Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
So the US defense minister has revealed to not only be a drunk but also a treasonous piece of filth.
He pretty much advocating surrender to Putin, saying Ukraine should get neither their territory back nor real security guarantees. And while slavishly rolling over for Putin saying it was somehow Europe, not the traitors of the US were being bad allies
He pretty much advocating surrender to Putin, saying Ukraine should get neither their territory back nor real security guarantees. And while slavishly rolling over for Putin saying it was somehow Europe, not the traitors of the US were being bad allies
Trump demands $500B in rare earths from Ukraine for continued support
“We have to get something. We can’t continue to pay this money,” U.S. president says.
www.politico.eu
'Let's do a deal' — Zelensky tells Reuters he's open to Trump's mineral partnership
President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed in an interview with Reuters on Feb. 7 that Ukraine was not offering to "give away" its resources but seeking a mutually beneficial partnership.
kyivindependent.com
Trump going all Hank Shrader about Ukraine's minerals doesn't really combine well with his current moodswing. He says he wants Ukraine to pay for help....but he also says the US will abandon them rather than give any help.Trump demands $500B in rare earths from Ukraine for continued support
“We have to get something. We can’t continue to pay this money,” U.S. president says.'Let's do a deal' — Zelensky tells Reuters he's open to Trump's mineral partnership
President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed in an interview with Reuters on Feb. 7 that Ukraine was not offering to "give away" its resources but seeking a mutually beneficial partnership.
"Nice country you've got there. Be a shame if something should happen to it."Trump demands $500B in rare earths from Ukraine for continued support
“We have to get something. We can’t continue to pay this money,” U.S. president says.'Let's do a deal' — Zelensky tells Reuters he's open to Trump's mineral partnership
President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed in an interview with Reuters on Feb. 7 that Ukraine was not offering to "give away" its resources but seeking a mutually beneficial partnership.
I'd ask "how do you get the metals if Russia controls the land at the end of the war?" but he clearly doesn't give a shit. Odds are he won't even remember
Yeah, looks like Putin's going to win after all. Sure, very costly, and Russia was made to look weak, but he could well get to keep large slabs of the country he wanted to conquer, get a peace deal to rebuild and fix the serious issues demonstrated with the Russian military, and watch this space in 5-10 years.
Trump always wants to get stuff and have other people or countries pay for it.
And while he got away with this as a businessman because fighting a billionair in court over unpaid invoices is often not worth it in the US, he usually fails with this in international relations. He did not get his mexican paid wall. He did not get his protection extortion money from Korea. Even the tarriffs are basically this in his opinion(other countries pay and it goes to the treasury and as a result the trade impalance shrinks - not that it actually works this way but he has a simple mind) and he never got what he wanted from those.
He will also not get the Gaza strip for the US while Jordan and Egypt take in the Palestinians and the saudis pay for them.
And he won't get his Ukraine wishes that boil down to him getting to be the peace deal broker and Europe provide all the future funds and all the future guarantees taking all the risks alone while also buying more US weapons and the Ukraine gives him valuable ressources as thank you.
One thing that the...''interesting'' fellows that claim that abandoning Ukraine and letting Putin do ethnic cleansing is ''just a way to get peace'' don't seem to realize is the message the US is sending. Or they likely do understand the message and agree with it.
In the same week the vermin in the White House both unveiled plans to steal Gaza and kick out/kill its residents, as well as plans to legalize Putin's invasion of Ukraine. The message this sends is that its not only ''realistic'', but glorious for regional powers to invade and ethnically cleanse their neighbors for the glory of empire.
So if the US and Bibi can get Gaza after kicking out/killings its inhabitants, and if Putin is allowed to advance into Ukraine and beyond and kick out/kill the people that live there then why would it end there? Why wouldn't Erdogan be allowed to anex Cyprus and Syria? Or Xi allowed to annex Taiwan, or Uganda be allowed to take parts of Congo?
After all the US and Russia both joined forces to normalize this behavior, with the US even decided to go be implicit in it in regards to Gaza and likely Greenland too.
In the same week the vermin in the White House both unveiled plans to steal Gaza and kick out/kill its residents, as well as plans to legalize Putin's invasion of Ukraine. The message this sends is that its not only ''realistic'', but glorious for regional powers to invade and ethnically cleanse their neighbors for the glory of empire.
So if the US and Bibi can get Gaza after kicking out/killings its inhabitants, and if Putin is allowed to advance into Ukraine and beyond and kick out/kill the people that live there then why would it end there? Why wouldn't Erdogan be allowed to anex Cyprus and Syria? Or Xi allowed to annex Taiwan, or Uganda be allowed to take parts of Congo?
After all the US and Russia both joined forces to normalize this behavior, with the US even decided to go be implicit in it in regards to Gaza and likely Greenland too.
I'm going to say as a European, and someone who believes in the idea of Europe, European leadership has been awful, and Europe is kind of getting what it deserves.
This hasn't come out of nowhere. The invasion of Iraq was a key signal that the USA might not care what Europe says and thinks, over 20 years ago. Obama took over and things seemed superficially better because Obama was very polite, but underneath the USA was still distant, obviously looking elsewhere, and even frustrated that Europe seemed ineffectual. Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 and Europe barely twitched. When Trump took over in 2017, alarm bells should have been going off all over Europe that they needed to sort some shit out and fast. Instead, they spent 8 years dithering, and here we are.
Trump can negotiate with Russia over the EU's heads because Europe has dismally failed to put itself in a position where it merits being listened to. It talks about securing Ukraine's independence, and has done basically nothing to ensure it's in any position to do so. 500 million people and ~$25 trillion economy, and it's effectively powerless - diplomatically, politically, militarily. The EU also surely needs to start looking at other powers gradually carving up the world to control resource routes and develop key new technologies. Russia takes Ukraine, the USA takes Greenland, China buys Africa, where's the EU getting it's stuff from? Europe faces being shut out and left behind unless it gets its shit together. Just how many strategic reports does it need to write about the critical importance of increasing its defence capabilities until someone actually does it? Europe might be so incapable that even having been so comprehensively taken over by events here it still won't get into gear.
Europe needs to bulk up its military, and I mean a lot. By which I mean not equalling Russia / USA's, just that defence spending (%GDP) in many EU countries is so incredibly low, even if they doubled spending it would still be below average. It needs to make a lot more of its own hardware: if it can't trust the USA, it's got to stop buying American. It needs arms and munitions manufacture capable of independent action. And not just military, it needs whole technologies where it can stand on its It needs a proper, EU military capable of independent and effective action. I know this is a HUGE political issue, as this is a massive and direct erosion of national sovereignty. But a Europe where big decisions are perpetually held hostage by any prick who'll sacrifice the greater interest to win their next election, or actively sold out by traitors like Orban, is a Europe guaranteed to go into the future as a failure. A retirement home; affluent, bickering old fuddy-duddies fading away into obsolescence and insignificance.
This hasn't come out of nowhere. The invasion of Iraq was a key signal that the USA might not care what Europe says and thinks, over 20 years ago. Obama took over and things seemed superficially better because Obama was very polite, but underneath the USA was still distant, obviously looking elsewhere, and even frustrated that Europe seemed ineffectual. Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 and Europe barely twitched. When Trump took over in 2017, alarm bells should have been going off all over Europe that they needed to sort some shit out and fast. Instead, they spent 8 years dithering, and here we are.
Trump can negotiate with Russia over the EU's heads because Europe has dismally failed to put itself in a position where it merits being listened to. It talks about securing Ukraine's independence, and has done basically nothing to ensure it's in any position to do so. 500 million people and ~$25 trillion economy, and it's effectively powerless - diplomatically, politically, militarily. The EU also surely needs to start looking at other powers gradually carving up the world to control resource routes and develop key new technologies. Russia takes Ukraine, the USA takes Greenland, China buys Africa, where's the EU getting it's stuff from? Europe faces being shut out and left behind unless it gets its shit together. Just how many strategic reports does it need to write about the critical importance of increasing its defence capabilities until someone actually does it? Europe might be so incapable that even having been so comprehensively taken over by events here it still won't get into gear.
Europe needs to bulk up its military, and I mean a lot. By which I mean not equalling Russia / USA's, just that defence spending (%GDP) in many EU countries is so incredibly low, even if they doubled spending it would still be below average. It needs to make a lot more of its own hardware: if it can't trust the USA, it's got to stop buying American. It needs arms and munitions manufacture capable of independent action. And not just military, it needs whole technologies where it can stand on its It needs a proper, EU military capable of independent and effective action. I know this is a HUGE political issue, as this is a massive and direct erosion of national sovereignty. But a Europe where big decisions are perpetually held hostage by any prick who'll sacrifice the greater interest to win their next election, or actively sold out by traitors like Orban, is a Europe guaranteed to go into the future as a failure. A retirement home; affluent, bickering old fuddy-duddies fading away into obsolescence and insignificance.
Without wanting to derail the thread, christ there's a lot of that going around.
While I broadly agree, I might argue that the EU doesn't need an EU military, but European nations should get themselves in a decent treaty system with someone. If, say, a third of the EU doesn't want to play, the others can form their own super special club with a different membership list (without leaving the EU), and maybe ask countries like Canada if they want to play as well.
Though this has been a huge issue for decades, there's always been talk about greater co-operation to mitigate the problems of several small militaries trying to be one big one, with limited success.
It could increase its spending by four times and still probably fail to get the most important thing it needs. People. All the tanks, ships, and aircraft are worthless without people to operate them.
People don't want to join the military because few of them wish to die, which is looking increasingly likely in Europe. A fair few went to war in the Middle East for two decades with their ostensible ally and have fuck all to show for it except dead and wounded personnel, and as asinine as this sounds, Europe still has a lingering cultural memory of its fields and forests being battlegrounds. Yes England got bombed mercilessly by the Luftwaffe but there were never tanks in Coventry, but there were in Paris.
So that leaves you with invoking something similar to Sweden's national service regime. Which will be just slightly less popular than banning sex and be the subject of massive protests and a functional election loser to the party putting it forward.
First, nearly all European countries in NATO have reached the 2% spending. That is not "incredibly low", considering that the oversized US spending amounts to only 3.5% as well.
Second, no, Europe does not actually need a stronger army. Nukes aside, the EU armies can take out very one in the vacinity, including Russia. - that is if they were actually acting together.
What is instead needed is more cooperation and more common EU wide foreign policy and common security policy. And more structures that don't involve the US, so that Europe could act alone. But certainly not bigger armies.
I think that's less of a problem than you do.
As an example, currently, the UK has fewer than 150,000 service personnel. Given the UK has a workforce of ~34 million, it's hard to believe that 150,000 couldn't be increased substantially (e.g. ~50%) without needing national service. In context, there were over 300,000 service personnel in 1990. France appears to have 300,000 military from the same size population.
Oh yes, you're right. Several of them finally got to 2%... last year.
It does need a stronger military. I would agree that "stronger" is not necessarily the same as "bigger", but at the end of the day, if it cannot manage substantial deployments to protect its interests, its military is not up to scratch. For instance, when France and the UK decided to bomb Libya ~10 years ago, they ran out of bombs so quickly they had to ask the USA to get involved.
There might still be time for Europe to prepare itself from the threat of having both the USA to the west, and Russia to the east as enemies. Joined by the oligarch class who wants to rub Europe of its consumer protection of course.
The timing may be somewhat better then it seems at first glance. The biggest obstacle Europe faces in making preparations are far right traitors like Orban vetoing everything to please their masters in the Kremlin. But while the far right is doing well in the polls their victory takes time. France and Poland don't have election until several years, and Germany likely isn't ready for having the AFD in government. So the European ''big three'' will likely be treason free.
Hungary meanwhile does have upcoming elections and surprisingly Orban is faltering. I don't quite think he'll lose. Orban didn't spend so many year overthrowing the Hungarian state just to have himself voted out. I suspect he'll do a Porochenko and get himself a false election victory. Still, its at least possible the traitor in chief might lose power. That freak in Slovania seems to be losing his grip on power too, and while Wilderrs is an open ally of the Kremlin(even after the Kremlin butchered 200+ Dutchmen) he can't force his coalition to follow him on this.
Meloni seems secure in power but until now she's been....surprisingly pro Europe. Or at least not actively treasonous.
Given how passive and bickering Europe can be its not at all guaranteed, but theoretically its at least possible for CDU, Macron and Tusk to make preparations and push it through before the far right has time to entrench itself.
The timing may be somewhat better then it seems at first glance. The biggest obstacle Europe faces in making preparations are far right traitors like Orban vetoing everything to please their masters in the Kremlin. But while the far right is doing well in the polls their victory takes time. France and Poland don't have election until several years, and Germany likely isn't ready for having the AFD in government. So the European ''big three'' will likely be treason free.
Hungary meanwhile does have upcoming elections and surprisingly Orban is faltering. I don't quite think he'll lose. Orban didn't spend so many year overthrowing the Hungarian state just to have himself voted out. I suspect he'll do a Porochenko and get himself a false election victory. Still, its at least possible the traitor in chief might lose power. That freak in Slovania seems to be losing his grip on power too, and while Wilderrs is an open ally of the Kremlin(even after the Kremlin butchered 200+ Dutchmen) he can't force his coalition to follow him on this.
Meloni seems secure in power but until now she's been....surprisingly pro Europe. Or at least not actively treasonous.
Given how passive and bickering Europe can be its not at all guaranteed, but theoretically its at least possible for CDU, Macron and Tusk to make preparations and push it through before the far right has time to entrench itself.
You honestly think the US is gonna turn into an enemy? Turning into a not-an-ally, fine, I can see that happening, but an actual enemy?
Perhaps not an enemy in the sense they'll invade. But Trump, Vance and the oligarchs that joined them all wear their hatred of Europe on their sleeve, with Zuckerburg even saying the oligarchs and Trump should join hands to force Europe into surrendering its consumer protections, and Vance expressing similar discomfort about oligarchs not being above the state in Europe.
That and Trump has always been open in his desires to collude with Putin the results of which have now been demonstrated.
Militarily ? Probably not.
Economically ? Sure. We already have a lot of very different interests. And when the military allience fails, we will come to blows over all thw other issues even more.