Forum menu
If/when the Ukraine war ends, and assuming Putin stays in power, they'll wait a couple of years, rebuild and rearm, and start destabilising (probably) one of the Baltic states, before creating some false narrative as a pretext to invade.
They can't afford to / don't have the facilities to build enough modern tanks now, a 2 year pause is going to buy them nothing. They're supposedly only able to build about 80 T90's and refurbish about 200 T-72's (assuming there are enough left in storage) each year.
Certainly not enough to think about picking a fight with NATO even with an impotent Trump.
Which is the crux of the issue, 'NATO' could end the war in Ukraine by actually getting involved, but while Trump is the only one to actually say it, there's not much in it for NATO (beyond being the good guys). What would a 'win' even look like, beat Russia back to 2014 and then just sit on the border? We're then in exactly the same place as we would be if the border moves to the current front line. Neither nets you any sort of regime change on the Russian side.
NATO getting involved would be followed by Putin saying "look we told you so".
And? Who cares what Putin says?
I can see a total shake up of NATO coming out of this with the US withdrawing and it ending up as a defacto European mutual defense pact
Bernie Sanders absolutely nailing it in his assessment of Trump's recent actions and words on Ukraine.
Just had that Bernie Sanders clip in my feed just now - what a different world we could have had if he'd found a way to be President.
NATO can't put boots on the ground because that is the exact reason Putin used to justify his invasion. Our chance to take a direct military stand was lost in 2014. Though I agree, I can see a US free NATO while Trump is in power.
While Russia has direct support from Korea, Iran and presumably China, and India is still happy to trade, once Ukraine is "settled", one way or another, Putin will continue his campaign to recreate the former USSR.
As for who's next. I don't think anyone is
The precedents set since the 90s indicates this to be a very optimistic assessment.
Russia, or maybe better to say, Moscow, has been at this for a very long time. Longer than anyone has been alive and much further back
You might get 5 years, you might get 10, 20 years. But there's nothing I'm seeing to suggest it's not going to happen. And if Russia invaded Georgia (again) in 5 years time, what's anyone else going to do to stop them?
I don't really see anything to indicate Russia will change even without Putin
They can't afford to / don't have the facilities to build enough modern tanks now, a 2 year pause is going to buy them nothing. They're supposedly only able to build about 80 T90's and refurbish about 200 T-72's (assuming there are enough left in storage) each year.
With 80 new T90's per year, Russia will have more new tanks in 2 years time than the UK plans to have Challenger 3 tanks (150) by 2030. In addition, Russia has drone warfare experience and capabilities that are arguably more lethal than tanks.
I can see a total shake up of NATO coming out of this with the US withdrawing and it ending up as a defacto European mutual defense pact
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of many issues that splits US Republicans, thus threatening government-backed votes for change. The logic is that to bring the party together you need to finish US involvement in the war (in this example) quickly.
There are two competing methods: either intervene to arm Ukraine and kick Russia out or isolate and pass it off to Europe deal with. The compromise is for Europe to pay for the weapons to deal with their problem and foster allies, which is where we are currently.
The US wants to focus on US-priorities and won't withdraw from NATO unless Europe won't pay what it sees as a fair share. The problem is that this stance threatens US aircraft bases and US intelligence gathering stations across Europe and in the global south, e.g. Diego Garcia
You might get 5 years, you might get 10, 20 years. But there's nothing I'm seeing to suggest it's not going to happen. And if Russia invaded Georgia (again) in 5 years time, what's anyone else going to do to stop them?
By that point Georgia may be part of whatever is left of NATO.
By that point Putin will be gone, he might be replaced, or the whole dictatorship machine might eat itself like rats in a sack. Especially as while he may have some personal popularity, there's no guarantee peoples willingness to put up with sanctions will transfer to what/who ever comes next.
If not NATO then that's further removed from Europe. We are not Team America : World Police. We have neither the political nor military clout to police what every other country or faction does. We're not in Yemen Somalia, Sudan, Tibet, Nigeria, or anywhere else with shaky democracy.
5/10/20 years we might have right wing governments in Europe siding with an authoritarian Russia anyway. Who had Trumpism on their bingo card during the Bush / Afghanistan era? We were all convinced that the future of warfare was with independent groups over ideology not nation states and borders.
Russia, or maybe better to say, Moscow, has been at this for a very long time. Longer than anyone has been alive and much further back
Indeed, Russian Expansionism has a long history. Defeat in the Korean peninsula, defeat in Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, the fall of Assad in Syria, whatever they spin Ukraine as ......
Ironically perhaps the big "wins" for building their empire were when they were on our side. Napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2.
With 80 new T90's per year, Russia will have more new tanks in 2 years time than the UK plans to have Challenger 3 tanks (150) by 2030. In addition, Russia has drone warfare experience and capabilities that are arguably more lethal than tanks.
There's an argument that the UK doesn't need a large number of main battle tanks, but Europe, collectively, does.
I don't know about the details of the upgrade programme, but Challenger 2 is a contemporary of the T90 that we have now.
Ukraine has arguably better drone warfare experience and capabilities than Russia, I'd like to think that Europe is learning from them and will use Ukraine's manufacturing and other experience now. The bigger problem is that UK defence programmes tend to become unnecessarily complex, expensive and run over-schedule
With 80 new T90's per year, Russia will have more new tanks in 2 years time than the UK plans to have Challenger 3 tanks (150) by 2030.
80 tanks is less than one month's loss. Russia would need to be building 80 per week to rebuild their pre-war stocks.
Ukraine has arguably better drone warfare experience and capabilities than Russia, I'd like to think that Europe is learning from them and will use Ukraine's manufacturing and other experience now. The bigger problem is that UK defence programmes tend to become unnecessarily complex, expensive and run over-schedule
War is a brutal form of evolution and Ukraine is, unfortunately, going through this process now, having been forced to learn very quickly how to use drones at scale despite still being hampered by supply issues. Russian hackers* have repeatedly tried to interrupt the supply of parts for hobby drones (the ones that both sides use for anti-personnel hunter-killers) and Russia is now buying off the shelf larger drones from Iran to back up the domestic stuff. The limiting factor (for both sides) might actually be people now. Talented pilots will get attention and that means, in this case, casualties or death.
* - As a side note, Ukraine now has a world class defensive cyber capability thanks to the continuous attacks they have had from Russia and friends since 2014 and, more specifically, the latest invasion.
Also, militaries have a fine history of not learning the lessons of previous wars, or at least forgetting those that were learned the hard way. The US has had to re-learn the benefits of snipers as a force multiplier three or four times since they were first used in the war of Independence and the UK seems to be focussing on buying very expensive equipment for the Navy and RAF whilst ignoring the Army, the part of the military that has been and always will be required to take and hold physical chunks of land. SDRs are supposed to make fighting the next war easier, but it seems that the UK is falling behind on this part (see many stories on failing to recruit enough normal soldiers and even more pointed failures in recruiting talent for cybersecurity)
I wonder if Trump has badly misjudged this situation. Usually the democracies have found it easier to appease him, pay a bit more for steel, send a few border guards to somewhere, smile and wave. But when it comes to appeasing Putin, Europe can't continue with that policy as it's a direct existential threat to our society, so we have to respond in a more substantial way, and if Trump continiues his current path - extorting REE from Ukraine and money from Europe, there will be no choice but to quickly pivot away from the US as moral leader and guarantor of security, with inevitable economic fallout.
Trump is going to need to watch out if he pisses off the Ukranian forces by selling out the country.
Imagine what an angry drone operator could do to Trump on the golf course. The military tech of US armed forces in this area is months (or years) behind the battle-hardened Ukranians.
I thought Trump would have been booted out of office already considering he has managed to make every ally now look for alternatives to USA.
His boasts of ending the war looks an impossibility since his hand was forced to show incredible bias to the Russians .. any USA/Russian agreement is worthless. What other country aside from NK, Iran and possibly China will endorse it?
I think I've just seen suggestions that the US is threatening some level of military withdrawal from Europe unless Ukraine/Europe agrees to whatever Trump wants. Anyone seen that verified?
In some ways this could be a good thing. It could lift the scales from the eyes of those seduced by popularism. When the arch popularist sees his simple "solutions" to complex problems fail, predictably, one after the other, others will see it too.
Ukraine, Gaza, pissing off every ally, destroying US exports with tariff wars, letting the world's richest oligarch control government finances whilst the poorest Trump supporters see their paycheck stretching ever more thinly. When I say it's a good thing, clearly not for those on the recieving end of his policies. But a good thing because he will have a bright spotlight shone upon him and be found out.
Pound shop Trumps like Farage, around the world are (hopefully) about to see their hero exposed for the grifter he is. As are their supporters. I know this is a healthy dollop of wishful thinking, but even if I'm deluding myself I need to hold onto some hope that this ****ing clown show has a short shelf life.
I think I've just seen suggestions that the US is threatening some level of military withdrawal from Europe unless Ukraine/Europe agrees to whatever Trump wants. Anyone seen that verified?
I think he's going to do that anyway, whether or not Europe supports his nonsensical "plan". Europe is on its own now. We need to face up to that. So we should tell the orange **** to **** off and back Ukraine to the hilt.
We (Europe as a unite whole) need to aggressively play Trump at his own game. A mass withdrawl from NATO. Tell Trump he has 6 weeks to remove all US forces and infrastructure from European controlled bases (inc Diego Garcia).
Europe forms a new strategic defence partnership of former NATO members, including Canada. Let's call it the Collective Defence Association, or similar. Invite Ukraine to join ("it's not NATO, Vlad!"), and for added tantrums, invite Mexico too!
Trump wants people to march to his tune, not for USA to be totally cut adrift. I imagine he would backpedal pretty swiftly.
Better to let Trump take the US out of NATO rather than quit ourselves - Canada needs us as much as we need them.
That would be the Europe that has a quasi fascist governments in Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, narrowly avoided in France and a the AFD surging in Germany?
It's a house divided.
I'm sceptica
Donald, is that you? 😀
Big EU package to be announced next week that is supposed to be a good show of support for Ukraine. US' envoy talks with zelensky 'productive'. Let's see.
US military machine is so embedded in to so much of Europe's defence systems it's going to be painful to separate ourselves, but if we're to see the US as unreliable we're going to have to do it. The US had been saying for a while Europe need to stand on its own feet in terms of defence, as far back as obama. This isn't new, but as with all things trump it is dramatic.
In other news apparently the Ukrainians found a way of sabotaging drone goggles destined for Russia with explosives. Inspired by mossad's strike against hamas using pagers.
.....
Pound shop Trumps like Farage, around the world are (hopefully) about to see their hero exposed for the grifter he is. As are their supporters. I know this is a healthy dollop of wishful thinking, but even if I'm deluding myself I need to hold onto some hope that this **** clown show has a short shelf life.
I'm on the same page as you, Trump and Trumpism , and by proxy all his copycats in the UK , needs to fail and be seen to be a failure by normal voters . We just have to hope that he doesn't destroy everything on the way .
If you need an amusing pressure relief valve from the madness, this video hits the spot! Some of Pie's finest work. It absolutely eviscerates Trump on Ukraine and sticks the boot into Farage too, in a very pleasing manner! Very cathartic. Absolutely NSFW!
Yeah enjoyed that. Particularly cos Pie kept bringing it back home with the perpetual NSFW references to Farridge. I flip between him and President Dump being enemy #1
I wonder if Trump has badly misjudged this situation.
I think that you're absolutely right that he has.
The US requested that Kyiv cancel the press conference following Thursday's meeting between President Zelensky and US envoy Keith Kellogg, no statements, no questions, just a photo opportunity.
Yesterday, President Trump confirmed that Russia started the war on Ukraine, "Russia attacked, but they shouldn't have let him attack", blaming Joe Biden's government.
So a step-back and a fact-correction, but blamed Biden for the invasion. It might be The Art of the Deal, to throw opinions around, but it isn't acceptable in diplomacy
but it isn't acceptable in diplomacy
Trump is no diplomat. He probably doesn't consider it worthwhile. In fact I think international politics as a whole is sadly lacking in diplomats these days.
Russian recruitment is way down.
Since Trump thinks the US doesn't need European allies, why should the UK pay a lot of money to Mauritius so that the US can continue to use Diego Garcia? I hope Starmer will ask him.
Trump wouldn’t have a clue about what he’s talking about.
Trump probably thinks Diego Garcia is a Valet at Mar-a-lago and can't wait to deport him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnrg77ydjo
"There can be no settlement unless we have a negotiation involving both Russia and Ukraine."
"We are however, also clear of the risk that Russian President Putin poses to our interest."
https://apple.news/AIU00_EYtTTSfg6o3c5fsNg
“If there is peace for Ukraine, if you really need me to leave my post, I am ready…I can exchange it for Nato,” Zelensky said during a forum in Kyiv on Sunday.
“I am focusing on security today and not in 20 years time. I don’t plan to be in power for 10 years.”
Ukraine shoots down its first drone with a laser! 🙂 meanwhile Russia deploys donkeys
Amazing or depressing, in the U.N. resolution urging Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine, Serbia and Somalia voted for and the USA against along with North Korea.
It does say it all when USA goes against former allies as UK and France, and instead sides with Russia, Israel, North Korea, Sudan, Belarus, Hungary ..
Trump has 4 more years to burn bridges. Where will the USA / European relationship be at that stage?
It's interesting to read that Putin is offering Trump trade in rare earths etc too .. probably the ones on stolen Ukrainian territory too.
Depressing. And troubling.
America is no longer even pretending to be interested in freedom or democracy.
I have said it before, Trump needs to feel some heat and to know that his forces are not welcome here and on UK "territories" if he is not clearly allied and aligned with us. Give notice that US forces need to leave Diego Garcia, Lakenheath etc, and crucially, get likeminded allies to do the same. I actually don't think it would come to that, but he needs a strong line to be taken with him.
Amazing or depressing, in the U.N. resolution urging Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine, Serbia and Somalia voted for and the USA against along with North Korea.
I would love Starmer to drop that into the White House press conference when he meets Trump, maybe with a follow up "you're either with the forces of freedom and democracy or you're against us".
Put the little shit on the spot in front of a US and international audience and make him justify that to his Republican voters.
America is no longer even pretending to be interested in freedom or democracy.
The point with a UN General Assembly (GA) vote is that carries world opinion. Two resolutions on Ukraine were carried by the GA; one from Europe and one from the US that was modified by the GA to support Ukraine. The US is now visibly out of step with the world and not just Europe
The UN Security Council only has 15 members and votes on Ukraine can be vetoed by Russia in any event so, although legally binding, are pointless.
I would love Starmer to drop that into the White House press conference when he meets Trump, maybe with a follow up "you're either with the forces of freedom and democracy or you're against us".
It's diplomatic grist to the Ukrainian mill in future meetings with President Trump, starting Thursday with PM Starmer. That you're either with us or against us is a George W line and I'd expect Starmer to be more sophisticated 🙂
I'd expect Starmer to be more sophisticated
Considering who Starmer is up against, I'm not sure sophistication is the best option.
US has presented a new minerals agreement to Ukraine. It's expected to be agreed by Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers. Significant for me is this,
Under the revised terms, the fund will receive 50% of revenues from Ukraine’s resource-related infrastructure, including ports. Joint ownership will be determined based on actual financial contributions, and while management will be shared, the U.S. will have decision-making authority under its own laws. https://kyivindependent.com/breaking-kyiv-washington-reach-agreement-on-minerals-deal/
That could include Ukraine's Black Sea port of Odessa and Crimea, which has facilities for titanium dioxide production, and many other areas currently under Russian occupation where minerals are either mined or processed.
It isn't a guarantee of security but Russia might think very carefully about joint Ukraine-US-managed/owned properties, assuming that Russia is excluded from the deal
The connected article is worth reading as well https://kyivindependent.com/explainer-did-trump-lie-about-350-billion-aid-to-ukraine-and-does-kyiv-have-to-repay-it/
That stinks. Ukraine will cede sovereignty to the US to save it from Russia?
Or possibly the Ukrainians have managed to use the US greed to outmaneuver Putin. The war and indiscriminate bombings won't happen with US companies stealing lithium for Musk.
On the face of it, this does seem cynical and shameful. A rapacious US, mugging Ukraine in it's darkest hour.
But and it's a big but... If the US is offering a real security guarantee in return, then just maybe it's worth it for Ukraine. If the US are genuinely prepared to square up to future Russian aggression against Ukraine then it might have legs.
Even if they are only doing it to protect the mineral rights with Ukrainian sovereignty as a side benefit. Anything less than that though would stink and would amount to the sort of imperial asset stripping that would make the Spanish conquistadors blush.
Maybe this is close the peace plan Ukraine touted around last year and the orange gibbon was trying to get even more.
That stinks. Ukraine will cede sovereignty to the US to save it from Russia?
it’s a protection racket worthy of any small time Mafia outfit.
Ill bet that if Zelenskyy sign up that tbe terms are very different to what trump.claimed they would be
Looks to me like Trump and Putin are dividing up Ukraine's resources between them and they've presented Ukraine with a fait accompli. I wish I worked in an industry where I had the facility to scrap contracts with US companies - as far as I'm concerned Trump could do with the same sanctions we've applied to Russian oligarchs at this point.
Looks to me like Trump and Putin are dividing up Ukraine's resources between them and they've presented Ukraine with a fait accompli. I wish I worked in an industry where I had the facility to scrap contracts with US companies - as far as I'm concerned Trump could do with the same sanctions we've applied to Russian oligarchs at this point.
That's my big concern as well - yes, Trump has made a deal with Ukraine but what has he also agreed with Putin? Only a fool or a desperate nation would trust him (though I agree what he tells his supporters is in the deal is likely to not be the same as what is actually in the deal)
But and it's a big but... If the US is offering a real security guarantee in return, then just maybe it's worth it for Ukraine.
Seems they are not. I was uncharacteristically naive optimistic about Trump last night. It's a mugging, plain and simple 😕
Yep, on reflection, it's a typical "offer you cannot refuse" from the pound shop godfather and his fellow cartel associate in the kremlin. No mention of Russian reparations or of European participation.
The mineral deal will be promoted by the idiots as Trump getting a great deal - but the reality is, at what cost to the USA?
The deal was initially proposed by Zelensky, and Trump in his lack of wisdom, decided to try and get more. And probably done so, but at the cost of the USAs reputation .. already European countries are looking away from the USA regarding defence capabilities. I have no doubt in the long-term Trump has lost the USA much much more money.
In WW2, before the USA entered the war we paid them for arms with gold or US dollars. When fighting for your life you sometimes have to do things you don't want to do. We paid the final payment for war debt to the USA in 2006.
If Ukraine can keep the USA on board by tying them in financially then it sounds like the right thing to do.
I was about to say what Murray said, they do have form for this.
Also on a WW2 theme, I hope Churchill is proved right, again. "America can always be relied upon to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility"
.
.
I'm sure most on here know the answer, would love to see someone ask Trump. When was the only time since it's inception that Article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked, and which nation was it in aid of?
We paid the final payment for war debt to the USA in 2006
I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to recall the length of time taken to repay wasn't just on account of how much was owed. Someone might be able to clarify or dismiss that without much thread drift?
From Wikipedia:
Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies delivered after the cutoff date, so the U.S. charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease was ended on September 2, 1945, following the surrender of Japan. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post-war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the United States. Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[84] During the war, the US lent Britain 88 million ounces (2.5 million kilograms) of silver. In 1946, Britain switched its coinage from silver to cupronickel as the price of silver had risen by 250% during the war due to its market scarcity, while the price of nickel matched the stamped coinage value; this recovered 20m ounces of silver per year for five years as the old coinage was progressively retired, generating a £30m net financial surplus after the US silver loan had been repaid.[85]
The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on December 31, 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years and during a sixth year not allowed), was made by Britain on December 29, 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment, Ed Balls, Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury, formally issued thanks to the U.S. for its wartime support.[86]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Repayment
When was the only time since it's inception that Article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked, and which nation was it in aid of?
I can't see Denmark responding so favourably next time !!
If Ukraine can keep the USA on board by tying them in financially then it sounds like the right thing to do.
I'd agree.
President Zelensky had to get ahead of other countries and time isn't on his side. Russia and Australia are both offering the US a buy-in on their mineral reserves.
We'll have to wait to see the details, but much of Ukraine's minerals subject to this deal have yet to be exploited. Mining and production doesn't happen overnight so in some ways it kick-starts an industry that Ukraine doesn't have yet and is unlikely to have in the foreseeable future.
The deal excludes resources that already contribute to Ukraine's state budget, meaning it will not cover operations by Naftogaz and Ukrnafta, the country's largest oil and gas producers. https://kyivindependent.com/breaking-kyiv-washington-reach-agreement-on-minerals-deal/
If this works out as President Zelensky no doubt envisages then it isn't ideal but could be an overall positive deal.
Trump now seems to be offering military support (if the deal is signed)? We don't know the details yet, Zelynsky's traveling to Washington on Friday - so we'll probably know then.
Anyone else got a hunch that Trump will try and tweak the deal one last time as Zelenskys pen is hovering over the agreement?
Russia has made a similar offer from territories it doesn't own but has captured....
Totally feasible trump could play them both against each other and get a better deal... but who would he actually sign up with. That will be crucial. And will he honour that commitment?
Ukraine liberates another small settlement in the Pokrovsk salient. Is the tide turning?
BBC News site indicating that there are no security guarantees in the deal at present.
If there's nothing in place before he travels to Washington, is there any point Zelensky going?
As Trump has absolutely no qualms about tearing up international agreements, I hope as soon as Trump is removed from power that is what Ukraine does.
BBC News site indicating that there are no security guarantees in the deal at present.
If there's nothing in place before he travels to Washington, is there any point Zelensky going?
It's thought of as a political agreement like the Budapest memoranda, which Ukraine originally understood was binding. Bits can be tacked on either at the time of first signing or later as additions and amendments.
President Zelenskyy isn't under any illusions about political agreements, saying in 2022 "If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt." https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-security-conference/
Eventually it'll be more like a comprehensive legal contract, but he can walk away if it doesn't develop as he thinks that it should, until it becomes binding
President Trump's theory is that "We will be on the land and that way there is going to be automatic security because nobody is going to be messing around with our people when we are there" and he is "not going to make security guarantees beyond... very much". "We're going to have Europe do that, because it's in... you know, we're talking about Europe is their next door neighbour"
There's a reasonable series of summaries here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvg1402yyvet
At times things can only make sense afterwards. A demonstration that there was in fact an intelligent plan all along that you simply couldn't see.
Unfortunately with Trump there is zero chance it's that in play - he, or Musk, has assembled a group of useful idiots to rob the USA of pretty much everything at the cost of USA citizens and former USA allies.
So depressing to watch this play out so badly day after day. I think it's time for me to just avoid the news for the next 4 yrs and keep my fingers crossed.
Talking of Europe supporting Ukraine... A friend sent me this link this morning:
https://english.nv.ua/business/sweden-funds-two-gas-turbines-for-ukraine-expected-soon-50493411.html
Each of these turbines should provide power for 185,000 people and are part of a 500 MSEK package Sweden is providing to Ukraine. Not loaning, giving. We've also agreed a bilateral agreement on defence.
Europe _is_ doing its part and not blatantly looking to rape the country in return.
Europe _is_ doing its part and not blatantly looking to rape the country in return.
It's also providing a real-time fact checking service. Here's President Macron in action
During their joint Oval Office appearance on Monday, Macron interrupted Trump when the latter said that Europe was being paid back 60% of the aid it contributed to Kyiv over the last three years of war.
Touching Trump's arm to interject, Macron said, "No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort: it was through, like the U.S., loans, guarantees, grants," Macron said. "And we provided real money, to be clear."
After Macron's comments, Trump smiled and replied, "If you believe that, it's okay with me." https://abcnews.go.com/International/macron-warns-trump-careful-ukraine-fact-checks-white/story?id=119157061
So Europe provides the security and the US reaps the rewards? Is that the deal?
I hope that behind the scenes Europe and Ukraine are putting together some sort of deal so that Ukraine doesn't have to prostitute itself and take whatever deal Trump is trying.
If the deal is as poor as I suspect, then the rest of the world needs to make it clear that is not good enough for the Ukraine and puts at risk the rest of Europe and the free world.
It feels like Ukraine's current willingness with the rare earth deal, is to try and force US to security guarantees or at least to make the peace deal more favourable to Ukraine than Putin. It's hard to see the deal working without a good peace deal (as transparently transactional as the are behaving). Despite Team Orange making noises that Europe will supply the security, they will have to be a part of it.
On Starmer's visit today, I feel ominous about the timing of the Tate brother's release, and the fact that some kind of hideous right wing homecoming/media circus is going to clash with Starmer's visit, and how much of it may have been orchestrated that way? There may be no link at all, but I also wouldn't put it past the current US administration as a way of showing their disagreement and providing some discomfort alongside the Ukraine/trade talks with Starmer...
I feel ominous about the timing of the Tate brother's release, and the fact that some kind of hideous right wing homecoming/media circus is going to clash with Starmer's visit
They'll be in Trump's cabinet next week. Still at least if all the shit is in one place it's easier to keep an eye on.
So Europe provides the security and the US reaps the rewards? Is that the deal?
It isn't that clear cut yet, but Europe had 10 years of invasion to get its act together and didn't. It's acknowledged that the US "backstop" is needed and that's going to cost
Sir Keir Starmer has warned that Vladimir Putin could invade Ukraine again unless the US provides a security guarantee, as he prepares to meet Donald Trump for crucial talks in Washington.
The prime minister will push a reluctant Trump to provide a US backstop to a British and French-led peacekeeping force in the country.
Starmer, who will meet the US president at the White House on Thursday, is prepared to commit British troops but believes that US promises are vital to “deter Putin from coming again”. https://www.itv.com/news/2025-02-26/ukraine-needs-us-security-guarantees-to-deter-putin-starmer-to-warn-trump
Once the US gets mine construction under way then the "backstop" is implied, but that won't happen until Russia leaves Ukraine. We'll see what PM Starmer comes away with. There isn't a guarantee that a new US administration will think differently in four years, e.g. the Doha Agreement.
I hope that the lessons from the Doha Agreement on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are remembered by all concerned. I'm pretty sure that President Zelensky understands them and is prepared to frame his conditions accordingly https://kyivindependent.com/in-negotiations-with-russia-trump-is-repeating-his-complete-disaster-peace-deal-with-taliban/