Ukraine

Posted by: franksinatra

↑

Should Zelensky step aside in the hope that a successor could establish a better relationship with Trump, for the good of Ukraine?

I don't think Trump's original grudge is with Zelensky personally - Trump manufactured the row because he wants to ditch Ukraine, so he'll do the same to a successor. My understanding is that Zelensky's reputation among his citizens has (on balance) been enhanced by his response to Trump.

For China, Russia and the USA talking territory has to be a win. They aren’t hiding their desire to do the same. Only problem is that some of the places China wants to take is also claimed by Russia. Unlike Taiwan, which is looking more and more at risk.

I don't think Trump's original grudge is with Zelensky personally

trump is likely still upset that Zelensky wouldn't fabricate any evidence of bidens involvement with corruption in Ukraine in 2020, not to mention the point vance raised about Zelensky visiting a US ammo factory during the last election campaign 

Just watched Newsnight and the Canadian foreign minister was genuinely concerned by US belligerence and said Canadians no longer found it funny describing their country as the 51 state an d referring to Trudeau as a governor.

Hope Trump's not got similar ideas that Putin had.

not to mention the point vance raised about Zelensky visiting a US ammo factory during the last election campaign 

Trump probably thinks he walked round with a daffodil spy camera to get manufacturing secrets, and on the tour he filled up his pockets with artillery shells and rockets that he didn't pay for.

Of course Zelensky would visit an ammo factory in the country providing him with the stuff to support the government that was arranging the assistance.  He'd have done it if Trump had been president as well.

The Canada thing has gone quiet on this side of tbe Atlantic. Will he turn his fire that way if Ukraine gets "resolved"?

So JD Pants pissed on the graves of British (and others) soldiers yesterday and suggested that American mining contractors would be a more effective security guarantee that 20,000 soldiers from some random European nation. Despicable just doesn’t seem to cover it anymore!

Should Zelensky stand down? Trump is clearly driven by personality, grudges and relationships. Should Zelensky step aside in the hope that a successor could establish a better relationship with Trump, for the good of Ukraine?

I think that Ukraine would be poorer without President Zelensky who's done a pretty good job under the circumstances.

What President Trump fails to understand is that there's a democracy behind most states and Zelensky is doing what he feels is right for the electorate and as such he's a strong leader.

Zelensky hasn't bowed to Russian pressure and he won't bow to the US and resign. Why? Because Trump v1.0 repeatedly shown himself to be someone who cannot be trusted, e.g. Trump, via Speaker Mike Johnson, obstructed US weapon supplies to Ukraine for several months in late 2023/2024, costing lives in Ukraine and so far this term hasn't sent a single thing to Ukraine while stopping USAID. He's already started to resupply Israel with weapons during this term, while Israel and Egypt were already exempted from USAID cuts.

If he needed confirmation on Trump v2.0 he got that on the 28th and again on the 3rd with the threat to stop weapons supplies.That was a massive business faux pas because although Trump can stop Joe Biden's off the shelf drawdowns, he shouldn't interfere in signed business contracts between Ukraine and US manufacturers, which is where the longer-term supplies are sourced. That's one reason now for international mistrust of US manufacturers

↑

So JD Pants pissed on the graves of British (and others) soldiers yesterday and suggested that American mining contractors would be a more effective security guarantee that 20,000 soldiers from some random European nation.

I find the whole idea of American miners being an effective security guarantee bizarre really, what civilian would agree to go to a warzone as a human shield when their president is cosying up to the aggressor?

I suspect if they were there we would see attacks on these mines like we have seen on the nuclear installations at Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl that Russia will say was Ukraine and vice versa. It seems clear who Trump would side with.  

its a ludicrous position - there were plenty of American contractors in Ukraine prior to the invasion.

If US run mines/industry was overrun by Russian military, Agent Orange would just shrug and work with Putin anyway.

It's a non-starter of a 'deal'. First thing Russia would do is send a drone over, kill some workers/civilians, claim it was a Ukrainian drone - and see what action is (or isn't) taken. Then the peace is shown to be weak and the door ajar to invasion v.3...

Posted by: .dt78

↑

I'm honestly starting to think that China is the only one who can step in and sort out this mess, its like a bunch of squabbling school kids at the moment

China are sitting back and laughing, they are Russia's biggest ally, and any concession of land by Ukraine to the Russian's just legitimises China then going into Taiwan for their own land-grab, they have had troops amassed on border for a long time. 

This is one of the issues, it has gone past the war in Ukraine, you allow Putin to win there, and you then allow the worlds other autocrats a fair crack at whatever land grab they fancy, then where do you sit on countries like India and Turkey who have ignored sanctions for the continuation of cheap Russian gas, this is why the whole conflict could blow up into something so much bigger. 

How things can change in just 45 days. who needs friends like this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cly28qvp83pt

Its almost as if the Mango-Mussolini had a string of 6 bankruptcies and had no credit line with US banks for his failed property businesses and had shored them up with lots of Russian money...  

↑

So JD Pants pissed on the graves of British (and others) soldiers yesterday and suggested that American mining contractors would be a more effective security guarantee that 20,000 soldiers from some random European nation. Despicable just doesn’t seem to cover it anymore!

His interview made me chuckle. I can't get upset by the ramblings of a bloke who's military pinnacle was as a tubby photographer. Every HQ motor transport section has a fat gobshite of an NCO like him, even if he's talking (of sorts) about friends of mine. 

When a ****wit acts like a ****wit, it should come as no surprise. No matter the heinous shit they chat. 

What possible justification has the Trump regime got for denying access to Ukraine for intelligence - other than overtly helping his mass murdering mate in the Kremlin.

Posted by: scud

↑

just legitimises China then going into Taiwan for their own land-grab, they have had troops amassed on border for a long time. 

Agree with the principle, just one minor geographical detail 😉 

Latest episode of News Agents discussing the idea that China does not want an expansionist US/Russian axis, and may consider siding with Europe/RoW.

Interesting idea, especially to hear Emily Maitlis being a bit sweary.

Posted by: Caher

↑

What possible justification has the Trump regime got for denying access to Ukraine for intelligence - other than overtly helping his mass murdering mate in the Kremlin.

Came on to say the same thing. What a petty, horrible orange cxxt. I can't ever remember feeling such disgust towards another human being in my life. I despise every single thing about the man.

The aim is to pressure Ukraine into surrendering so that Trump can claim he ended the war.  The problem for Trump is other folk have morals.  Something he has no notion of.  

Posted by: relapsed_mandalorian

↑

I can't get upset by the ramblings of a bloke who's military pinnacle was as a tubby photographer

Something which is always worth bearing in mind when talking about the relative military budgets is how in the USA a reasonable part is used to provide what any civilised country provides to everyone.

Sign up for four years to get your free education and healthcare and other benefits for life. Obviously got a bit awkward for a decade or so with a real risk of getting shot at but is returning to normal now and as Vance shows if you plan well you can mostly avoid that inconvenience.

Jonathan Chait sums Trump up in a headline:

The Simple Explanation for Why Trump Turned Against Ukraine

The president’s defenders ignore one possibility: He just likes Putin.

The president’s defenders ignore one possibility: He just likes Putin

I can't read the whole article but it seems to suggest that the issue is personal to Trump, however that doesn't seem to be the case as he enjoys very significant support from US voters with regards to his stance towards Ukraine.

An opinion poll taken straight after the disastrous press conference with Zelensky suggested that 62% thought that Zelensky had been disrespectful, that will clearly include a lot of Democrat voters.

If you look at many aspects of Trump's attitude towards Europe, Ukraine, and Russia, he typically enjoys the support of at least 45% of Americans and often a clear majority.

There are some astonishing findings in the various polls in the article below including that 35% said they considered western European nations to be “friendly but not allies”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/03/ukraine-russia-support-poll

For me the most surprising finding was this :

But broader support for the current US foreign policy appears more mixed. Sixteen per cent said the US should take a leading role in the world; 67% said it should work equally alongside other allies; and 17% said it should not get involved in the world’s issues.

Who would have thought that only 16% of Americans think that the United States should take a leading role in the world? I guess that involvement in wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, has taken its toll?

With 35% of Americans not considering European nations to be American allies and only 16% believing that the US should have a leading role in the world, I think this is a wake-up call for British and European politicians and voters, and we need to stop kidding ourselves.

These attitudes won't have come as the result of Trump becoming the US a month or so ago, in fact they might help to explain why he won the presidential election so comfortably.

Russia has been claiming that President Zelensky isn't the rightful leader of Ukraine for months and that elections should be held

March 5 (Reuters) - Four senior members of President Donald Trump's entourage have held discussions with some of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's top political opponents, Politico reported on Wednesday.

Talks were held with Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko and senior members of the party of Former President Petro Poroshenko, Politico reported, citing three Ukrainian lawmakers and a U.S. Republican foreign policy expert.

Discussions were held on whether Ukraine could have quick presidential elections, according to the report. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/top-trump-allies-hold-talks-with-zelenskiys-political-opponents-politico-reports-2025-03-06/

Ukraines parliament recently voted overwhelmingly to back Zelenskyy

Posted by: thols2

↑

Jonathan Chait sums Trump up in a headline:

The Simple Explanation for Why Trump Turned Against Ukraine

The president’s defenders ignore one possibility: He just likes Putin.

I'm beginning to wonder at what point the US starts arming Russia in this war...

The latest Newsagents podcast had a suggestion that US belligerence towards Europe might well pivot Europe towards China. Not a bad suggestion as they make better tat than the US. It would be interests of China to make a deal with Ukraine for its lithium.

Those rumours of back channel conversations with Ukraine opposition leaders is a bit disturbing, if true. The down side for the US, is that they all seem united against the idea of elections and back Zelenskyy...I know it might be to warm them up for post-peace deal scenarios. Either way, it's time to look at US actions and prepare for the worst, rather than living in false hope of it all coming good. Some kind of acceptable peace deal might magically appear, and Ukraine allies are still working hard to push for that, but I think they also know there is a less hopeful alternative, which they are also preparing for.

I may have missed them, but I don't recall seeing any of Paul Warburg's videos posted before. I find them considered and informative. This is particularly relevant at the moment. A glimmer of optimism for Ukraine.

Posted by: ernielynch

↑

There are some astonishing findings in the various polls in the article below including that 35% said they considered western European nations to be “friendly but not allies”

I'm guessing that may be connected to a lack of broader education. Not having a go at Americans, I'm gobsmacked how little my younger colleagues know of 20th century history/geopolitics,  but they didn't have grandparents in WW2

I like Paul’s YouTubes

With 35% of Americans not considering European nations to be American allies and only 16% believing that the US should have a leading role in the world, I think this is a wake-up call for British and European politicians and voters, and we need to stop kidding ourselves.

But

67% said it should work equally alongside other allies

Doesn't say who those allies should be though 100-35=65 which is close to 67% and that suggests to me most Americans think the US should work with Europe.

Most Americans probably think Europe is just another state that they haven't visited 

That 35% are the maga morons.

Posted by: Steve

↑

I'm guessing that may be connected to a lack of broader education. Not having a go at Americans, I'm gobsmacked how little my younger colleagues know of 20th century history/geopolitics,  but they didn't have grandparents in WW2

History is easier to remember when you have nice well defined wars with clear beginning and end dates to act as a reference point (and relatives who were actively participating in the war, of course).

Wars these days tend to begin and end ambiguously.  If you asked me to describe the history of Iraq over the last 20 years I can more or less remember when it was invaded.  After that, I'm not so sure what happened and when it 'finished'.

There's a lot of history and it's not all centered around the UK.  Not that I would have gotten that impression from my history classes in school.  As far as that was concerned, history was the First World War, what happened between the wars, and the Second World War.

When we (ie, those of us of a certain age educated in the UK) collectively had the same highly focused history education it's easy to think those who don't have the same grasp of dates and places we do to be lacking education.  We're now a quarter of the way through this century.  I don't think it's surprising that the relevance of the previous century is fading.

I hope people in the non-MAGA world hold the Trump regime directly responsible for lives and infrastructure now lost due to them pulling away intelligence and support from Ukraine.

Normally this sort of thing would warrant it's own thread, but not these days...

Tusk pointed out Ukraine was invaded after it got rid of its own nuclear arsenal, adding Warsaw would like to acquire its own nuclear weapons, however remote a possibility that may be.

 

"Today, it is clear that we would be safer if we had our own nuclear arsenal, that is beyond doubt. In any case the road to that would be very long and there would have to be a consensus too," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy83r93l208o

And that was dropped into an article talking about training all adult males for war and increasing the standing army to 500,000.

I can see a number of European states wanting nuclear weapons if the US is serious about isolationism. 

Not great, but it makes sense

I can see a number of European states wanting nuclear weapons if the US is serious about isolationism.

Not great, but it makes sense

Unfortunately the US has thrown a wrench into the nuclear non-proliferated works.

A European umbrella held by the UK and France would have been sufficient a couple of months ago, but states are seeing a world where nuclear powers can withhold support on a whim.

Can we rely on someone else, sheltered by several countries and a prevailing wind, to launch their nukes in our defence? No? We'd better get our own then

Another advancement of the Doomsday Clock

It’s actually worse than that. If Russia and the US are effectively allies, then MAD is no longer in play. So a first strike by Russia is much more likely if the target isn’t the US.

So a first strike by Russia is much more likely if the target isn’t the US.

I wouldn't say "much" more. Consider the population centres of Russia; a fair chunk of the population live in Moscow and St Petersburg (around 18-20mn.)

Istanbul is the only city in Europe that has a larger population than Moscow (technically, it straddles the Asia/Europe border) 

While a country has strong conventional defences then it's unlikely to resort to nuclear weapons, which can be a two-edged sword because to match Russia the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) and Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction are already up for discussion. Lithuania withdrew from the CCM three days ago

Russia isn't a signatory to the CCM and the US was able to supply Ukraine (also not signatories) when supplies of "normal" unitary munitions were hard to get.

Posted by: crazy-legs

↑

I'm beginning to wonder at what point the US starts arming Russia in this war...

Probably unlikely, but...

So US intelligence sharing and assistance is switched back on and Ukraine agrees to a 30 day ceasefire.   Onus now on Russia to reciprocate. Also, more positive noises from the US about a "secure" peace for Ukraine.  Without knowing how much of the family silver Ukraine has had to agree to give up, a pause in the slaughter has got to be good news?  

It's a positive sign, depending on how much Ukraine is having to sacrifice to achieve it. Progress on the mineral deal as well.

Is there still radio silence from russia atm? I'm not on Twitter/X anymore so a bit out of the loop... 

Seems so. They've made noise before about not wanting a short ceasefire, as it will just allow Ukraine to rearm and regroup, even though that also applies to them. And even though they have the power to turn a short one into a permanent one.

They are going to look pretty bad (yeah, I know) in the eyes of the world if they refuse. I can even see China putting pressure on them. 

I've binned X too, bluesky is just as good a source of info on Ukraine. Better even, as there's no siegheiling south African oligarch pulling the strings and spreading Russian disinformation.

The acid test really is whether or not Ukraine is prepared to cede territory. Rubio has stated that he wants to see if Ukraine is "prepared to do difficult things" which most folks have interpreted as meaning allowing Russia to retain what it's invaded. 

Has Russia indicated it wants a ceasefire?

Posted by: nickc

↑

Rubio has stated that he wants to see if Ukraine is "prepared to do difficult things" which most folks have interpreted as meaning allowing Russia to retain what it's invaded. 

I cannot believe there's an expectation that Russia can keep all it's taken. That would be a horrendous outcome for Ukraine and Europe.

I can see Ukraine may have to concede some territory, which is a tragedy and potentially sows the seeds for future conflicts. And obviously Russia will want the bits with the minerals.

The acid test really is whether or not Ukraine is prepared to cede territory. Rubio has stated that he wants to see if Ukraine is "prepared to do difficult things" which most folks have interpreted as meaning allowing Russia to retain what it's invaded. 

Has Russia indicated it wants a ceasefire?

Has Russia indicated it wants a ceasefire?