support the SMO given they view this as an attempt at regime change in Russia and Balkanising & breaking up the Russian Federation so it can be asset stripped by the West. Our 'leaders' aren't helping by constantly calling for Russia's defeat and ritual humiliation. But the dead is a bigger problem for Ukraine because Ukraine is rapidly running out of bodies. We can re-arm and send all the weapons & money we want, but if Ukraine doesn't have the man(or woman)power, it loses.. And the stated aim of the SMO is it's a war of attrition.
5.) Trumps lack of conviction regarding protecting Ukraine means we are ALL at risk because Putin knows that without the US of A 'others' will cave in
Trump has been very clear that he wants the killing to stop, and to get a peace deal that both parties can agree to. He's all about 'the deal' after all. And we're more at risk by the war hawks constantly trying to escalate the conflict because Russia has a very clear policy that it's response to an existential threat is to go nuclear.
6.) The so called 'PEACE Deal' will not be possible unless Putin gets what he wants AND the US of A 'with' others stands up to Putin by defining real limits to future actions.
No peace deal will ever work unless it's acceptable to both parties. At the moment, Ukraine doesn't have any real cards and is losing badly. Suggestions of another Minsk faux-ceasefire and a 'no fly' zone won't fly because Russia knows that all previous ceasefire agreements have been violated. Russia certainly isn't going to allow a cease-fire that just allows Ukraine to re-arm again, which is what our 'leaders' are signalling. Any acceptable peace deal is likely to be based on Istanbul, so neutrality and recognising that Ukraine has lost territory, along with assurances that Ukraine will end their civil war and stop being a threat to 'Russians' living in Ukraine.
7.) Ukraine and/or others WILL be invaded AGAIN if the 'West' is seen to be weak & divided. The current President exudes 'Weakness' to Putin.
The conflict has shown the West is weak and divided, and is becoming more so by the day. Trump has shown determination to get parties to the negotiating table, but the US also doesn't have many cards to play. Trump's played the obvious one by turning off the tap to force Ukraine to the negotiating table, but the EU & UK are strongly opposed to peace, and determined to keep the conflict going. The biggest threat isn't Russia, but all the other hostile, or potentially hostile nations that have seen the weakness in the West and might decide to start their own conflicts now that the West has disarmed itself.
8.) Dividing your so called 'Allies' is seen as 'Weakness' by Putin and plays to his strengths.
Divide and conquer has always been a strategy, but it's one that's also self-inflicted with the West imploding and the EU fracturing. And that isn't helped by the war-hawk's determination to keep the conflict going. Suggestions that UK/EU/NATO members take money from social spending to give to Ukraine or defence businesses is already unpopular and risks more social unrest.
9.) LASTING Peace is the only real objective the 'West' should be aiming for both in Ukraine & Gaza
Ukraine could have been stopped in the first couple of months, if the Istanbul deal had been signed.
10.) The current endstate we seem to be heading for is 'Lots of dead' for a temporary peace in Ukraine & Gaza BUT 'Lots of Money' to be made for the next few decades recovering from the conflict(s) and gearing up 'Arms Production/Sales' for the next chapters in this on-going saga.
On that we can agree, but conflicts have always been extremely lucrative, as long as you're not the one being shot at. So far, this conflict has cost the best part of $500bn, much of which can't be accounted for and has just resulted in Ukraine becoming around 25% smaller. Not exactly a great deal for most of Europe or the US, unless you're profiting from it. The most bonkers part is it never needed to have happened, and and trade between the EU and Russia would have benefitted both economies. But that would mean a bigger combined economy than the US, which can't be allowed. As Ass Sec Nuland once said, 'fsck the EU', and boy did she.
@AC
"I too care about people being killed in a war BUT my caring is worth nothing because:"
1: You stop at Putin and Trump but leave Zelenskyy who's ego caused him not to sign the agreement in the Whitehouse. Or Obama who let this happen and helped provoke the war. And Biden for funding the war but not trying to bring it to a conclusion. Compare that to Trump trying to negotiate peace and in this case he seems to be trying to save lives (for his own ego I expect).
2: The west chickened out. Obama and Biden accepted Russias attacks in Ukraine as acceptable. Only after it didnt fall did Biden throw money and weapons at Ukraine. Even now European NATO has chickened out without the US and the US is sick of funding another damn war.
3: Non-NATO country possibly.
4: Agreed
5: Except Trump has protected Ukraine. That is why under his first term there was no war. As he said- Obama sent blankets He sent Javelins
6: The road block to negotiating peace is Zelenskyy misbehaving that Friday. Now he is back but he has to be serious about peace. Yes Russia must also come to the table and be serious but I expect Trump will have more success than Obama or Biden in that respect.
7: It would spark up again if the US is weak but so far Trumps US has been anything but weak. Its actually shown strength that was missing under 'red lines' Obama and senile Biden.
8: Yet getting NATO to actually field an army instead of US forces with little bits of others is not strength nor allies. Europe now seems to be waking up to their lack of defences, assuming the US would just do it for them.
9: Lasting peace is the aim but he cannot be responsible for the next Presidents.
10: Very possible. Zelenskyy is desperate to join NATO and even the EU. Even after being told not to someone fired drones into Russia trying to keep the war going. The only one I can see at the moment trying to stop the war is Trumps administration. Even our own (Starmer) is desperate to keep the war going but wont defend Ukraine without the US. As I said at the start of the war- Europe poked Russia, Russia reacted and Europe ran and hid behind the US.
"Cynical ... of course ... History tells me I am more likely to be right than wrong !!!"
I can understand the cynicism. Things are too close to the edge. I dont fancy a WW3 nor cold war.
There is a lot in your post but didnt Trump leave poorer than when he went in unlike his predecessor?
That's not the ringing endorsement you seem to think it is.
(Given that Trump has form for bankrupting his own casinos.)
So even with the additional income he generated from being president you are saying it was not enough to offset losses in his property business?
Others have suggested its not so much the money as being the most famous person in existence rather than transactional for money.
Obviously the money helps.
And yesterday I heard an explanation that does fit, If you view his activities as the continuation of the reality TV format, new constant "conflict". Stirring the ants nest every day with something intended to get people talking about him. US doesn't need to take over Greenland, through NATO and simple diplomacy it could easily get whatever extra bases it wanted established there, but saying they want to take over, then he becomes the news focus.
> If the UK would get a government of a similar loyalty it would be a very welcome change.
That's ironic considering that not just are you an apologist/excuse-maker for Trump, but that- despite being sucked in to a right-wing culture war defined in terms of US society and politics so completely you seem to forget it yourself- you're English, not American, and you don't live even live there.
And yet your love of the American right has you spewing apologetics and disingenuous bullshit rationalisations of the leader of a foreign country acting against the interests of your own.
Yet *you* of all people talk about "loyalty"...?!
> Europe has finally seemed to wake up to what Trump has been telling them since his first term.
Us. Not "them". The UK isn't just a part of Europe, its interests lie with it here, not with the United States. That's despite the obvious fondness of people like yourself- and supplicant US-pandering pseudo-nationalist sellouts (*) like Nigel Farage- in the idea of the UK becoming Airstrip One to your fantasy of a pseudo-libertarian US.
> Maybe Trump has mad ideas of invading Greenland, I doubt it.
At this point I'm not even prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on things like that, nor to accept the sanewashing from people like you that it would depend upon.
(*) Okay, so Farage isn't a "sellout" because he was never anything other than that in the first place, regardless of the More-Tory-Than-The-Tories English nationalism.
You don't actually contradict the point I attacked- Codejunky expecting "loyalty" from a UK government despite himself parroting the line, self-interests and viewpoint of a foreign country rather than the one he nominally belongs to.
> calling someone out as a traitor
I didn't call anyone a "traitor". Interestingly enough, that's because I considered it excessively inflammatory and removed it from my comment before posting.
> Feel free to send a big check to those UKR equipment crowd funding sites. Are you willing to send UK troops on the ground in UKR?
What the UK and Europe do and how they achieve it- both with respect to the war in Ukraine *and* with respect to our own self-defence in general now that it's clear the US can no longer be trusted on that count- is a very serious question.
And certainly, Europe has fucked up horrendously in recent decades by allowing itself to become over-reliant on US support for that. It's a bad situation to be in- personally I've been in favour of increased defence spending for several years, but hugely more so in light of recent events.
The perverse irony here is that I'm not interested in doing so to placate Trump and the US, but for the opposite reason- the fact that the US is in a position to dictate these things to Europe, and the fact Europe has become reliant upon a country headed by a capcrious bully who absolutely *can't* be relied upon to act in our interests.
When your country's security depends upon people like Trump, you don't have any real security. (*)
So, there's no easy solution, and we shouldn't have got ourselves into that position in the first place.
But, whatever hard choices are made, there's one thing you- as an American- have to understand. If your country is rapidly distancing itself from becoming an ally of Europe and even- as seems not impossible- becomes little more than another rival power, then we don't have to justify any of that to you.
Because the idea that we do is the entire problem we need to escape.
(*) And similarly, when your agreed trade "deals" with the US can be ripped up or overridden on a whim because their playing-at-a-businessman "dealmaker" didn't like the deal he signed last time, then you don't really have a trade agreement with the US, and you'd be advised to look elsewhere.
You don't actually contradict the point I attacked- Codejunky expecting "loyalty" from a UK government despite himself parroting the line, self-interests and viewpoint of a foreign country rather than the one he nominally belongs to.
In a representative democracy, we elect politicians to represent the electorate of that country, not Ukraine. Acting in the interests of another country, especially if that harms your own country is pretty much the definition of treason.
Oh hai Jellied! I was wondering why you hadn't popped up sooner in a discussion that would normally be the prime vatnik fodder you'd be first to join!
> "In a representative democracy, we elect politicians to represent the electorate of that country, not Ukraine."
What the people in general and government deem in the country's interests doesn't have to coincide with the personal opinion of yourself, a well-known and established apologist for Putin's Russia.
Why do I suspect that if the UK was on *their* side, you wouldn't be complaining.
> "Acting in the interests of another country, especially if that harms your own country is pretty much the definition of treason."
So you're saying that Codejunky, who sides more with the right-wing US regime he fetishises, over the defence interests of his own country is a traitor?
Gosh!
I was wondering why you hadn't popped up sooner in a discussion that would normally be the prime vatnik fodder you'd be first to join!
Contrary to popular opinion, I do have other things to do than attempt to educate bloviating Banderites..
What the people in general and government deem in the country's interests doesn't have to coincide with the personal opinion of yourself, a well-known and established apologist for Putin's Russia.
Again with the ad homs and logical fallacies. Just because I don't support Ukraine's regime, it doesn't follow that I support 'Putin's Russia'. What's wrong with just Russia? Do you support Zelensky's Ukraine, Starmer's UK, or Trump's America? Do you think in the UK that cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance, or NHS, foreign aid or pensions is a popular decision in order keep throwing money at one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, and to keep killing Ukrainians is really a popular choice? Would UK taxpayers perhaps prefer their money was spent on reducting the cost of living crisis?
Why do I suspect that if the UK was on *their* side, you wouldn't be complaining.
I'm on the side of peace, not the 'tough talking' Starmer who seems determined to escalate the conflict and get British forces killed. I'm all for Starmer, Macron etc picking up a rifle and heading for Ukraine's front lines, but I rather doubt they'd be willing to do this. But that's always been the way. Politicians start conflicts, they don't fight them and they've always been a useful way to distract from problems at home.
So you're saying that Codejunky, who sides more with the right-wing US regime he fetishises, over the defence interests of his own country is a traitor?
Nope. Obviously it is you saying this, and demonstrating that our education system really is failing, if it no longer bothers teaching logic or rhetoric. But it's unsuprising that people are confused given the amount of effort that has been spent on propaganda. Here's yet another example from Ukraine's propaganda arm-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05m907r39qo
It's been a bruising, emotional, and relentless week for the embattled Ukrainian president, as he fought to keep Western military support intact while reiterating his commitment to peace.
This is obviously a lie. Zelensky created a law banning peace talks with Russia. Until he repeals that law, it's pretty obvious to anyone that he isn't serious about peace. But then if there's peace, there's elections, and Zelensky loses his job. Or if he refuses to get serious about peace, he may just lose his life in another coup instead. The West already seems to be picking his replacement. The UK has Zaluzhny waiting in the wings, the US might be circling around Tymoshenko, the EU may favor Parashenko..
> Banderites
It's purely a coincidence, I'm sure, that you're very fond of using that word- one which originally referred to a historical far-right Ukrainian group, but which Soviet propaganda used to smear *all* pro-independence/anti-Soviet Ukrainians by association, and coincidentally a tactic which the Russians have continued to use in the present day against those opposed to them in their "Ukrainians are Nazis" narrative.
But I'm sure it that's a coincidence and that...
> just because [you] don't support Ukraine's regime, it doesn't follow that [you] support 'Putin's Russia'.
... despite the fact that pretty much every one of your talking points mirrors the pro-Russian narrative and propaganda and that I don't think I've ever seen you contradict or disagree with them.
> I'm on the side of peace
Uh, huh. That "peace on any terms" line, even when we know that those would be terms that were all but capitulation to Russia.
> Nope. Obviously it is you saying [that Codejunky is a "traitor"]
Just taking the implication of what *you* said to its logical conclusion. Looks like "our" education system is working quite well. ;-)
and coincidentally a tactic which the Russians have continued to use in the present day against those opposed to them in their "Ukrainians are Nazis" narrative.
I think it's just because I understand the history rather better than you do. Or perhaps most amusingly, Spartacus. The Banderites (or OUN) flew the red & black flag often seen flying in Ukraine today. They created the 'slava' thing as their version of the HH greeting. Zaluhzny posed in front of portraits and a bust of Banderas.
Neo-Nazi apologists gloss over these obvious points, often anonymously. And as I frequently point out, Ukraine could have stopped Russia from using this narrative by simply banning the display of Nazi and neo-Nazi emblems and insignia, just as pretty much every civilised country on the planet has. It took Kiev a few years to figure out Azov's Black Sun and Wolfsangle copied straight from the SS wasn't a great look, and rotating the wolfsangle a bit doesn't really make it any better. It has however been interesting to note that Starmer and some other 'leaders' haven't been chanting the 'slava' thing, perhaps because their advisors finally woke up and explained the origin.
> Neo-Nazi apologists gloss over these obvious points, often anonymously.
Ooh... that's a very clever and subtle smear. And by "clever and subtle", I mean "so obvious and clunkily bad that I wondered if *that* was supposed to be the joke".
Regardless, since you keep denying that you're a pro-Russian apologist, I'm sure you'll be equally keen to sieze upon and condemn the numerous examples of far-right and Nazism on the Russian side up to and including the governments reliance upon and cooperation with the Wagner group, named after a composer popular with Nazis by one of its co-founders and most prominent members- a guy who was an actual fucking Neo-Nazi who had multiple actual Nazi tattoos.
But yeah, Keir Starmer is the Real Nazi here. Amirite?
Ooh... that's a very clever and subtle smear. And by "clever and subtle", I mean "so obvious and clunkily bad that I wondered if *that* was supposed to be the joke".
I think you are the joke and the literal denier. The red & black banner flew during the Volhyn Massacres and Lviv Pogroms, just as it flies in Ukraine today.
Regardless, since you keep denying that you're a pro-Russian apologist
I am not a 'pro-Russian apologist', and you clearly can't bring yourself to criticise the Banderites, so instead resort to crude whataboutery and projection. Can you think of any good reason why Ukraine hasn't banned that symobology and ideology, as most of the civilised world has? All it would take is Zelensky to copy legislation from any EU country, which is something Ukraine will have to do anyway if it ever wants to join the EU.
But yeah, Keir Starmer is the Real Nazi here. Amirite?
Again, your words, not mine. The origins of the phrase are very clear and very well documented, so it's very strange when on the one hand, the left rants about the 'far-right', and on the other blindly chants a far-right, ultra-nationalist slogan.
> "I think you are the joke and the literal denier."
Since you're making play of the fact I'm "anonymous", can you put your money where your mouth is and give us *your* real name and full evidence of your identity? Thank you.
> "instead resort to crude whataboutery"
Well, yeah- whatabout that guy on Russia's side that was an actual fucking Nazi with actual fucking Nazi tattoos? (And that was just one prominent example of the sort of thing you like to ignore while condemning your opponents for insufficiently dissociating themselves from dodgy symbology).
> "and projection"
Yeah, that's right, it's my fault- I projected all those Nazi tattoos onto poor Dmitry Utkin.
> "Again, your words, not mine. "
Well, your argument was so good, you *did* convince me that Keir Starmer was a Neo-Nazi!
> "you clearly can't bring yourself to criticise the Banderites"
Just to clarify, are you now referring to actual "Banderites" here- or are you still using the word to smear any Ukrainian that isn't pro-Russian?
Regardless, this is descending into game playing. So keep pretending that you're bothered by dodgy aspects of the pro-Ukraine side's history while you wilfully ignore and refuse to address- let alone condemn- countless examples among pro-Russian forces, including the most overt and clear examples of actual pro-Nazis and Nazism at high levels on the Russian side.
Since you're making play of the fact I'm "anonymous", can you put your money where your mouth is and give us *your* real name and full evidence of your identity? Thank you.
Why would I do that? I'm not the one who seems afraid to put a name to their words. You're also not that anonymous given your language, quoting style, use of emojis or just crude debating technique. So I can understand why you might be embarrased to use your normal ID. It would however make it easier for people to follow along with conversations.
Well, yeah- whatabout that guy on Russia's side that was an actual fucking Nazi with actual fucking Nazi tattoos?
What about them? They're Russia's problem, and in case you didn't notice.. Russia may have dealt with that problem. Prigozhin is dead, possibly killed by Ukraine or Russia and some other senior Wagner people were also on that plane..
Yeah, that's right, it's my fault- I projected all those Nazi tattoos onto poor Dmitry Utkin
Utkin was killed on 23 August 2023 when a plane carrying him, Prigozhin and eight others crashed in Tver Oblast, leaving no survivors
So it looks like he's been de-Nazified.
Just to clarify, are you now referring to actual "Banderites" here
I thought I had made that abundantly clear. They're easy enough to identify because they often self-identify, ie Zaluzhny being a prime example. There may also be acidental or ignorant Banderite sympathisers, eg Mark Hamill posing for a PR picture infront of a large red & black flag, or people who use the 'slava' thing without any understanding of the origin or meaning. That message may be hitting home because politicians seem to have stopped using it. After the dressing down Zelensky got in the Whitehouse, there was a spontaneous (and well co-ordinated) outpouring of support tweets from our 'leaders'.. Which previously would have been stuff like 'We stand with Ukraine.. slava etc', but that seems to have stopped. I don't think Poland ever used it, but then given they were the nation where the OUN committed a lot of attrocities, is understandable. Poland has also asked Ukraine to apologise for those massacres, but Ukraine has refused and usually attempts to blame the victims.
Regardless, this is descending into game playing.
Well, you started it. You also seem unable to condemn the Banderites and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, so perhaps I was right to assume you have sympathies along those lines? But yes, that element of the propaganda war has descended to the playground level. Ukraine has extra 'special' forces armed and trained by NATO sporting SS insignia. Picking the insignia of the 2nd SS Panzer division and combining it with the 'black sun' commissioned for the SS at Wewelsburg. And then attempted to deny and deflect when called out for it, much as you are doing.
Again it's very simple. One of the stated objectives of the SMO was to 'de-nazify' Ukraine. Ukraine could have easily headed that off by pointing at a law stating they'd banned that symbology. Wear those in the UK, or especially Germany and you'd probably be arrested, and might be jailed.. Yet in Ukraine, it's just fine and people like Banderas are celebrated and regarded as national heroes in their west. You might be OK with giving billions to fund, arm and train neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist nutjobs, but I'm not.. Especially when weapons handed over to those nutjobs are also ending up in the hands of similar nutjobs outside of Ukraine.
> "Why would I do that? I'm not the one who seems afraid to put a name to their words."
If you want a "name", you can call me "Pie and Mash", which says as much about me as "Jellied Eel" does about *you* or your real identity, i.e. nothing.
> > "Well, yeah- whatabout that guy on Russia's side that was an actual fucking Nazi with actual fucking Nazi tattoos?"
> "What about them? They're Russia's problem"
Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over the sound of all that handwashing.
You're incredibly bothered about alleged Nazis on Ukraine's side, but it's suddenly not your concern when it comes to your Russian friends?
> "and in case you didn't notice.. Russia may have dealt with that problem. Prigozhin is dead"
Prigozhin? Dead? Gosh, say it ain't so!
Yeah, we noticed. Pretty much anyone with half a brain was expecting such an "accident" after Prigozhin and Wagner went up against Putin.
Funny how Putin was very obviously fine with overt Nazis like that until the point where they represented an unacceptable threat to his own power.
I suppose you'll be telling us next that the killing of his rivals in the Night of the Long Knives excuses Hitler because the people he killed were Nazis? (rolls_eyes_emoji.jpg)
You're incredibly bothered about alleged Nazis on Ukraine's side, but it's suddenly not your concern when it comes to your Russian friends?
There is nothing alleged about Ukrainians WW2-cosplaying, sporting Banderite symbology, or people in and outside Ukraine chanting their slogans. My concern is why we're arming them and pouring money into a country that does nothing about them. I'm also a bit concerned by your continued whataboutery and refusal to condemn Ukraine's ultra-nationalists and neo-nazis. Instead of a simple condemnation of peope who glorify the massacres perpretated by the Banderites, you deflect, project and demonstrate your slim grasp of reality by making statments like 'your Russian friends'.
If that's not accurate,
Of course it isn't accurate, and of course you make another reply avoiding the subject. Are you, or have you ever been a Banderite? You refuse to condemn them, ergo you support them. Or not, and you may just be wilfully ignorant about the history and politics that have shaped this conflict. Which you seem to demonstrate with your slim grasp of concepts like set theory, or an ability to be objective. Just because I don't support the Kiev regime, or blindy parrot Ukrainian or western propaganda, it doesn't follow that I support Russia either.
I support peace, and an end to the bloodshed and collosal waste of lives and resources.
> "it doesn't follow that I support Russia either. I support peace, and an end to the bloodshed and collosal waste of lives and resources."
Er, sure. So *definitely* a coincidence that 100% of everything you say just happens to uncritically reflect the pro-Russian line, then!
> "your slim grasp of concepts like set theory"
lol wut?
> "Are you, or have you ever been a Banderite? You refuse to condemn them, ergo you support them."
Are these "Banderites" in the room with us right now?
Er, sure. So *definitely* a coincidence that 100% of everything you say just happens to uncritically reflect the pro-Russian line, then!
Obviously I could say the same about you and the pro-Ukraine/Banderite line. But I know I could be wrong, you don't seem to recognise there is a difference..
lol wut?
Back to your inability to grasp simple concepts. You are either with us, or against us. There can only be two sets, no intersections or nuances. 1+1=10..
Are these "Banderites" in the room with us right now?
Us? Obvious troll is obvious though.
This post has been deleted by its author
@AC
Surprisingly this comment makes more sense than your attack on me.
"What the UK and Europe do and how they achieve it- both with respect to the war in Ukraine *and* with respect to our own self-defence in general now that it's clear the US can no longer be trusted on that count- is a very serious question."
You seem to have hit upon one of the points I was making- Trump warned Europe about this, not particularly the UK nor probably France but a lot of Europe have given up militarily and assume the US will protect them. While you blame Trump as unreliable which differs from my blaming Europe for being greedy we still come to the same conclusion that defence slipped and fell in Europe and shouldnt have happened nor continue.
"You don't actually contradict the point I attacked- Codejunky expecting "loyalty" from a UK government"
I do think loyalty should be expected from our own government to our own people. Starmer is a sell out. Desperate to rejoin the EU, antagonising the US administration and trying to keep a war going that he knows we wont realistically participate in, which undermines a peace deal. As a UK tax payer I dont want to fund another bloody war.
> "Starmer is a sell out [..] antagonising the US administration"
The same guy who's blatantly soft-soaping Trump and offered him another state visit in the presence of the King- because he knows Trump loves all that shit and feeling important- in a quite possibly vain attempt to keep him onside?
And you accuse Starmer of "Antagonising" Trump?
You clearly don't want "loyalty" from Starmer to the UK, you want his complete supplication to and agreement with the leader of a foreign country- one whose right wing you're uncritically besotted with. A leader who's been open about putting *their* interests first.
@AC
"The same guy who's blatantly soft-soaping Trump and offered him another state visit in the presence of the King- because he knows Trump loves all that shit and feeling important- in a quite possibly vain attempt to keep him onside?"
Yes. F'ed around and is now trying to beg forgiveness.
"You clearly don't want "loyalty" from Starmer to the UK"
Why? What kind of nonsense drives you to think I want my government to sell out to anyone? Whatever figment of your imagination you are arguing with has nothing to do with me.
> "What kind of nonsense drives you to think I want my government to sell out to anyone?"
The kind of "nonsense" you post here, of course(!)
I don't think *you'd* view the UK in supplicant lockstep with a right-wing, pseudo-libertarian US as a "sellout", but it is, and one that says more about you and your viewpoint- and loyalties- than Starmer.
@AC
"That's ironic considering that not just are you an apologist/excuse-maker for Trump"
Think you screwed up your credibility with that but as a coward it wont bother you I am sure.
"Us. Not "them". The UK isn't just a part of Europe, its interests lie with it here, not with the United States."
And yet it was THEM who were told to fund their military forces and stop making THEMSELVES so vulnerable to potential hostiles. Us the UK were not part of that sage advice as we do fund our forces as do France.
"At this point I'm not even prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on things like that"
Of course not. You would trial and convict and wouldnt need anything like reality to bother your tiny mind. And that is probably how you managed to entirely get my comment wrong but have your little rant.
"I noticed that Greenland suddenly has defence from the country that is responsible for its defence (Denmark)."
You sound surprised. For a territory that was not under any kind of threat, the level of defence was set appropriately. Now there is a possible threat so defence has been beefed up a little, just in case Trump means what he said. And as a founding member of NATO, I'd expect all current NATO members to come to their aid if they are invaded. It could get interesting if the USA, also a founding member of NATO, finds itself obliged to help defend Greenland from the US invading forces. Mind you, the US has form for "friendly fire" incidents.
If Trump had the interests of the USA people in mind he would not have allowed the Consumer Financial Protection Board to be shredded in if’s entirety, or unlawfully firing the heads of Government Oversight (Inspector Generals) / he would have emboldened them with increased resources.
He is the President of the United States. I would think his interests are in the US
The US is in such a position that the interest of the world and the interests of the USA are the same. As an isolationist state, turning its back on the world will negatively affect world trade and US is at the centre of world trade. Already there are buds of activity where states are seeking to break the dependency on the US and develop their own alternative. Whereas before, states were happy to be supplied by the US.
With great power comes great responsibility. Or something like that.
"seeking to break the dependency on the US"
Until they discover that the alternative is 4x the cost, not available for 5 years and not as good.
There is a reason that the US is a leader in many technologies and the greatest achievement of the EU in the last 12 months is those god-awful tethered bottle caps.
Yes. It’s all depends who are “we” doing the deciding. If I were American, then I would say Trump is being stupid (strategic), deceitful, and possibly traitorous. But I’m British, not American, so my perspective is “given what other countries do, over which we have no control, what should we do”.
If I were Ukrainian, I would fight to the death.
If I were EU, then I would simply ask: if we try to support Ukraine to regain its borders, without any USA support, and possible USA hindrance, do we have the resources to do so? My opinion: no, practically EU could, but it will not. If the EU can raise its military to 3-5% of GDP, within a year, then it will simply stalemate, for the indefinite future, at least the next decade or more, as it is today. Cf Poland, which has brought in conscription. If you see conscription as viable for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden etc, then yes you can hold Russia to a stalemate, for as long as it takes for the winds to change. If the EU does not step up like that, then Ukraine will lose anyway.
But I’m none of those, I’m British. And as a Brit, my response is: I won’t vote for conscription, or full economic war-footing, in my country, to save Ukraine. Sorry.
This post has been deleted by its author
Where Trump Mining and Resources Inc controls ALL of the mineral resources inside Ukraine.
He wants to be richer than Mucky Musk. Why else would he keep grifting money for [cough][cough] campaigns when even he must know that the US Population will not stand for him declaring himself POTUS for life.
He is a clear and present danger to ALL humanity. Add to that, the Project 2025 crazies and 'Houston, we have a problem'.
My a god, any god decided that his time on earth is over ASAP.
Ukraine accepts its losses
We don't know what's on the table (and it seems Ukraine doesn't either), but I suspect the bigger stumbling block will be the extent to which it is expected to become a subject colony of the Russian Empire or the New American Empire. Neither seems keen on Ukraine being a fully independent, sovereign state.
@AC
"become a subject colony of the Russian Empire or the New American Empire. Neither seems keen on Ukraine being a fully independent, sovereign state."
Ukraine doesnt want to be a fully independent although mostly sovereign state. Zelenskyy wants security guarantees of western forces in the country to counter the threat of Russia. That is very understandable from Ukraines position as they are at risk of Russia invading again after a peace agreement.
Alternatively boots on the ground would be terrible for the US while there is incentive to spark a US/Russia war. Trump seems to be trying to navigate this carefully by having interests in Ukraine but not a military presence. That way the US has reason to step in if Russia attacks, but it is harder to drag the US into a war.
The war in Ukraine is a mess of a situation and its the everyday Ukrainian who is suffering from it.
It's difficult to construct a credible argument that America is reluctant to have a presence in the country to protect the people of a democratic independent state in case it should provoke a conflict, but that it would be prepared to engage in a conflict to protect its mere mineral rights. Because if it comes down to simple economics, the smart thing to do if conflict threatened would be to come sort of financial deal with the potential aggressor (especially if you've been gifted the rights in the first place) that saved you the cost of war.
Transactional alliances - such as that between Hitler and Stalin - tend to be ephemeral.
Is it really?
I mean difficult, for you?
Go look at Russia under Obama/Biden's 2 terms.
Then Trump's first Term.
Then Biden's Second Term.
Still confused?
OK, do the same with N. Korea.
"It's difficult to construct a credible argument that America is reluctant to have a presence in the country to protect the people of a democratic independent state in case it should provoke a conflict, but that it would be prepared to engage in a conflict to protect its mere mineral rights."
That fact that you find it uncredible is likely either a gray matter problem or an attempt to mask a political difference.
Seems like you are saying the US should have military in UKR as their defenders.
Why is the US expected to do that when the EU is next door neighbors?
The fact that you think Pres. Trump would not enact swift military action on a Country that would attack American civilians is not quantifiable either way at this time.
Though if you really, really believed that, you wouldn't be asking for the US to put troops in Ukraine anyways.
You'd be asking why your Country and the EU aren't doing it themselves, now.
> The war in Ukraine is a mess of a situation and its the everyday Ukrainian who is suffering from it.
Oh, it's that *genuine* concern for those poor Ukrainian people getting killed and on whose behalf we *must* end the war- despite the fact they themselves seem perfectly willing to keep fighting to defend themselves and their country. And no mention of the Russians being killed.
Which- coincidentally enough- happens to be a popular talking point from Russian state propaganda. But I'm definitely sure that it *is* a coincidence and not a reflection of your own bias.
*cough*
The lack of concern for the russians being killed is not unusual !!!
The tendency is to support the 'Victim' and NOT the aggressors ... Putin/Russia attacked Ukraine !!!
Please note that the lack of concern for the Russian dead is not so uncommon ... Putin seems to have little concern for the Russian dead also !!!
He has scraped the Prisons for anyone to make up the numbers ... this shows a lack of concern for the 'real' troops who have to work with the miscreants and he seems to regard a 'Body' from anywhere is good enough, probably as he thinks they are ALL nothing more than 'Cannon fodder'. !!!
:)
Not sure anyone is really concerned with Russian casualties, convicts or not.
Its pretty clear Russia invaded and is wrong.
However, when someone is 'trying' to separate two warring factions from the act of continuing to war, you are not going to move forward with agreement to cease if you don't frame the argument with the suggestion that both combatants are equally losing.
And there are undoubtedly tens to hundreds of thousands of Russians who have died in UKR who had no animosity.
Confused, was there a point you were trying to make?
The Russian state doesn't give a damn about its own people being killed- certainly, it's obvious that no-one cares less about ordinary Russians than their own government.
But that's not the reason they're not talking about dead Russians. It's because it doesn't benefit them to draw attention to *their* huge number of casualties and how Russia is suffering. And it's because their feigned concern for dead Ukrainians (supposedly) works better as a form of moral blackmail and/or excuse against those nominally on the side of the Ukrainians than talking about dead Russians.
@AC
"Which- coincidentally enough- happens to be a popular talking point from Russian state propaganda"
Are you the same pro-war coward posting all of these comments or different cowards?
"Oh, it's that *genuine* concern for those poor Ukrainian people getting killed and on whose behalf we *must* end the war- despite the fact they themselves seem perfectly willing to keep fighting to defend themselves and their country. And no mention of the Russians being killed."
I said everyday Ukrainian because they are being invaded, conscripted into war and being killed. Russia is using limited military might and as far as I am aware the everyday Russian is watching it on the news. I am not advocating for the soldiers to keep dying (as my comments make clear) but for the normal civilian it seems better to be in Russia than Ukraine.
@Winkypop
"The obvious option.
Russia gets the fuck out of Ukraine."
I have heard this a few times but it always falls over at why. Why would Russia give back what it has taken? We agree Putin is a bad guy etc, so why would he have a personality transplant and completely 180 degree change his personality just to make you happy?
I dont mean that in any flippant way, it is serious. Its like expecting Stalin or Hitler to just end their evil just because we see it is bad. The only way I see Putin leaving Ukraine to pre-2014 borders is through a large, violent and willing force stepping in to kick Russia out, and that would be NATO.
In an ideal world I agree with you that Putin sees the error of his ways and graciously backs off. In the real world why would he? If you honestly know any alternative options I would love to hear them
Why would Russia give back what it has taken? We agree Putin is a bad guy etc, so why would he have a personality transplant and completely 180 degree change his personality just to make you happy?
Because Russia is having a recruitment crisis because everybody who wants to go to war has gone, and been killed and the people left have a sense of self preservation.
Because Russia is rapidly running out of Soviet Union era military equipment to fight with.
Because the Russian economy is getting hit with strategic bombing nightly on a significant (and increasingly large) scale.
Because so many Russian refineries have been bombed out of action that Russia is having to either buy in fuel from abroad or prevent civilians from using it.
Because Russia is now deploying donkeys because they can't find vehicles (or fuel) for frontline logistics.
Because the Russian economy is collapsing.
Because Russian demographics increasingly look disastrous.
Because the Russian railways is now down 80% on carrying capacity because of boring shit like wheel bearings can't be replaced, and when they are replaced are replaced with inferior quality knockoffs with like 10% of the life; requiring 10x the amount of maintenance.
Because Russia can economically keep their war going for perhaps 18 months until everything in Russia collapses and Ukraine wins by default.
Pick a single reason or just look at the lot.
And the media has made a lot of the Russian offensive that's been going on for a year and a half, but they ignore the fact that they've not taken very much territory. They've only taken maybe half the territory that Ukraine took back in Kherson, and that's not accounting for the territory Ukraine has taken in Russia. There's a reason Russia's offensives are so often referred to as a meat grinder, it's for their troops, not Ukraine's.
"There's a reason Russia's offensives are so often referred to as a meat grinder, it's for their troops, not Ukraine's."
I have noticed one of out resident pro-Russian trolls has used that term a few time in the comments to this article, but as a reference to the Ukrainian forces. An interesting bit of projection on his part.
I have noticed one of out resident pro-Russian trolls has used that term a few time in the comments to this article, but as a reference to the Ukrainian forces. An interesting bit of projection on his part.
If you're referring to me, it's because Ukraine frequently does pointless attacks as PR stunts rather than for any strategic effect, hence why they're rapidly running out of fresh meat. Case in point being why there might be extra pressure to get a ceasefire now. So when the civil war kicked off, UAF forces got encircled in Debaltseve, which was one of the events that lead to Minsk II. History is repeating itself with a similar number of UAF forces pretty much encircled in Kursk with estimates of maybe 2-6,000+ troops trapped in that salient. This time, Russia seems more likely to only give the UAF forces the option to surrender, or die. This also factors into Ukraine's unrealistic demands that Russia releases prisoners, which Russia has a lot of as more Ukrainian forces have been surrendering. Russia isn't likely to want to release those unless they've got assurances they won't be sent back into the meat grinder.
Meanwhile, in other news..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq9l24ledpo
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has welcomed the fall of Bashar al-Assad's "barbaric regime" in Syria, as he called for the restoration of "peace and stability".
And HTS has started ethnic cleansing in Syria. Slow clap. Way to go Kier.. you didn't see that one coming? Which is also going to be the challenge with any sustainable peace in Ukraine, especially if the Banderites remain in power.
@Peter2
"Pick a single reason or just look at the lot."
Ok so you believe the Russian economy is close to breaking down and we can wait them out letting the war continue. Ok. That sounds like a reasonable response.
I dont know how true it is that the Russian economy is struggling because I hear conflicting information about that but it does put paid to the idea that Putin would take Ukraine and be a threat to the west if their economy is already trash.
And the longer it goes on, the more of Russia's military gets killed or maimed. (there's nothing like a large number of crippled ex soldiers not properly supported by the state to raise public support for going to war again!)
The more factories get levelled in strategic bombing.
The more debt there is simply for Russia to exist, reducing Russia's ability to produce more war equipment.
The more equipment is destroyed worsening Russia's relative strategic position. (you know the Russian joke; Russia is in a proxy war with NATO. They've lost 21 generals, 800,000 soldiers killed or wounded, 10,000 tanks, 20,000 APC's. And what about NATO, they ask. Well, NATO hasn't shown up yet)
@Peter2
"And the longer it goes on, the more of Russia's military gets killed or maimed. (there's nothing like a large number of crippled ex soldiers not properly supported by the state to raise public support for going to war again!)"
That is true but also for Ukraine. It seems to pretty much be a war of attrition and this is where I think Ukraine will run out before Russia unless NATO joined the war. Ukraine is hunting down its own people for conscription while Russia carries on as usual. This isnt saying Russia isnt taking losses, just that I expect they can hold out longer than Ukraine alone.
"The more factories get levelled in strategic bombing."
Russia is a big place. Hitting a few factories might affect that region of Russia but the rest probably dont notice. Ukraine is in range to be hit pretty much anywhere. Also the long range strikes into Russia relies on NATO weaponry (long range with satellite targeting) pretty much making NATO an aggressor joining the war. It is a very dangerous escalation that could have caused WW3 and only happened once Trump was succeeding at getting peace as a real option.
"The more debt there is simply for Russia to exist, reducing Russia's ability to produce more war equipment."
Of course but as has already been mentioned on here, Russia isnt even running a war economy to supply this war.
"(you know the Russian joke; Russia is in a proxy war with NATO. They've lost 21 generals, 800,000 soldiers killed or wounded, 10,000 tanks, 20,000 APC's. And what about NATO, they ask. Well, NATO hasn't shown up yet)"
I havnt heard that one but thats friggin hilarious. I am gonna steal that one :D
"I dont know how true it is that the Russian economy is struggling because I hear conflicting information about that but it does put paid to the idea that Putin would take Ukraine and be a threat to the west if their economy is already trash."
From what little we know of Trumps "peace plan", that is exactly the result it will bring. Russia gets to keep what it's already stolen and then has time to regroup, re-arm and rebuild, unril they are a threat again. Having a few US contractors on the ground in Ukraine isn't going to stop Russia starting it all up again.
@John Brown (no body)
"From what little we know of Trumps "peace plan", that is exactly the result it will bring."
The point being that if Russia after all this time is supposedly this incompetent, disorganised and incapable force then we cant realistically call it a threat to the west. Even if they have a bit of time to rearm. That is why the conflicting narratives dont make sense.
"Having a few US contractors on the ground in Ukraine isn't going to stop Russia starting it all up again."
This is the kind of thing that started the war. Those contractors being US Intelligence Community and European 'diplomats'.
The point being that if Russia after all this time is supposedly this incompetent, disorganised and incapable force then we cant realistically call it a threat to the west. Even if they have a bit of time to rearm. That is why the conflicting narratives dont make sense.
But they make a lot of dollars, which seems to be the objective. Russia is the greatest security threat to the EU, so they're going to print 500bn+ in war bonds. Russia viewed NATO expansion into Ukraine as a major threat to their security. The US and EU ignored Russia's concerns, and Ukraine suffered for it. This is the problem with trying to get any lasting peace deal when suggestions ignore any of Russia's security concerns. I think it has also called into question of NATO and whether that can continue.
Because Russia is having a recruitment crisis because everybody who wants to go to war has gone, and been killed and the people left have a sense of self preservation.
They're standing up a couple of brigades a month, and doing that with volunteers. Ukraine's had to resort to snatching people off the street because knowing recruits wil only be given a couple of weeks training, if that and then get sent to the front line.. isn't exactly compelling to volunteers. And most of the people who were willing to fight have already volunteered, and many of those are now dead or maimed.
Because Russia is rapidly running out of Soviet Union era military equipment to fight with.
Russia is still busily churning out tanks, AFVs, artillery, aircraft, missiles, drones etc.. Ukraine and the West.. can't.
Because the Russian economy is getting hit with strategic bombing nightly on a significant (and increasingly large) scale.
You should probably look up what strategic bombing actually means. Yeeting a few drones at a few targets doesn't really meet that definition, and doesn't compare to the missile and drone attacks on Ukraine's infrastructure over the last few days. It's also one of those things to watch out for, ie if Russia has managed to reduce Ukraine's GBAD, it will start to use strategic bombing.
Because Russia can economically keep their war going for perhaps 18 months until everything in Russia collapses and Ukraine wins by default.
If the conflict keeps going for another 18 months, there won't be much left of Ukraine and it would be a very pyhric victory.
"They're standing up a couple of brigades a month, and doing that with volunteers. Ukraine's had to resort to snatching people off the street because knowing recruits wil only be given a couple of weeks training, if that and then get sent to the front line.. isn't exactly compelling to volunteers. And most of the people who were willing to fight have already volunteered, and many of those are now dead or maimed."
It's odd you state that because most media, MSM or otherwise has been reporting almost the exact opposite. It's almost as if you're projecting Russia's problems directly onto Ukraine.
@Irongut
"Because the rest of the world fucking says so."
Not quite rest of the world but the west. And yes the west loudly says it. At the same time the west isnt willing to do anything about it bar send supplies to keep the fighting going as it is.
"Putin should be tried for war crimes along with his government and military leaders."
Sure, but again that requires force. Which again I think requires NATO to declare war on Russia to have enough impact to force him out. NATO ruled that out. Europe shouts loud and doesnt want to do anything without the US and the US doesnt want to fund a forever war to a country that cannot win.
I am not particularly arguing against your vision, but to make it reality requires steps people dont seem to be willing to make.
"Not quite rest of the world but the west. And yes the west loudly says it."
Not quite?
UN General Assembly demands Russian Federation withdraw ..."
The resolution “deplores in the strongest terms” the aggression by Russia and affirms the international community’s commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine. It also calls for unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance. The text was approved by 141 countries. Only 5 UN member states voted against it: Russia, Belarus, DPRK (North Korea), Eritrea and Syria. Many of Russia’s closest partners did not follow their voting pattern.
Of course, we should not forget the far more recent UN resolutions where only a few countries voted with Russia and those few included the USA under the latest administration.
Not quite?
Old news. How many of those countries translated votes into actions, and joined the self-sanctioning club? How many joined, or are now waiting to join BRICS?
Of course, we should not forget the far more recent UN resolutions where only a few countries voted with Russia
More voted for peace than your original resolution, but that's just an exampe of the way the West has been isolating itself.
@John Brown (no body)
"UN General Assembly demands Russian Federation withdraw ...""
Possibly more valid than I credit them with but I dont consider the UN when it comes to... anything. Hell if they demanded in 2022 and Russia still firmly ignores them it kind of re-enforces the bubble the UN live in. In the real world I only see the west particularly shouting and even fewer willing to actually do anything about it.
Thanks for your post that everyone will agree with and champion.
We who have more logical thinking and understand reality will continue to get downvoted. We don't live in an ideal world and never have. Russia is not leaving Ukraine bar WW3. Do you want WW3? There won't be much of a Ukraine left but at least the Russians will have left. There won't be much of anything to be fair but at least people on the internet got to be righteous about it without understanding the complexities of global politics. It's like people don't understand what a superpower is or why. I would love Russia to leave Ukraine and America to stay out but it's not going to happen.
At the rate Putin is going, Russia is likely to be reduced to a few oblasts around Moscow and St Petersberg
There are increasingly loud voices advocating that various members of the Russian Federation (Commonwealth of Independent States) become EX members of that federation. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see 20-30 new flags flying outside UN headquarters within the next 15 years (if not sooner)
Putin: Making Russia Small Again
The misinformation has been extensive. I've seen people on the internet say Russia has no military anymore and they are using cans and string to communicate while the soldiers wear rags on their feet. That's an exaggeration of course but it's not far off. Yet we have all seen how much of much of Ukraine they have taken and are now defending. When the USSR fell do we really think all the powers the USSR had in torturing it's dissenters and keeping tabs on them just went away? They still kill opponents to the rule in foreign countries. It would be very naïve to believe Russia is weak or anyone is going to "break away". Again, this goes back to logical thinking based on the very few things we see. It's nice thought that Russia would be broken up but it's not going to happen.
If Russia gets the fuck out of Ukraine; who protects the interests of pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east which some in Kyiv would like to see ethnically cleansed?
Despite it not fitting the western narrative that Russia started it; this was the catalyst for Russia interfering in Ukraine.
Thank you for waking up ... BUT ... what you state as truth is Russian lies ('Propaganda' if you like).
Please stop taking your 'truth' from the 'interWebs' it is full of yet more lies.
BTW:
Would you dare to be 'pro-ukraine' if someone was pointing a gun at 'your' head & telling you how to vote in a rigged election ???
That is were your 'Pro-russian' ukrainians' come from !!!
Strangely, this was after the russians occupied parts of Ukraine ... who would have thought !!!???
:)
Russia (or at least, the Soviet Union) occupied that eastern part of what is now Ukraine after the region was divided up after the First World War. Thy introduced a policy of de-nationalisation which involved moving people into the region then known as Soviet Ukraine from within Russia .
This is where the so-called 'Pro-Russia Ukrainians' originate - they are descendents of those Russians who who were moved into the region in the 1920s and 1930s. They are not exactly "pro-Russian Ukranians", but rather more they are Russians who live in that part of Ukraine. Yes, they must now be regarded as 'naturalised', but them wanting that part of Ukraine to become part of Russia is actually very little different from all the Asians who live in places such as Luton or Bradford suddenly wanting those places to be ruled by whichever Asian country that their forebears originated from.
This is the thing. People just get carried away with bashing Russia because it's politically correct and gets them upvotes. The thing is there was a lot of fighting in that region and a bit of the Nazi influence (If you know your history then you know why that is. Ukraine got hammered twice. First by the Nazi's and then by the Russians.). Now I'm not taking sides here at all but it still needs to be recognised as part of it.
Then we have all the CIA bases and activity in Ukraine. Source: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/
That article links to the NY Times so if you want to claim the NY Times is a pro-Russian mouthpiece be my guest but you will look silly.
Again, not taking sides but lets not be naïve on this. Every country has interests in messing about in other countries and it's not just the "bad guys". Everyone does it.
"People just get carried away with bashing Russia because it's politically correct and gets them upvotes"
It's not hard to notice that anyone who dares dissent gets heavily downvoted. This forum is usually populated by people capable of critical thinking but, when it comes to Russia started it, most seem to have drunk the kool aId, refuse to accept there was any history before 24th February 2022. They won't even go check what the history is, just blame Putin.
Those who do see more nuance are, perhaps quite wisely, keeping their heads down, bored of the "get back to sucking Putin's dick komrade" demonising. It's not worth arguing with a mob, whichever side they are on.
I don't like Putin but I am not going to put Ukraine on a pedestal. Even NATO recognises Zelensky is a world class false flag bullshitter who has had to bow to pressures from Ukrainian nationalists and far right to keep his job.
But no one is listening. No one cares to fact check. Cue the downvotes.
So, about Malaysian Airlines flight 17 in 2014 then. Where did the Buk launcher system come from? Of course people are aware of the trouble in that part of the world you could hardly miss that news.
Putin has this impressive record, Salisbury, Navalny, Prigozhin and Utkin, and many others we never hear about.
So, about Malaysian Airlines flight 17 in 2014 then. Where did the Buk launcher system come from? Of course people are aware of the trouble in that part of the world you could hardly miss that news.
Probably one of the two air defence bases just outside Donetsk International Airport.. Which is also one of those odd things. Ukraine claimed not to have any functioning Buk systems or missiles after MH17, then in 2022 suddenly seemed to have found a lot of systems.
<......."The thing is there was a lot of fighting in that region and a bit of the Nazi influence (If you know your history then you know why that is. Ukraine got hammered twice.".....>
If you know your history, then you will know that pretty much the whole of Eastern Europe got "hammered twice" as you put it. Perhaps those whpo subscribe to your view don't kow the history of the region as well as they think they do ;)
The eastern part of Ukraine (which is where the current Russian occupation is) had already been fairly thoroughly mistreated at the hands of Communist Russia by being part of the USSR (and known at the time as Soviet Ukraine).
The eastern part of Ukraine (which is where the current Russian occupation is) had already been fairly thoroughly mistreated at the hands of Communist Russia by being part of the USSR (and known at the time as Soviet Ukraine).
Someone else who doesn't know their history.. Which got a bit confusing given there was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the more commonly known one. You also have things rather bass-ackwards. It was mostly the western part of Ukraine (ie Galacia) that was 'mistreated', mainly because they're the ones who first sided with the Nazis, then against the Soviets.. Which is one of the reasons why there's so much bad blood. The Soviets and eastern Ukrainians knew about the attrocities committed by their Galacian/Banderite brothers and weren't kind when they liberated Ukraine from German occupation.
You might also wonder why, if the eastern part of Ukraine felt so mistreated by Russia, they consistently voted pro-Russia ever election following independence..
<......."People just get carried away with bashing Russia because it's politically correct and gets them upvotes".....>
Not in the least.
They get carried away with bashing Russia because it is Russia that is in the wrong. It is Russia that initiated this conflict. It was Russia that deliberately moved Russian people into that region a century ago, and it is the descendents of those families who now make up the pro-Russia elemst of the population of eastern Ukraine. It is Russia that has ignored and ridden rough-shod over four previous peace agreements. It is Russia that is committing War Crimes. It is Russia which is continually issuing forth bucketful after bucketful of outright lies.........
I could go on and on listing reasons why bashing Russia and downvoting the Russia apologists and their parroting the lies emanating from Russia is dominant.
YOU are the problem.
This post has been deleted by its author
Quite: > We keep going as we are where Ukraine will be ground down over time with serious loss of life on both sides until Russia wins.
At the rate Russia is going, that might take another 10+ years. Far more likely that the Russian economy will collapse much sooner than that. Which could result in an ousting of their emperor (although that could of course end up being someone even worse than Putin!), or even other parts of the Russian federation breaking away (less likely imo).
Also Russian stored weapons reserves are basically gone now, and they can't produce enough to keep up with the attrition rates. They've even started using donkeys for transport ffs!
You can see the slow down from Russia already, just look at the daily casualties. These were around 2000 per day for months, once Russia started their big (not really) push at the beginning of Summer last year, and they've gained what, 30km? This push kept going through Winter, but has now dropped to a little over a 1000 losses per day, as there are now a lot less ground assaults each day, as Russia doesn't have the equipment to give to their troops to keep up the pressure, and this will just get worse over the coming months, unless they get say North Korea to start providing even more arms.
Let see what happens when US stocks run out, and the EU is pressed to either give up their remaining small number of spares and 'personal stash'.
Russia has had its advance slowed because they are running low on vehicles.
Enough to start using commercial ones.
Low vehicles mean much lower potential for advance.
And NK will be happy to add vehicles and such to the artillery and other armaments they are trading.
Russia is stretched, however they sure aren't rationing fuel, food, or consumer products.
Russia will continue to fight, with NK re-supply as necessary, turn commercial production to defense, for as long as Putin is alive.
Expecting Russia to collapse is what the Germans did in WW II.
Only if Russia ever did get close to collapse, I expect very low yield 1-10Kt artillery and IRBM to be their final F U.
EU sure seems to want to call Russia's bluff.
We keep going as we are where Ukraine will be ground down over time with serious loss of life on both sides until Russia wins.
At the rate Russia is making gains it would take Russia several centuries if not millennia to take all of Ukraine. Russia will go bankrupt long before the EU does though, which why Putin will inevitably lose if Ukraine is willing to keep up the fight. Russia is also suffering far more deaths than Ukraine because they've always subscribed to the "human cannon fodder" theory of war. Their birth rate is not on their side, there are fewer and fewer young people available - that's why he's having to bring in people from satellite countries and now North Korea. But they are not as invested in the war as Russians, and if given a chance would happily shoot their Russian commander and surrender rather than die anonymously in a foreign land.
It will be interesting to see if this plays out.
In all the armchair generaling, I have not seen anyone discuss whether or not the Ukrainian people want to continue this war.
No doubt they want to regain their territory, however there comes a time for every country as we have thousands of years of world history to review.
There are a fair number of reports that seem to indicate war fatigue is real and pervasive in Ukraine.
And then there are the Z 67% More Woar being reported.
Without USAID, and less CIA, it will be interesting to see if the narrative starts to firm up one way or the other.
Yes Trump is doing his master's bidding by taking away Ukraine's ability to fight so that they have the worst possible negotiating position with Putin. Fortunately it seems that the EU is quite willing to step up and make up for the absence of the US, so Ukraine should be able to continue to fight if they want to.
It isn't like the US was FORCING them to fight under Biden. They wanted to fight, we helped provide them the means to do so. It is and always has been their choice if they want to stop fighting, but that decision should be on their terms not forced on them by Putin's orange puppet.
@UnknownUnknown
"Option 4 … Russia fucks back off to the agreed International Borders .. and that includes The Crimea."
Nice sentiment but is it a realistic option? For that to happen you must think Putin is a nice guy who is happy to return the territory or will somehow have a complete personality change to be like that.
Why would Russia fuck back off and give back what they now have? While it would be nice if Putin suddenly has a change of heart and everyone goes back to where they were. Maybe world peace and such. But realistically what are the actual real options that apply in the real world?
Again I see 3. I am happy to hear of more if you have any but wishful thinking, as nice as it may be, doesnt work in reality.
You could equally say that economic warfare and infiltration into the Russian energy systems are all western aggression.
The EU has recently cut the Baltic states off from Russian electricity. I feel sorry for the people living there as their elec prices have doubled but having a supranational organisation like the EU decide to inflict its wishes on you is all about 'our democracy' so it must be for the better.
Worth remembering that since the rapid decline of satellite TV, Eutelsat’s main income for the last few years has been carrying Russia Today…..both the primary distributor over Russian territory of many different multiplexes, and to a lesser extent over the EU.
Financially, it is fairly near bond default.
If I were Ukraine, I’m not sure that I’d want satellites financed by Papa Putin being my primary data carrier.
Do it - get rid of the dependency on the Nazis in the Oval Office. They've already let hundreds of Ukrainians be murdered since they started withholding intelligence data about Russia.
Hit Musk's wallet any and every way you can. Enough of that South African Nazi buying elections for right wing parties and racists.
As to them both - impeachment and prosecution for violating the oath to defend the Constitution and interference with the vote are already long overdue. They're just lucky they aren't military, or it would be firing squad time when the courts are done with them.
it’s something that the US Constitution sort of inherited and took on from the former British rule.
In the UK we still have the idea of a Royal Pardon, technically all crimes are sort of seen as crimes against the Crown. In the USA, I believe, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, the formal court proceedings are ‘The State v. Joe Bloggs’ or ‘The US v. Joe Bloggs’, here they are 'R. v. Joe Bloggs’ where, now the ‘R’ stands for Rex or King.
So in theory, if Joe Bloggs losses the case, gets convicted, then the wronged party, ie the King, can just say “well you did wrong, but I forgive you, so I’ll free you from prison but don't be naughty again”. In practice, of course, like many things in the UK Constitution (and yes, we do have one, it’s just not codified in one place), theory is one thing, practically is another. Over time our unelected Head of State has lost effective power and things are now just done in their name.
So, the US has inherited that right for their Head of State, ie the President. That decision can’t be appealed, can't be argued against. The assumption is that any President blatantly doling out pardons for friends, or for backhand payments is looking at a) incurring the wrath of the people and not being re-elected; or b) Impeachment.
The interesting thing is that Trump is really harming the American defense industry.
A lot (I've seen figure ranging between 30 and 60 billion, so up to half of the total amount) of the billions that Trump claims were sent to Ukraine were not actually sent to Ukraine but were sent to American arms manufacturers to manufacture arms and munitions to be sent to Ukraine. This amounted to a massive economic stimulus for the US defense industry which is now coming to a halt. No surprise that the share prices of the major US arms manufacturers are tanking.
On top of that, a lot of American weapons sales were typically to allies. Now Trump is picking fights with America's allies and just openly demonstrating that the US government can disable weapons made by US manufacturers that are actively deployed in the Ukrainian battlefield. Why would any country still buy HIMARS, or Apache, or Patriot or Joint Strike Fighter, or any other modern defense system if you don't know if it will remain working after America's ruler had a bad night sleep? There is a lot a European money now going towards defense, you can bet that a lot of that is now staying in Europe. Why do you think the share prices of European defense manufacturers such as Rheinmetal, Leonardo, Airbus Defence, Thales, Saab and BAE are going through the roof? Their order books will be full for the next decade.
It doesn't really matter.
NATO has 3.5 million active service troops, ~1.3 million of which are American. 3.5 minus 1.3 is ~2.2 million in Europe. Russia's military is 1.1 million, fully mobilised to the maximum possible in Ukraine.
Do you think that Russia wants to start a war outnumbered 2:1 against better trained and equipped troops? Russians have those myths about Ukrainian super soldiers bred in biolabs because they consider that tale preferable to admitting to their troops NATO body armour works and stops Russian bullets. Their tanks are blown to bits by light shoulder launched weapons, and they threaten nuclear war about a few dozen older Leopards going to Ukraine. You'll see why if you see videos of the relative effectiveness of the equipment; a single outdated Leopard 2A4 singlehandedly annihilated an entire Russian battalion with absolute impunity and then drove off to refuel and rearm.
If the L2A4 does that; How likely do you think it is that Russia wants to engage in combat with a force armed with the A8 version which has a longer ranged gun, better armour and an active protection system to shoot down missiles? I'm going with "unlikely", personally.
Russia's supposedly huge and professional airforce hasn't done well in Ukraine against three dozen antique mig29's, and 2 dozen SU27's and now a dozen F16's. Probably because the last time most of it actually flew was in the years of the Soviet Union.
Europe has ~1800 combat aircraft, of which those F16's are the oldest stuff being retired because they are obsolete.
Don't get me wrong, it's worth arming ourselves to the teeth just to make anybody in Russia have a panic attack when glancing in our direction but they aren't that much of a threat to us collectively which is why they are desperately trying to split us up. Even so though they'd have to split European NATO in two just to reach numerical parity and they would literally never be able to rebuild just what they have lost in Ukraine; that took the entire Soviet Union something like 40 years to build. With a small percentage of the people and industry they just couldn't afford to do it.
Even if they could, then a tank built 50 years ago with known exploitable design flaws simply isn't fit for purpose on todays battlefield.
A lot of it is hard to analyze from the sidelines due to the fog of war and both sides deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
I would say, however, that the fact that Putin seems so keen to end the war* (probably after he has captured enough of Donbas) appears to me because Putin knows he's reaching the end of what the Russian military, the Russian economy and the Russian people can sustain.
* I think it's Putin who is putting pressure on Trump to make haste with the "peace"' plan.
...and then there's the UK, spending £billions on a pair of aircraft carriers designed around and limited to SVTOL F35 aircraft.
But look on the bright side, those probably have enough space to carry a lot of drones. Which has been one of those interesting aspects to this conflict, ie whether aircraft carriers are about to go the way of the battleship and dreadnaught. Plus converting to drone carriers would probably also leave a good chunk of space to fit more missiles.
Despite the downvote and despite that fact I usually disagree with you, that's actually a quite funny and valid use case. In the back of my mind I was thinking helicopters, but drones are quite advanced these days and getting bigger and better. The "death" of piloted war planes has been predicted for some years now and that may well happen some day.
Despite the downvote and despite that fact I usually disagree with you, that's actually a quite funny and valid use case. In the back of my mind I was thinking helicopters, but drones are quite advanced these days and getting bigger and better.
Its also a historical evolutionary step, ie the way battleship and dreadnought hulls were repurposed into aircraft carriers as those evolved. Drones seem to be the logical next step, either as support with things like the 'Loyal Wingman' with drones accompanying manned aircraft, or entirely drones. I think there's an inevitability to it given the amount of resources in a CBG dedicated to protecting the carrier, and actual strike assets, especially if carriers have to deal with an increasing drone threat themselves. Have drone swarms defending the carrier, then pack the hull space with VLS and call it good. The US has dabbled with this with their concept of 'arsenal ships'.
Politics probably plays a part, ie US carriers are commanded by aviators, not drone operators. Plus technology, but if drones can be operated from the comfort of bases in the US or far from their operating area, they could be operated from a carrier. Or remotely. Kinda curious what happens to the emissions from a carrier when it starts flight operations, but then being rather huge, carriers aren't exactly stealthy. Maybe drone carriers could be stealthier.
"The more you tighten your grip, Trump, the more systems will slip through your fingers."
Thats about the funniest inversion of reality I've seen today.
The US is stopping its bankrolling of a conflict.
The US is attempting to put a cease-fire in place.
The US is attempting to put Americans IN Ukraine as human shields.
The EU is pissed that the USA will not simply throw money at a lost cause, because you all feel entitled.
The EU is semi-pissed that it has to start throwing real money at a lost cause.
The UK has already signed a Minerals Deal with UKR to snatch up those minerals.
Snarky 'Deep' as a stand in for actual thoughts.
"The EU is pissed that the USA will not simply throw money at a lost cause, because you all feel entitled.
The EU is semi-pissed that it has to start throwing real money at a lost cause."
Everyone other than Trump who has assessed the cost of the Ukraine war puts the European spending higher than US spending and all show US spending as significantly lower the $320B+ Trump is bandying about. If you know better, please cite some credible and verifiable sources.
And for the same reasons. There is no underlying ongoing business there. It’s easy to quadruple the price of something essentially worthless, because it doesn’t take many fools to multiply a near-zero market cap.
When you say +650%, a better perspective is “has spiked to the dizzying heights of mid-2023”. Half what it was in 2021. Down 80% on 2015. Pre dead-cat-bounce, it wasn’t quite in the 99% club, but very very close. This parrot is no more, it has gone to join the choir visible.
And for the same reasons. There is no underlying ongoing business there. It’s easy to quadruple the price of something essentially worthless, because it doesn’t take many fools to multiply a near-zero market cap.
Having dealt with both Eutelsat & OneWeb (or tried to) in the past, the business has always been the problem. They positioned as B2B, and priced accordingly, but even in a B2B situation, they were generally a PITA to deal with. Ordering terminals and services wasn't made easy. Starlink has made that a lot easier, so customers can order online or sometimes buy in a retail store, unbox it, activate it and call it good. Which I guess is also an issue for Starlink, ie how much the cost of the terminal is subsidised by the service charge.
Starlink may have a minimum 12 month contract and if the service only lasts 30days or less, that's a nice earner for Starlink if they can keep billing. Possibly something for DOGE to not look at. For a replacement, traditional service models would probably work, ie X Gbps of aggregate capacity over Ukraine for a monthly fee, then as close to disposable terminal kit as defence contractors can make those. Plus ability to make more 'convenient' antenas. First iterations of Ukraine's drones had antenas pretty much cable tied to the drone, later ones have 3D-printed modified housings. From watching a few Starlink tear-downs, gutting and rehousing antennas looks a bit of a PITA, but Starlink might be supplying 'naked' kits I guess.
That sounds inaccurate. Maybe by x10.
Eutelsat has a small fraction of the Geostationary capacity it had, because they sold their share of KA-Sat (82 spot beams) to Viasat (USA) who now seem to control all Ka band spot beam satellites.
The One Web had 34 satellites on the ground ready for launch in March 2022. They refused to say they'd never be used for military purposes, so the Russians pocketed the launch fee and "stole" the satellites. OneWeb did get the insurance, but it means they still have less than about 650. They are low enough latency as only somewhat higher orbit than Starlink. Russia objected to the spectrum used, but have not objected to Starlink, which they are using!
Russia Today would have been a small fraction of Eutelsat income.
American here who has been happy for years seeing the Russians getting shellacked.
As a vet, I follow a lot of the intel/war sites and forums and its only the last 6-8 months that there seems to have been a change.
Not sure what the inflection point was, however UKR's manpower deficit has become more pronounced, or reported on.
Russia is 146M to Ukraines 36M, though a lot of UKR males have gone AWOL.
Asset Trackers have shown old Soviet stockpiles have been burned through to 20% maybe, with a corresponding decrease in Ukrainian territory wins.
Most recent economic data seems to indicate Russia is now at 40% GDP for Defense, and reportedly can produce armaments/munitions in 3 months that the 32-member EU needs a year to produce.
Review that, Russia is reportedly 5% of EU's combined GDP, yet it is capable of out producing the entire EU at this time.
Yes it may be less sophisticated, however quantity is a quality in itself.
Re-tooling and new infrastructure by EU will be extremely costly and take many months/year/years on average.
Unless EU wants to really start digging deep into its Rainy-Day store of munitions/equipment, there is a decided lack of 'spares' available for supporting UKR.
Russia is got an initial tranche of something like 8 million arty rounds last year, and more, slightly newer stock will be coming.
Regardless of Putin being an opportunistic psychopath, it appears pretty clear that Russia can and will continue to drag this out for years or decades if Afghanistan is an exemplar.
It has almost limitless human resources, and with China and Korea cold currency from which to pay for external materials and munitions.
Russia will grind Ukraine into a bloody bog, and no one outside of NATO has the remotest possibility of challenging this.
And if that were to happen, Russia would absolutely drop an artillery tactical nuke of 1Kt to in some UKR desertedish farmland or mountain to force a Put Up or Shut Up.
CodeJunky seems to be pretty logical in his posts, and I'm gobsmacked at how 99% of the rest on here seem to be willing to fight to the last dead Ukrainian, and calling for a WW III brinksmanship event wholeheartedly.
Just a quick thought.
For England to raise 100B with 28M job-earners, you're looking at $3471 in extra taxes on every single worker.
Even at 50B, you're looking at $1700 additional for this years Revenue bill.
And the next year, and the next, etc.
So thats a simple economic cost, next lets talk about who in your family you're willing to send in to actually fight and die for your demands on behalf of UKR.
I collect DownVotes, so feel free.
So Russia's 40% of GDP on defence would be like EU spending 2% of GDP on defence. Ireland spend 0.5%, Some states closer to Russia nearly 5% already. Though actually I think Russia is more like 10% of EU GDP, so EU and NATO would need to spend more than 5%, rather than the average at present which is likely less than 2%
Trump is mercenary and money motivated, so a rare truth when he claims he'll sell Europe weapons for Ukraine.
Europe is bigger than EU. There is also Turkey, with now not tied down with Syria or PKK. Canada. Maybe South Korea.
But it's not up to Trump, whose idea of peace is Ukrainian surrender, which is not peace at all. See Czechs in 1938. It's up to Ukraine to decide to resist or surrender. Zelenskyy's rating is up to 68%. Russia is the problem and giving them what they want isn't peace. Ask Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Finland. The Russians (Putin) broke Budapest, Minsk I and Minsk II. Any cease fire without Russian withdrawal and serious military g'tees is simply a pause for the Russians to rearm. They only keep promises enforced by military might.
So your numbers and philosophy is off. USA isn't threatened, unless Putin is serious about wanting Alaska back. It wasn't the Tsar's to sell, but that's another story.
"Trump is mercenary and money motivated, so a rare truth when he claims he'll sell Europe weapons for Ukraine."
And I'm sure all the business folks in Europe got rich by being altruistic and giving their money away, right?
I'm sure the EU will keep giving weapons to Ukraine for free forever, right?
Oh wait, most of those past deals have been 'Loans'.
And the Minerals deal UK already signed is In Payment Of.
You were talking about mercenary and money motivated?
And you are right, it is up to Zelensky to either make a deal or continue with war.
The EU will be happy to fund this war for as long as it takes, or until its own citizens start protesting en masse at taxes and benefit cuts. It IS in everyone's interests to wear down Russia as much as is humanely possible.
Its all simple, until Putin decides his stability is really at stake and he drops a low yield tac nukes in Ukraine.
Anyone really think France or UK are going to hit Send on their nukes?
No.
And Putin knows that and has it in his back pocket.
<........"For England to raise 100B with 28M job-earners, you're looking at $3471 in extra taxes on every single worker.".....>
NB. United Kindom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland -'England' is just one country within the UK.
Adults in full-time employment in December 2024 was just short of 44 million.
UK taxes are not raised solely on the individual members of the workforce. There is also Corporation Tax, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax............. UK total tax take for the 12 months to December 2024 was £850 Billion (thats about $1.1 Trillion in your money).
I don't think finding the necessary amount from a combination of extra taxation and Government savings is too far fetched tbh.
Most of the British people will support the war, especially as the media is pushing so hard for it. Plenty of WW2 films on any time of day to remind us of the glory days.
I just wish people would be honest and admit that "we" hate the Russians and have done ever since the October revolution. Pretty much every thing the US and Britain has done since then has been anti Russia. Ukraine were keen to have peace talks right at the beginning of the war but Bojo warned them not to.
Fuck nato, Starmer and all the warmongers licking their lips at the prospect of the massive increase in arms sales.
Also the EU is working on IRIS2, but sadly not available till 2027, and also not a massive qty like Starlink (and Bezos' Kuiper coming this year). Oneweb is sort of obsolete.
Ukraine has 40,000 Starlink terminals, 24,000 are from Poland. But I don't know how many they really need.
"Oneweb is sort of obsolete."
Only in the sense that everyone has to put their eggs in a US basket if they don't have Oneweb as an option. One web is as "obsolete" as all the space programmes around the world because Musk can launch hardware up there much cheaper than anyone else. National and strategic assets often trump cost.
OneWeb can't realistically replace Starlink now and would likely need a decade of growth and modifications to provide similar scale and functionality e.g use by mobile stations, like tanks.
People were critical when HMG invested in OneWeb, but I pointed out it comes in rather handy for situations like this. Basic functionality is comparable, ie both provide Internet or VPN and CUGs. OneWeb already covers Ukraine, is already in use and most of the changes would be to terminal equipment. Tanks aren't really the challenge given I've not seen Starlink terminals used on those, more challenging would be the way Ukraine has been using them on air and sea drones.
Putin needs war and conflict to stay in power.
I think you're confused. So there's peace, then elections, and then Zelensky is out of a job. This is why Zelensky isn't at all serious about peace.
He has a massive war machine now that he'll use elsewhere if it isn't in Ukraine.
Sure. If we don't stop The Putin now, he'll be in Paris by Xmas. The largest, richest (in raw resource terms) and least populated country in the world somehow wants more territory. The proxy war though just provided incentives to build a bigger military, and now the EU has been in the process of disarming itself, maybe Russia will decide to put an end to the (mostly political) threat from the yappy little Baltic states.
No chance he'll dismantle it. Why would he?
Because maintaining it is really expensive, and uncessary, if there's peace. The EU & Russia go back to trading stuff, everyone benefits. Except perhaps the US because a combined EU-Russia economy would be larger. But then that's one of the reasons this proxy conflict started. It's probably also why the US is shifting its stance regarding Europe. Close bases, save billions. If the EU arms, it'll still make billions from arms sales. Trade benefits everyone, continuing the proxy war only benefits the defence sector. Ancient civilisations learned this a long time ago. If nations enjoy mutually beneficial trade, there's far less incentive to go starting wars. It's only when there's an imbalance that that tended to happen.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
