Forum menu
The only stick we have as Europeans to beat Trump is NOT buying arms from the Americans. The US military-industrial-complex would soon turn against him if we started to up our capacity in any meaningful way.
Does it matter? Defence is one of the biggest employers and foreign earners for the US. Saying no to European arms sales will hit them hard with their own voters and in the wallet
Especially since a lot of US defence spending is carefully spread out across key states so politicians are reluctant to cut back. If that looks like it will be impacted then it will start making them nervous.
Another key move that I heard highlighted, was for Europe to make the bold move of unlocking all of the Russian frozen assets for Ukraine/Europe to use. That would plug a huge gap in funding when the US turn tail (~£300bn apparently), it removes Trumps leverage over Ukraine, and it also weakens Putin.
There's a lot of nervousness over this within Europe. Using interest gained was deemed acceptable because it doesn't violate sovereign funds, i.e the 300bn, but going the extra step might precipitate a withdrawal of investments held in European institutions. It might also be illegal
If the central banks of all major currencies agreed then it would be safer for Europe because there's nowhere else to invest and legality would be established by international precedent. IANAE
This is worth reading.
Sorry, couldn't get past the typo in the sub header.
for sure. It just doesn't have the capacity at the moment - but that is certainly going to change.
FWIW I've had 3 or 4 direct approaches (not random agencies) from companies involved in the design and manufacture of military equipment since xmas. All looking to expand into new areas of defence (i haven't actually done anything defence, or defence adjacent for 25 years, and that was engine bits for the Typhoon/EJ200, not even interesting bits...)
I've not been contacted by anyone in any sort of defence industry for probably 10 years, and that was my previous employer, who would randomly contact me whenever anything came up at the same level/role/team i was at when i left...
Obviously European countries could find the money to support Ukraine if it wanted to, but do we actually have the hardware or would we just end up buying it from the US anyway?
The UK was the original Joint Strike Fighter programme partner with the US, provided 10% of JSF development costs and produces F35 components, along with Italy and Japan who have built complete F35s (I realise that Ukraine doesn't have F35).
We have the ability, but US companies also provide components that aren't produced elsewhere. It's almost impossible to pull away from these sort of joint ventures for any of the partners.
There are plenty of systems that are used in Ukraine that don't originate in the US, but we'd have to ramp production massively, which is where the US volume is essential.
Examples: the UK has rebuilt old UK and Russian kit for Ukraine (there's plenty of that in the world), other countries are rebuilding old stock Leopard tanks and the US is still obligated to provide kit under Presidential Drawdown from Joe Biden, so it isn't urgent yet and US supplies will continue for now
Top class baiting by the Star (of all papers).
Oh come on, if donkeys were a key military unit, they’d be using them from the start. Rather it’s a symptom of the terrible state that Russian logistics have been reduced to.
Meanwhile Ukraine is making 200,000 FPV drones a month.
That was kinda my point though, we focus on 200,000 drones, and ignore that Russia advanced 40km more than it retreated (however you want to spin that) apparently on donkeys.
It's a stalemate, the USA is doing a rug pull, and Russia seems to keep finding ever deeper barrels to scrape the bottom of to generate a military advantage.
Well, if you turn out to be correct, which country is next? None in the region can hold Russian military force at bay alone
Just because it's a shit outcome doesn't mean it's not going to be correct.
As for who's next. I don't think anyone is. The war in Ukraine has reached a level of attrition where neither side now has the manpower or hardware to fight it properly. Russia isn't going to turn around and drive it's Soviet era tanks, exhausted conscripts and elite donkey logistics units north to Poland.
As for who's next. I don't think anyone is.
They won't do it straight away, in the same way they didn't invade Ukraine straight after annexing Crimea. But they'd do it while Trump is still president.
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.
It all hinges on Trump and Putin still being in power.
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.”