Ukraine, Trump, and Europe: what in the world?
I have a very uneasy feeling about world events. Of course, I wouldn’t exactly call that a new phenomenon. The Biden administration featured errors and weakness of such magnitude that aggressors felt emboldened and acted on it. Biden was certainly not the only factor, but I believe his presidency was an important element in at least three disasters (to a much greater extent in the first two compared to the third): the Taliban takeover when the US withdrew from Afghanistan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Hamas attack on Israel.
Trump made many promises during his campaign. One of them that seemed absurd to me was that if elected he would end the Ukraine war in one day. It was Trumpian hyperbole on steroids.
Did he actually believe he’d do it? Trump has a massive ego and in some ways it’s justified, but this claim always seemed divorced from reality and events have certainly not proven him correct. At the moment, we’ve “paused” military aid to Ukraine as well as intelligence-sharing (or some intelligence-sharing; I’ve read differing reports about that), and Putin is probably chuckling to himself – as the war continues.
Of course, Trump might get the last laugh in the end. I realize all these actions are designed to “persuade” Zelensky to cooperate, but it’s nerve-wracking to watch and I don’t have some sort of blind faith in Trump. On the other hand here’s what Trump’s Ukraine envoy says (and by the way, “Trump’s Ukraine envoy” is not a job I’d covet):
Asked what Ukraine will have to do to turn intelligence sharing and flow of military aid back on, Kellogg pointed to the proposed minerals deal between the US and Ukraine.
“The reason he came to the White House was to sign a document that was going to say this is us going forward — it’s not signed,” Kellogg said of Zelensky. “My point would be, and my personal belief would be, you don’t move forward until you get a signed document. Period.”
“But he’s offering is offering to do it,” Brennan said. “He is offering publicly at least to do it.”
“There’s a difference between offering to do it and doing it,” Kellogg replied.
Indeed. Not only did Zelensky offer to do it earlier, but he came to the White House to do it and then, with the cameras rolling, explained why he wasn’t going to do it. No wonder Kellogg is pointing out the difference. Kellogg added:
“When I was in Kyiv two weeks ago, I was very clear to President Zelensky the outcome if we didn’t have a signed agreement,” Kellogg later added. “I was absolutely— I was blunt, and clear, that this was a thing that could have happened.” …
“We’re going to end this war, and this is one way to make sure you understand we’re serious about it,” Kellogg said Thursday. “So is it hard, of course it is, but it’s not like they didn’t know this was coming. They got fair warning it was coming.”
Meanwhile, Macron gets into the act with this:
European leaders showed a cautiously receptive ear to President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to debate extending the French nuclear umbrella to Europe on Thursday, though some were reluctant to draw a line under years of U.S. protection.
In an address to the nation on Wednesday, Macron said he would launch a strategic dialogue over extending the protection offered by France’s nuclear arsenal to its European partners, seizing on comments from future German leader Friedrich Merz.
Although both France and Britain are nuclear powers, most European countries’ primary nuclear deterrence comes from the United States, a decades-old symbol of trans-Atlantic solidarity.
But the radical shift engineered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s new administration, which has made overtures to Russia, pressured Ukraine to make peace with Moscow, and adopted a more aggressive stance towards traditional allies, has focused minds.
Trump definitely wants NATO nations to pay more, and he doesn’t want to be the sole protection for Europe, but has he threatened to withdraw Europe’s nuclear protection? If so, I missed it. Is Macron trying to scare or pressure Trump? Does Macron include Ukraine in his definition of “European partners,” or is he just talking about NATO or EU nations?
Sites such as Foreign Policy are no help. For example:
A deep sense of powerlessness and outright panic has beset Europe. Leaders seem shell-shocked by the speed of Washington’s pivot to Russia, the relentless steps toward a trans-Atlantic divorce, and U.S. President Donald Trump’s comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine and much else. Should the United States continue on this path, it will have existential consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe itself—including an increasingly likely next war that it will have to fight without help from the United States. Trump’s public blow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last Friday and the U.S. decision to halt weapons shipments to Ukraine have reinforced fears that the struggle against Russia may already be lost.
The first sentence seems on point to me, but after that it seems like typical anti-Trump leftist talking points. A “trans-Atlantic divorce“? More like a cooling of ardor. “Comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine”? Stopping the war with the ceding of some land Russia already has held for quite some time and is unlikely to lose if the war continues, and establishing an American business presence in Ukraine in order to deter future invasion – is adopting the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine? I think Putin has much greater aims for a Ukraine takeover than that. And what is the “much else” in terms of point of view that Trump shares with Russia? Does the author have any idea what the “blow-up” with Zelensky was actually about, and about Zelensky’s part in it? And yes, I believe “the struggle” with Russia is already lost and has been for quite some time – if you define “winning” as regaining all the land Ukraine had prior to Russia’s invasion.
I won’t even try to make a prediction here.
@ Neo > “I won’t even try to make a prediction here.”
Sounds like a good plan!
I’m curious to know what is covered under “intelligence sharing”. Have we actually been doing the weapons targeting for Ukraine? According to WaPo, for what that’s worth:
There’s a thing in business mergers & acquisitions called the Winner’s Curse…it happens when a company (or at least a key decision-maker in that company) is so committed to getting a particular deal that he gives away way too much.
Happens especially if the deal is being negotiated by a Business Development exec who can congratulate himself on the deal, put it on his resume, and move on to bigger and better things before it turns out several years later that the deal..with the terms he negotiated,,was not a good one,
”Not only did Zelensky offer to do it earlier, but he came to the White House to do it and then, with the cameras rolling, explained why he wasn’t going to do it.”
No, that’s not at all what happened. In the week leading up to the meeting in the White House Zelensky stated publicly at least three times that he would not sign such a lopsided agreement and that boots-on-the-ground security guarantees were necessary. This included on Thursday just hours before he got on the plane to Washington, when he again said he would not sign such a lopsided agreement but was prepared to meet Trump in person to discuss it.
His insistence on security guarantees goes back to at least last spring. Zelensky has been very transparent the whole time, and he did what he said he was going to do. It’s now obvious that Trump and Vance set up the ambush in an effort to browbeat Zelensky into signing an agreement that sells out Ukraine. Zelensky was wise not to succumb to the pressure.
”…he doesn’t want to be the sole protection for Europe…”
America is not now, nor has it ever been, the sole protector of Europe.
”…but has he threatened to withdraw Europe’s nuclear protection?”
He has threatened to withdraw all US forces from Europe. That would include the nuclear forces.
”Leaders seem shell-shocked by the speed of Washington’s pivot to Russia, the relentless steps toward a trans-Atlantic divorce, and U.S. President Donald Trump’s comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine and much else.”
I don’t think you Trumpers realize just how much damage he has done to America’s place in the world, nor how many thousands — probably millions and possibly billions — of people will die as a result. The whole world now is barreling toward war, and our president is siding with our enemies.
You can gloat. You can cheer. You can revel in the sight of your “alpha male.” It will all end in tears, many of them American.
What a loon.
mkent:
You are not privy to what he told Rubio and Kellogg and others when they spoke privately. They said he said he would sign and that’s the only reason they agreed to the Oval Office photo-op.
The “tell” for where you’re coming from is “you Trumpers.” Gloating on this blog? I don’t see it.
As for Europe, Europe has had contempt for US Republican presidents for many decades. I’ve been around a long time and I think the last one they liked was Ike. I went to Europe in 1978 and people I met there had no reluctance to bash the US to my face. And that was when Carter was president.
So we’re at the ‘keep sending money or we’re going to kill ourselves stage’?
The peace deal Trump envisioned exchanging parts of eastern Ukraine will be hard to negotiate, even if it were just a return to the post 2014 borders where Lukansk, Donetsk ahd Crimea were ceded to Russia and Russia gave up the two additional oblasts they annexed.
The United States is broke and we’re acting as irrationally as Ukraine is in many respects.
Take the $200 billion (likely higher) we’ve already spent on the Ukraine war. At 5% interest we will be paying $10 billion a year with no prospects of paying down the original amount.
I asked om how much should we continue to send Ukraine and for how many years. I ask mkent the same question. We’ve spent more than $60 billion a year on Ukraine for the last three years.
It is Europe, not the United States that is playing a dangerous game of escalation. President Trump is trying to prevent WWIII.
@mkent
This is very much a case of “who do you believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
We have access to the full video of the incident, at least once the cameras started rolling. We also have differing transcripts from people with different bents. Our host has commented on them here.
https://thenewneo.com/more-on-yesterdays-zelensky-trump-vance-blowup-what-about-europe/#comment-2790688
Which was one reason for why there was so much negotiation and a couple different versions of the deal even before there was any talk of going to Washington and the Oval Office.
Which is very blatantly not what he told Kellogg and co. How do I know? Because that is not coherent with what was said on the opening statement, and also not coherent with what we had in the pre-camera rolling briefing. Which we can guess the contents of.
https://www.dailynews.com/2025/02/23/zelenskyy-says-he-may-be-forced-to-sign-mineral-agreement-with-u-s-in-exchange-for-continued-aid/
He was nowhere near as consistent as you want to make him out to be, and if he had been he and the diplomatic staff can and should have never scheduled the meeting in the first place, and if that was still not solved before then cancelled if it was.
In this case it’s the case of the Dog that Didn’t Bark at Night, to paraphrase some Sherlock Holmes.
I fault Trump more for this failure than I do Zelenskyy, at least given the Oval Office, since while Zelenskyy was apparently the one to start this fight I blame Trump more for poisoning the immediate leadup to it, regardless of who “caused” the overall spat (which probably goes at least as far back as the Shokin-Burisma spat). But your narrative doesn’t hold water, and is frankly downright insulting to not just Trump and Vance but *ALSO* the reporters that pointed this out AND the Ukrainian Diplomatic Staff.
Which is admirable and one place where I agree with him vis a vis Trump. But he also admitted several times he might not get it. Which you are overlooking.
No, no he provably has not been. Which is why we see such conflicting statements from the news and diplomatic staff on both sides.
That much is probably true, but it still speaks to poor judgement even if so at the direct expense of his ambassador.
That copium must be incredibly high grade. Can I source where you’re getting it?
This is absurd on multiple levels. Firstly: If Trump and Vance wanted to “browbeat Zelenskyy” the best place to do it would be in person, behind the scenes. Not in a photo op in the Oval Office. This goes doubly for a generally hostile to Trump press. Secondly: This is the exact situation that diplomatic staff is meant to protect against, and your accusations are that the Ukrainian Ambassador and her entire staff fucked this up and allowed their President to walk into an “Ambush” on grounds they knew would not be accepted.
That doesn’t wash. It also can’t be coherently blamed on Trump and Vance like many other things can be.
Thirdly: This ignores the fact that far from “ambushing” Zelenskyy, the meeting went fairly well for dozens of minutes – including Trump speaking well of Zelenskyy and even defending his choice of dress – before it spiraled out of control.
Your argument makes no sense. Especially when put in context. It also involves ignoring the Dog That Didn’t Bark issues, and in particular how your interpretation doesn’t just shit on Vance and Trump but also the diplomatic staff on BOTH Sides plus the Media. And while I’m normally not inclined to pass up a chance to diss the media and reporters, I owe them the truth.
Perhaps, but it absolutely has been primary provider.
According to who?
Because while He has threatened to withdraw troops, I have yet to see any indication or attribution he threatened to withdraw ALL Troops. And we also have express, explicit REPUDIATION of this from the Polish Government.
https://tass.com/world/1915419
https://www.thetimes.com/article/well-host-troops-youre-pulling-out-of-germany-poland-tells-us-kfgqztnr7
(Imagine being so rash that freaking TASS is better at getting the transcripts and records than you are.)
The truth is bad enough, and I vigorously oppose the idea of withdrawing troops from the Baltics – 20,000!!! – for obvious reasons. But being bad and disagreeable does not give you license to exaggerate.
I don’t think you realize, especially given the provably false things you claim.
Breaking news from 2009.
Again, breaking news from 2009.
Oh wait, you mean with Trump?
I object to many of the things Trump has done, including with this. I have criticized him heavily for what he has done or claimed he might do, including in this very thread and this very comment. But I’m tired of the Chicken Little Sky is Falling bullshit like what you are peddling. Especially when it is nakedly illogical.
It’s continuing in tears aplenty. You should know that since you’ve been around here when we talked about the Afghanistan pullout debacle and a host of others.
@BrianE
Arguably they have been for a while.
And to be fair to the Ukrainians, given what they have seen from the Kremlin’s actions and rhetoric as well as that of many of their mouthpieces it is likely they conclude that if they do not keep fighting they’ll get wiped out or killed anyway. In that context I might paraphrase Churchill:
(The cynic in me might wonder if there is a different argument; after all most Eastern Europeans alive today are the descendants of Slaves in one flavor or another, especially Serfs. But then even that assumes the enemy would be willing to enslave you rather than wipe you out, and those fearing for that could point to the wonderful words of obscure figures like Dima Medvedev, Neo-Nazi and Vice President of Russia.)
There was never “borders” there per se, just supposed places where the ceasefire lines were drawn. Moreover, Zelenskyy tried to negotiate such a deal and the Kremlin rejected it.
I mean there was never formal cession, and moreover the Kremlin gave up those claims because they never held control of those other oblasts. In much the same way they did not control all of Luhansk or Donetsk.
The entire world is broke, and acting irrational. I’d point that Putin’s Russia engaging in this costly war during a financial crisis and above all a demographic collapse is at least as much.
To which I’d argue: depends. That may be a cop out but that’s also because we’d need to see what it would be spent on. Which is why I have generally talked about a sort of Yugoslav situation where we talked heavily with the Bosniaks and Croats about military modernization and what it would take.
Indeed, he is, and I admire him for that at least for there. But I believe the deal he is trying to cut will not be tenable and that it will likely make the overall risks of WWIII more rather than less.
My plug nickels worth.
1. Z’s demand for security guarantees, meaning boots on the ground, will never happen, and Z should know that.
2. France has the capability to deliver nukes?
3. Do you really think the France and the UK will put boots on the ground too? and Germany?
4. Yep, Trump lost his cool, but Z was sandbagging him in the Oval Office. Z made a serious mistake believing he could force Trump to make a security guarantee there in public. Congress would erupt.
5. Z’s position that all of Ukrainian territory will be returned is ludicrous. The Crimea will stay Russian.
6. Trump is no one’s stooge, especially Putin’s. Trump getting Z to the table, then having Putin say Nyet, would mean that Trump could give a lot more support to Z, short of boots on the ground.
@SHIREHOME:France has the capability to deliver nukes?
Indeed they have, several hundred nuclear weapons and several nuclear submarines, one of which is always out in the Atlantic. They have the fourth-largest stockpile after the US, Russia, and China. They have land-, sea-, and air-based delivery.
@SHIREHOME
I’m not so sure. The Minerals Deal from Trump talked about US troops on the ground to protect the rare earths sites, even if they weren’t there formally to protect Ukraine they are still boots on the ground. And in any case the Ukrainians have incentive to push for security guarantees at least as strong as Budapest. In any case “security” troops could and would be a stepping stone to a more formal security guarantee.
That it does, but they are focused on defending France (or at least were) and are badly outnumbered by the stated Russian arsenal.
Could sure. Will is another question and that I do not know. The Poles might be even more eager.
Agreed.
Couple points.
A: That position from Zelenskyy is the default Ukrainian position.
B: Zelenskyy adopted that position only after the outbreak of open Russian invasion. And he did it after the Kremlin basically gave him the silent treatment after he swore not to try and regain Crimea by violence (just negotiations) and offered a plebiscite to split the Donbas.
C: I’m not so sure it is “ludicrous”. I’m sure the idea that Croatia – let alone Bosnia-Herzegovina – would regain all their territory from Serbia and Montenegro must have looked very remote in 1994. But they did. Issue is it would require a lot more fighting a and massive, concentrated, and largely open ended military support, which Trump and co seem to be saying is not something the US will agree to.
And finally agreed on 6.
Turtler:
Well, fighting Russia to regain that territory is indeed different than what faced Croatia, and would require “a lot more fighting and a massive, concentrated, and largely open-ended military support,” as you say. Trump isn’t willing to do it, but my take on it is neither are the voters. They tired of Vietnam (from which we had withdrawn our troops several years before we took our support down to such a low level that the ARVN couldn’t sustain the fight). They tired of Iraq, and they tired of Afghanistan – and those last two involved the Democrats tiring more than the Republicans. In Ukraine it’s the Republicans who got more tired (and some never supported it in the first place). Right or wrong, smart or not, Americans have lost their taste for supporting extended wars “over there.” And because Ukraine has seemed so stalemated, and Russia is so large, it really does seem like it could go on indefinitely with no change. Again, right or wrong, that’s the conclusion many Americans have come to.
Regarding US military/CIA doing the targeting for Ukraine, according to Grok:
So Brian E how much in arms, ordnance, and financial assistance should the US have sent to Ukraine and how much should it provide in the future?
Let me guess, $0.0.
How much reparations does the US owe Russia for the damage Ukraine has done to Russia (including to those parts of Ukraine that are now “Russia” since 2/22/2022) by US-supplied armaments and intelligence?
Don’t be coy.
With most of Europe and Ukraine doing everything possible to scuttle any US-Russia negotiations, I hope President Trump lets the Europeans go first.
They have said they are working on a cease fire which would at some time lead to a peace plan. They are supposed to present it to Trump soon, hoping the US would back the plan. Based on the rhetoric from Europe, it’s doubtful Trump would get on board (since it will no doubt require a commitment by the US).
Let Europe propose their plan to Russia. If their plan fails to lead to negotiations, maybe Ukraine would at least see what President Trump can accomplish.
According to Ukraine’s constitution any change to the Ukraine border would require a countrywide referendum. The Rada or the President wouldn’t have the authority to accept a change to the border.
om, remember, initially Biden only allowed ATACAMS to be used in Kursk, inside Russian territory, beginning on Nov. 17, 2024.
Since Russia was the aggressor, we would owe them nothing.
An awful lot of speculation. I am no more privy to what is said off camera than anyone else posting here; but I believe Rubin and I believe Kellogg.
The idea of the United States providing security guarantees to Ukraine, at least in the sense that Zelensky demands, is a a joke and always has been. Obama has his explanation as to why such guarantees were a non-starter in 2014. Maybe someone will ask Biden about 2023. Trump’s reasons, in the middle of a war, should be obvious.
Granted, Ukraine’s history is a sad one. Part of this is due to internal corruption and instability; but a large measure is purely geographical. Belgium, with the bad luck to be on path of invasion between Germany and France might sympathize. Tibet, and other countries that have been co-opted to become a buffer between the world and the Middle Kingdom could as well. Major powers do not fight over the fate of such sacrificial lambs.
The dynamics between the EU and Russia are interesting. Russia needs very badly to sell Natural gas; Europe needs very badly to buy natural gas, and is buying from Russia. Should we believe that the money the Europeans send to Russia, like that we provided to Iran, is solely used for humanitarian purposes?
The bleating of Europeans, or Democrats, about Trump being the one appeasing Putin is a joke. Pardon me if I don’t laugh.
Europe, or the UK PM, says that the coalition of the willing will put boots on the ground in Ukraine. I asked, TIC, if there would be feet in the boots. Reports have been published of angst in Europe because of fears that Trump might withdraw 20k or so American troops. Gee, Trump could even reduce our troop count to less than that of the German army. But Europe can afford to put human trip wires in Ukraine?
There is a great deal of talk about how evil Putin is, and that he should not get away with the invasion. Yep. True, but irrelevant at this point. Reality is that Putin needs this war to end. Zelensky needs this war to end. To my knowledge, one person over the course of the war has attempted to get them to even talk about a way to end it.
I suspect that he is waiting patiently for the posturing to end.
mkent on March 6, 2025 at 5:51 pm said:
I don’t think you Trumpers realize just how much damage he has done to America’s place in the world, nor how many thousands — probably millions and possibly billions — of people will die as a result. The whole world now is barreling toward war, and our president is siding with our enemies.
Obama and Biden are the ones who damaged America’s place in the world. They were also the ones who were president when Putin attacked Ukraine. Trump’s attempting to undo their fuckup.
Russia isn’t a top tier enemy, but China is. The Ukraine focus is a serious problem because it distracts from the bigger threat of China and is also using up huge amounts of our munitions. The Stingers expended there alone used up our supply which is an issue because we can’t just crank up the assembly again, since the parts are obsolete.
America is not now, nor has it ever been, the sole protector of Europe.
In the Cold War we basically were. The European capabilities were limited and they depended on the US, without us there the Soviets would have rolled over them.
Since then they largely haven’t needed any defense, except from the bad decisions of their leaders letting in refugees.
@Brian E:Regarding US military/CIA doing the targeting for Ukraine, according to Grok:
Thanks but no thanks. I already have unsourced narratives generated by people I don’t know and can’t trust; I don’t mind if machines eventually put those people out of work, but I’m not interested in consuming the resulting prolefeed:
@neo
Agreed, but I do think the magnitude of the problem is relatively comparable given the size differences and numbers and international weight involved in the different factions. Not 1-1 by a long shot of course, but still closer than many realize. Moreover the Ukrainians have succeeded in greatly limiting the VVS’s ability to roam and the damage to the Russian Black Sea Fleet which has crippled their ability to use Crimea. And why I am in favor of at least finishing off the Black Sea Fleet before any peace.
Agreed, and that is what I feared. I admit that has been one of the US’s great weaknesses, and it is a bad epoch to suffer from. On 9/11 I concluded we were in an existential, generational war that I would not naturally live to see the end of, and I still hold to that. I think this ties down to a greater crisis in Western culture and particularly the US, which has rebounded to hurt our allies or at least co-belligerents as well as ourselves. I wish I had good answers, but I don’t. I do however think I can graph out some answers to it.
Don;
Think about it. If the parts for the Stinger are obsolete, what about the rest of the missile (hint it is past its prime, but good enough for Russian stuff)? The Stinger is cutting edge 1980s ordnance IIRC.
Brain E:
Ukrainians aren’t using HIMARS missiles to attack Russian refineries or ammunition depots 600 miles from the former internationally recognized border between Ukraine and Russia.
And to put on a Brian E persona, you haven’t answered the question:
‘How much money and armaments should the US have given and should give to Ukraine?’
Glad to hear that the Mineral Rights (Rare Earths) deal may go through. You and President Trump seem to be at cross purposes.
Also glad to see you admit that Russia was and is the aggressor.
What happened to Zelenskyy’s climbdown a few days ago, which Trump announced in the Joint Address the other night?
____________________________________
I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace.
None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians. My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.
…
Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.
Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format. We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively.
–Zelenskyy, (Mar 4, 2025)
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1896948147085049916
____________________________________
That sounded definitive. No apology, but Z says “Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format.”
Is Zelenskyy just buying time to consult with allies in Europe and among Democrats?
I still don’t see how Zelenskyy has a choice here.
I don’t believe Trump is going to back down. Part of negotiating is being willing to leave the table.
Ukraine can’t continue to fight off Russia without American funds and support. Europe won’t fill that gap.
Either Zelenskyy signs the minerals agreement and continues the peace process or someone else does.
Niketas C.,
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-putin-trump-cia-zelenskyy-5eb2c8025f6bb4b616c86e1fe89bba0f
• 100% interested in knowing what thoughts prompted your comments – here or on your blog.
Brain E:
Yep and those systems don’t reach deep into Russia, unless you consider Donetsk and Luhansk Russian,
IIRC.
I don’t take Macron seriously, more hat than cattle, but it could be that Zelenskyy does. Shrug, I don’t know what is going on, but I suspect that Zelenskyy doesn’t yet accept Trump’s premise, which is that neither side has the ability to achieve victory. Can the Europeans can change that? I doubt it, they haven’t even enforced the sanctions.
Trump’s understanding is likely correct, at least for the short term. Russia has been attacking for the last five months and achieved nothing significant except casualties, and is probably over extended and exhausted, Ukraine’s counter attacks are beginning to succeed. But can Ukraine achieve victory if it goes on a large scale offensive? I’m not convinced they would do better than last time they attacked entrenched positions.
The black swan events here would be the collapse of either country, new weapons technology, or the arrival of new troops. But I don’t think that is the way to bet.
As an aside, I’ve realized that I have no experience wielding great power. It is probably one reason that this looks so confusing.
As I recall, Oldflyer flew in Vietnam. He has the wisdom and knowledge that only age and that kind of experience can provide.
“There is a great deal of talk about how evil Putin is, and that he should not get away with the invasion. Yep. True, but irrelevant at this point. Reality is that Putin needs this war to end. Zelensky needs this war to end. To my knowledge, one person over the course of the war has attempted to get them to even talk about a way to end it.
I suspect that he is waiting patiently for the posturing to end.”
There is a great deal of talk about how evil Putin is, and that he should not get away with the invasion. Yep. True, but irrelevant at this point.
–OldFlyer
To which I would add that Russia has over 5000 nuclear weapons and 1700 are deployed, i.e. ready to launch.
Punishing Russia, however much Russia deserves it, poses a terrifying risk. When Trump speaks of the dangers of nuclear war being sparked by the Ukraine War, he is not exaggerating.
It’s time to shut this war down.
@Don
Agreed on the whole, though I do not think he is going about it hte best way.
I agree on the whole, and this is all the more reason to ramp up production. But while Russia isn’t a top tier enemy, I would argue they are at a minimum the second tier enemy alongside Iran. And the current regime in the Kremlin has been thick as thieves with the PRC for at least a quarter century. Public opinion in Russia ranges from lukewarm to hateful of the Han Chinese, but the Kremlin’s organs rely on the partnership with the CCP to maintain force projection and barring a black swan event, we can probably count on the current Russian dictatorship to march alongside the PRC if – God Forbid – things get heated.
Which I think helps recalibrate the odds. Which is also why I think bloodying the Russian war machine and its economic and diplomatic standing as much as possible in Ukraine and elsewhere will ultimately help swing the odds in favor of the West and the US, and probably be more likely to cause a pro-US shift in Russia than what Trump is trying to do and most US Presidents and others have tried to do with the old Chekists since then.
But I agree regarding the risks. The Kremlin has gotten awfully comfortable threatening the use of nuclear WMD, and while I do not favor letting them get away just because of that we have to mitigate the risk, both by threatening the use of our own and by trying to wrap this thing up as quickly as possible and with the best terms possible. I also agree that Putin’s evil and how he and his regime do not deserve to get away with it are sadly beside the point because realpolitik can’t be based primarily on morality. I do however think the moral argument matches well with the pragmatic argument that we should try to end it on as unfavorable terms as possible for Russia, even if we must prioritize ending it over victory.
that said, Trump isn’t the only one person who has attempted to get them to talk. Even leaving aside the two ring Minsk Circus shepherded by Obama, the EUocrats (and the repulsive Swiss bitch Tagliavini), and the KGB dictator Lukashenko, there have been multiple ceasefire talks throughout the war with moderate at best results. Any confrontation with Russia is a terrifying risk, but we need to balance the risk of world war or nuclear apocalypse now with the possibility of there being a greater one down the line if the enemy is allowed too much leeway or positive reinforcement.
I do think Brian E touching on the Ukrainian Constitution and the need for an all-Ukraine referendum touches on another issue making winding down this war tricky, and why I dread how this is. Especially since there are plenty on both sides that agree on nothing much beyond that the war should go on.
But I agree. I may dislike much of Trump’s approach but I agree with the stated goal of trying to end the killing.
@ Shirehome > “Trump lost his cool, but Z was sandbagging him in the Oval Office. Z made a serious mistake believing he could force Trump to make a security guarantee there in public.”
Agreed on both points.
I ran across some curious connections that I haven’t seen anyone else speak of (may have just missed it; there’s a lot of pixels on the internet — like the old saying about bibliophiles: so many books, so little time!) which indicate that Zelenskyy may have been wielding a sandbag on purpose, but it might have had more weight than he expected.
Most of the clues came in a post from Matt Taibbi, but he isn’t unique, just one which I read just before the percussive photo-op.
The first of the posts is a transcript of a conversation between Taibbi and Walter Kirn that was taped before the airing of the WH confab, but contains a lot of background that was simmering under the surface of that conversation and which might explain why everything was looking good for most of the time and then suddenly flew apart.
One clue is that the some of the talks between Zelenskyy and the EU about “deals” predate the White House visit, although most of the news I’ve seen only mentions his visits after leaving America.
Perhaps Zelenskyy was going in to the WH comparing two offers, of which Trump and Vance would almost certainly be aware. So, maybe he didn’t really care if he walked away from Trump’s table if he couldn’t get the security deal he wanted, and that was why he was willing to relitigate the deal he was supposedly present to sign.
Second, the interchange between Trump and Zelenskyy about whether the US gave Ukraine more than the Europeans did was almost a throw-away (although it occasioned some disputes between Karmi and Neo) but has a deeper under-current because of a prior press conference and then some talks between Macron and Trump.
That’s followed in the post by a long section on the tariff war with Europe, and then segues to another press conference with Trump about the deal that Zelenskyy said he would sign in America, where he repeats the $350 billion claim (and even if CNN says the number is wrong, Trump certainly believes it).
Third, Trump is going in to the photo-op with something of a chip on his shoulder, because of the EU and how the Europeans and Zelenskyy both look like they are dissing him.
Fourth, is that some of the remarks Zelenskyy made after Vance’s comments are echoes of something that Trump said in another context earlier, which IMO could be interpreted as mockery — which Trump does not take lightly. That may be why he seemed to erupt at what otherwise looks like insufficient provocation.
Fifth, Ukraine is caught up in the thick of the DOGE revelations about American money lost to waste, fraud, money-laundering on pet projects of the Democrats and global elites, and Trump wants some of it back.
Very, very brief excerpts, which came from a long stream-of-consciousness conversation.
I’ve added numbering to match my clues.
https://www.racket.news/p/transcript-america-this-week-feb-d05
Transcript – America This Week, Feb 28, 2025: “America Breaks from Europe”
(5) There is no short version of the long conversation on this aspect, but it was quite interesting.
So that’s what’s in the background for the deal signing ceremony.
Continued in the next comment.
Part II: The actual “deal that wasn’t signed” photo op.
Everyone pretty much agrees that things were going smoothly until suddenly they weren’t, but with the background I’ve laid out above, I think we were seeing some poking at Trump’s sore spots, which he and Vance both noticed, and Zelenskyy hit one too many.
Anyone who’s been around kids can recognize the classic situation where Kid A surreptitiously pokes or punches Kid B over and over again, until Kid B finally hauls off and slugs him, and then Kid A complains about being hit.
Same numbering as before, but some of the “clues” were manifested subliminally in the whole of the conversation, whereas a couple were overt jabs.
The post starts with Taibbi’s reaction, in which he makes some of the points I laid out above, but with much more verve.
https://www.racket.news/p/mr-zelensky-comes-to-washington-transcript
Taibbi:
And IMO most of the trouble started with the press’s questions, bringing up the underlying background, especially veiled allusions to the long-standing canard that Trump was allied with Putin (Russia! Russia! Russia!).
From the transcript:
This is where Trump really lost his temper.
In the first post, Matt predicted that “Ukraine is likely going to reject the EU deal and is going to accept the American deal” which didn’t happen then, may be true after all, since Zelenskyy went to the EU and is now back at Trump’s door asking for a do-over.
He may get it, but the terms are not going to be as good as the first deal he was offered.
I wish to inquire: Does anyone think that France will; 1) send troops into Ukraine in defense of the Zelensky regime? 2) Use nuclear weapons in defense of Ukraine’s borders should Ukraine, with or without French troops in the field lose more territory? If not, then why boast about those possibilities? Also, nobody is asking what Putin intends to do should either 1) or 2) eventuate. Would he retreat from the ground already taken? (Answer: no.) Would he not retaliate? (Answer: obvious.) What we are witnessing is a charade of weak political leaders of even weaker European countries posturing as if they had real power. Short man syndrome or mere stupidity? You be the judge. Finally, karmi exits and mkent arrives. Coincidence?
My rule of thumb is to watch out for short people.
Especially short women.
Especially especially short women with Kalashnikovs.
E.g.,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haika_Grossman
As for Macron, he’s certainly posturing, but he’s at least more persuasive than the vile Starmer and his Coalition of the Swilling…
Does anyone think that France will; 1) send troops into Ukraine in defense of the Zelensky regime? 2) Use nuclear weapons in defense of Ukraine’s borders should Ukraine, with or without French troops in the field lose more territory?
–Steve (retired/recovering lawyer)
Correct. No one really believes. This is all kabuki to get the US to foot most of the bills. (And the more I learn about Zelensky, the less I like him.)
However, Trump holds the cards and he knows it. Ukraine can’t fight off Russia without US funds and materiel. Europe is not going to fill that gap.
You’ve gotta dance with them what brung ya.
Can Putin afford to be seen as having “lost” the war/invasion/border correction?
Macron went to nuclear “trump”–sorry–and who overtrumps–sorry–Putin?
Nukes are a different animal. Putin could sterilize France–presuming his launch officers followed orders–but a couple of nukes into Russia wouldn’t be much fun, either.
Numbers are different with regard to nukes.
Tried to read all the posts on this thread and couldn’t bring myself to do it. Couldn’t even get through neo’s commentary. Same goes for other blogs and online commentary sites. Seems I’ve reached some sort of tipping point. I’m a little concerned about it. But not much.
An issue that I don’t think is getting enough attention is the assertion by Trump and Vance that there is currently no path to military victory for Ukraine.
I understand that to mean that even if we continue to provide the support we are now, Ukraine is going to run out of manpower to field an army before Russia.
The accuracy of that assertion really is the whole ballgame.
If the assertion is false, that is if Ukraine can win militarily if we just keep pumping in more money and weapons, then the matter comes down to Trump and Vance not being willing to spend money on behalf of our European allies. And there might really be something to the “isolationist” smears against Trump.
If the assertion is true, that is if the status quo will inevitably lead to a military defeat for Ukraine, then I think the next set of questions are about (i) is there anything the US could do to change that situation; and (ii) are we willing to do it?
I think that the answer to (ii) rules out directly involving the US military in the war beyond the level that it already is. Regarding (i), Ukraine hawks suggest that there are still weapons systems or other materiel we could provide that would change the facts on the ground, but I’m skeptical. They’ve been saying this for nearly three years. We’ve been playing the escalation game the whole time, starting with sanctions and moving into more and more weapons systems along with more and more direct US military and intelligence support. None of it has changed the facts on the ground. I find it very unlikely that the next incremental step, or even the next few incremental steps would be any different.
Frankly, I think the results of this line of thinking are frightening. If the status quo will lead to inevitable Ukrainian defeat AND there is little to nothing that the US is willing and able to do to change that, then Putin actually holds a fairly strong hand. Basically, if we continue what we’re doing he will win a military victory as long as he’s able to keep grinding longer than the Ukrainians. If we pull support for Ukraine, he will win a military victory even sooner.
If all of this is correct, the US needs a ceasefire as much or more than Putin. And we are going to need to make Putin an offer that is more valuable to him than continuing to grind for another 6 months to a year and then winning the war. This means that any resolution that is “tough on Putin” is more or less off the table, because it will result in Putin walking away and then, eventually, winning the war.
From their statements and actions, I strongly suspect that this is that this is how Trump and Vance view the matter. If so, their actions, including leaning on a petulant Zelensky, are the best way to get the least bad resolution to the position that we put ourselves in.
This is probably the most robust defense of Trump that you’re going to get out of me. But as I’ve said,if I think he’s right, I’ll defend him. I still don’t like his style, but I think he’s right on this one.
huxley:
“To which I would add that Russia has over 5000 nuclear weapons and 1700 are deployed, i.e. ready to launch.
“Punishing Russia, however much Russia deserves it, poses a terrifying risk. When Trump speaks of the dangers of nuclear war being sparked by the Ukraine War, he is not exaggerating.
“It’s time to shut this war down.”
Spot on. You are EXACTLY right.
huxley and The Other Chuck:
Ah. nope.
Trump exaggerates. Sorry to have to restate the obvious.
“It’s time to shut this war down.”
Will Putin (assisted by China, Iran, and others) be content to stop with Ukraine?
“I don’t give a tinker’s damn ….”
Time will tell.
om:
Trump does hold the cards. If the US stops backing Ukraine, it will fall to Russia.
Trump holds the cards vis-a-vis Ukraine. I’m afraid that Russia holds the cards on us, or at least has a much better hand than Ukraine hawks assume.
om on March 6, 2025 at 8:47 pm said:
Don;
Think about it. If the parts for the Stinger are obsolete, what about the rest of the missile (hint it is past its prime, but good enough for Russian stuff)? The Stinger is cutting edge 1980s ordnance IIRC.
It’s probably good enough for Chinese stuff, too. Also, generally good for attack helicopters which can be hell on light infantry. The replacement is scheduled for production in 2027, leaving us a gap if things go hot with China.
Time will tell.
Ukrainians probably don’t see much future is ceasing to exist. Putin’s “maximalist” objectives are just that.
I’m just not sure what President Trump’s real objective is.
Bauxite on March 7, 2025 at 10:21 am said:
An issue that I don’t think is getting enough attention is the assertion by Trump and Vance that there is currently no path to military victory for Ukraine.
I understand that to mean that even if we continue to provide the support we are now, Ukraine is going to run out of manpower to field an army before Russia.
That’s the key thing which those who want to continue the war ignore.
Supposedly Ukraine is killing Russians in a 2:1 ratio but that means they will lose. It won’t be a great victory for Russia, but Russia’s biggest losses were early on (that is, they showed the world their weakness by failing to steamroll Ukraine).
The only path to Ukrainian victory I see would be a coup against Putin, and even that might not end the war. A negotiated settlement should have happened long ago when Ukraine was seizing land.
Don:
Just where are you expecting to be in a land war with China? Taiwan?
How many soldiers can you fly in to Taiwan and how many Stingers (hot 1980 tech) do they need?
Navy and Air Force are more likely combatants IMO. But I’m just a geologist.
Moot really
“I don’t give a tinker’s damn about ……”
Don:
Russian losses in 2024 have been higher than in 2022/2023. Did Ukraine sieze any land in, wait fr it, the Kursk region? Just askin’. Russia was not interested in negotiations it seems when they lost all their gains around the Kharkiv region in 2023. The Russians may be loosing their capability to bomb the F out of strongpoints (glide bombs) so that advances with infantry can eventually succeed. Who knows maybe a 2:1 ration is the best the could do. Can the army sustain a 4:1 ratio? Russian armies have completely failed before (1917and that evil trench ).
That’s the thing about predicting the future.
There’s an awful lot of “But Putin will do this” and “But Putin will do that” on these Ukraine threads.
Remember what Grant told his generals after (I think) the Wilderness. The gist of it was, I’m tired of hearing about what Lee might do. Let’s make him worry about what we might do.
Good advice with regard to Putin, whose power has actually been degraded by the Ukraine war.
Turtler on March 7, 2025 at 12:38 am said:
I agree on the whole, and this is all the more reason to ramp up production. But while Russia isn’t a top tier enemy, I would argue they are at a minimum the second tier enemy alongside Iran. And the current regime in the Kremlin has been thick as thieves with the PRC for at least a quarter century. Public opinion in Russia ranges from lukewarm to hateful of the Han Chinese, but the Kremlin’s organs rely on the partnership with the CCP to maintain force projection and barring a black swan event, we can probably count on the current Russian dictatorship to march alongside the PRC if – God Forbid – things get heated.
I think Trump is trying to separate Russia and China. It’s been done before. China is a significant long term threat to Russia, in ways that Europe and the US are not. I don’t know that it will work but it seems like something we should try.
Hubert – I don’t think that your analogy fits. The north and south were fighting a war that was existential for both sides. The United States is not fighting an existential war in Ukraine.
Our chief limitation in Ukraine is that there are things we are not willing to do. Further, Putin knows what we’re not willing to do. And it is looking increasingly likely that the things we are not willing to do may be necessary to prevent Putin from winning. (If this conflict was existential for the US, the list of things we’re not willing to do would be much, much smaller.)
I’m not sure how you get out of that situation by making Putin worry about what we might do. He already knows how our freedom of action is limited in a way that it would not be if the stakes were higher for us. The stakes are much higher for him.
om on March 7, 2025 at 12:21 pm said:
Russian losses in 2024 have been higher than in 2022/2023. Did Ukraine sieze any land in, wait fr it, the Kursk region? Just askin’. Russia was not interested in negotiations it seems when they lost all their gains around the Kharkiv region in 2023. The Russians may be loosing their capability to bomb the F out of strongpoints (glide bombs) so that advances with infantry can eventually succeed. Who knows maybe a 2:1 ration is the best the could do. Can the army sustain a 4:1 ratio? Russian armies have completely failed before (1917and that evil trench ).
That’s the thing about predicting the future.
That’s just hoping for a coup against Putin, it’s pretty much the sole hope for Ukraine to come out of it without negotiating with Putin. It isn’t much to put your hope on.
Most likely Ukraine will just continue to be reduced until it starts to suffer significant losses.
@Bauxite:The United States is not fighting an existential war in Ukraine.
However existential for Ukraine, the only way it becomes existential for the United States is if the war becomes nuclear.
Further, Putin knows what we’re not willing to do.
This is a very good point. A collective security agreement has to be credible. It is not credible that anyone in NATO or the EU will put boots on the ground in Ukraine, or take a nuke for Ukraine. A fake collective security agreement is arguably more dangerous than having none at all.
Yesterday a commenter expressed surprise at France’s nuclear arsenal, the #4 in the world. In looking that up, I came upon the following description of what it was intended to do, penned by French Navy Admiral Marc de Joybert in 1975 (at a time when Ukraine had been part of Russia for almost 300 years and no one had any dreams of pushing them back out):
This is exactly where Russia is in respect to anyone invading it. It doesn’t matter that their army is smaller than North Korea’s or India’s. It doesn’t matter that they are the Bad Guys and we are the Good Guys.
The US was able to do whatever in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam with no consequences for the folks back home (except the flag-draped coffins, of course). That simply isn’t true, with any nuclear power pushed too hard. “Too hard” is defined by them, unfortunately, no matter how evil, unreasonable, or paranoid they be.
Niketas Choniates – I agree. I think if we’re not willing to put boots on the ground (we’re not), it’s all over but the shouting. And our leverage, such as it is, is only going to erode further as time goes on and Ukraine’s manpower shortage becomes more acute.
We should have made a deal 12-18 months ago when Ukraine’s military prospects were at their height. It’s only gotten worse since then, and it will only get worse from here.
Here’s a political problem, though. I don’t think the American public really understands just how weak our position in Ukraine is now. I don’t think that Ukraine hawks get this. I know that the press and Trump’s other enemies either don’t get it or don’t care. Just given the relative leverage of the situation, any deal that Trump makes is going to appear shockingly favorable to Russia. (Otherwise, why would Putin take it?) The eventual deal is only going to add to the Russia! Russia! Russia! hysteria.
@Bauxite:I don’t think the American public really understands just how weak our position in Ukraine is now.
I don’t think most of them care.
I know that the press and Trump’s other enemies either don’t get it or don’t care.
Neither the public nor Trump care much what the press thinks. The legacy media is not able to shape public opinion any more, because not enough of the public pays attention to it.
The eventual deal is only going to add to the Russia! Russia! Russia! hysteria.
I’m sure they’ll try to turn up the volume a little louder, but they’re way past the point of diminishing returns on that.
Bauxite and Niketas: I agree that neither the United States nor the European countries are willing to put boots on the ground to push Russia out of Ukraine. I also believe, as I assume you do, that the western European countries–especially Germany, France, and the UK–lack the will to confront Putin directly, despite their tough talk.
But that’s not what I meant by making Putin worry about what we–the West–might do. My comment had to do with speculation on this forum about where an emboldened Putin’s gaze might turn after a putative deal that leaves him in control of some of Ukraine’s territory. Scenarios that have been floated here include Putin invading the rest of Ukraine, Putin invading the Baltics, and Putin picking a fight with Poland and/or Finland. Sorry for not spelling that out; I was trying to keep my comment brief.
The best way to discourage Putin from further aggression is to shut up and re-arm–e.g. by building lots of drones. Even the Europeans could manage that. It might even jump start their decaying manufacturing sector. And to look for opportunities to hit Putin where it hurts (and this is the hard part) without announcing to the world that that’s what we’re doing. To the contrary, we should stick the shiv in while smiling and talking in public about what a great guy Vlad is–precisely what Trump was criticized for doing in his first administration. Gangsters understand gangster behavior. Having succeeded in NYC real estate, so does Trump.
To those who worry (or not). about Ukraine loosing on the ground (and ignore Russian losses): expected Russian total casualties to reach 1,000,000 by Great Patriotic War Victory Day, 5/9/2025. Eventually you run out of poor Russian men willing to fight for rubles not for the Motherland.
See Ukraine and die quickly.
Time will tell.
@Don
It’s been tried before and it has pretty thoroughly failed consistently for the past quarter century. The PRC is a significant long term threat to Russia but it’s probably not more of one than the likes of Creeping Chechenification or its own demographic problems, and Putin and most of the interest groups he represent have made it clear they so disdain the West they don’t see much benefit to breaking with the PRC, and anything likely to be big enough to shake them from that alignment (like the PRC formally declaring annexation of vast swaths of Siberia or massive large scale blood feuds among the Han and North Korean settlers and the local Russians) would probably be enough to do so without much in the way of overtures.
That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried, but it does mean we need to recognize its probable odds (IMHO very, very low) and budget its chances accordingly. Staking Ukraine and our relationships with our other allies on the idea of flipping Putin is a bad bet. And frankly some kind of coup or revolution or civil war that removes the old Soviet relics in exchange for people who flat out don’t knee jerk blame us for things like the Kursk Sub disaster or repeatedly threaten to nuke us would be a good idea. Or at a minimum degrading the Kremlin so that it feels the need to either pull out of mainland Ukraine entirely or freeze the front and tone down combat operations for fear of more casualties and the effects of trying to into open war.
Brutal as it may be, if I were in Zelenskyy’s ears (or to a lesser degree Trump’s or that of a lot of the non-US Western Allies) I’d start suggesting to pull Free Belarusian units off the line and give them an offer to try and go back to their homeland to try and liberate it from being a KGB run “Union State” under defacto Russian occupation. Belarus is great guerilla war and there’s already a kind of low intensity mostly nonviolent sabotage and political struggle there, and while some might argue it is immoral (though compared to the Lukashenko-Putin current order?) setting Belarus alight might help.
I don’t think it is the sole hope, though it is one of the few. But inflicting such damage on the Russian War Machine and those forces it is willing or able to deploy (such as the North Koreans and international mercenaries) so you see a kind of tepid war like we saw towards the end of the Afghan Wars (both Soviet and ours) might help. Hence why I also suggest trying to help spark revolution in Belarus. Lukashenko’s legitimacy is nil, especially now that he has basically allowed his country to be occupied by the Russian military. His popularity is scant, and he is on the outs with the Kremlin. So his regime can probably be crippled. The Russian Fed forces in country are another matter and it would probably be a nasty guerilla fight, but Belarus is great terrain for that and Belarusians have shown themselves willing to fight monstrous occupiers with great skill.
It also helps spread the risk and the enemy force concentration. It might cause more Belarusian deaths, but
A: It will help spare Ukrainian blood and probably Western lives and credit.
and
B: Even that’s somewhat dubious given the KGB order in Belarus and how Putin and Lukashenko have danced around a Belarusian regime entry into the war.
In particular from the Ukrainian government’s point of view I really don’t see much downside beyond maybe angering or scaring the US and the even weaker sisters of Europe with fears of escalation (which can be managed by trying to keep some level of plausible deniability).
Already has suffered significant losses, but so has the Russian.
@hubert:Scenarios that have been floated here include Putin invading the rest of Ukraine, Putin invading the Baltics, and Putin picking a fight with Poland and/or Finland.
Firstly, Russia would have as much success invading China, or the moon. It’s not 1988 and Russia has something like 1/4 of the power of the Soviet Union in that year; fewer soldiers than North Korea or India. But even pretending Russia has that capability, after grinding so long in Ukraine…
Secondly, the people putting these scenarios forward are either confused, or trying to pull a fast one. And this is easy to prove.
Poland, Finland, and the Baltics are all already EU and NATO members. If these are not fake alliances, then Putin has to fight all Europe and the United States to fight any one of these, and France and Spain and Germany are all already committed to putting boots on the ground and/or taking a nuke to protect Poland, Finland, or the Baltics. Those promises will be kept, or they will be broken.
If these commitments would be broken for countries ALREADY in the EU and NATO, then it is even MORE true that none of these countries will lift a finger for Ukraine.
The only way the “domino” theory makes any sense is if our alliances are already such bullshit that everyone knows they will be broken if tested by Russia. And if that’s the case extending those alliances to Ukraine makes us less safe, not more.
The only way Russia could be deterred by NATO or the EU from attacking Ukraine is if Russia would be deterred by attacking Finland, Poland, or the Baltics. The people who are trying to scare us with a “domino theory” of “after Ukraine comes Poland” are contradicting themselves.
The League of Nations collective security agreements tried to cover everybody, and failed because nobody wanted to go to war with Italy over Ethiopia (Abyssinia in those days). It will be the same with overextending NATO. Let us hope it is not ALREADY overextended and no longer credible.
A credible NATO would not be the United States doing everything while wearing a NATO jacket; there’s still time for the EU nations to get credible.
But in reality, whatever Russia does in Ukraine, they’re going to have to concentrate on building old folk’s homes in ten years because the majority of their population is already middle-aged or older and they are not having children to replace them.
Niketas: we seem to be talking past each other. I agree with your reading of the situation. I was responding to commenters who have argued that we shouldn’t cut a deal over Ukraine because (a) Ukraine is actually winning (it isn’t) and (b) cutting a deal will only lead to further aggression on Putin’s part.
NATO may be a dead letter. It certainly looks like it’s heading in that direction. But there are other ways to deter further aggression–if, as some commenters would have us believe, Putin is indeed preparing for further aggression against his neighbors.
Shorter version of the point I was trying to make, poorly: return to containment as Kennan described it in 1947. Pre-NATO. The good news is that Russia is a lot weaker now than the Soviet Union was then, for the reasons you mention.
I’m sure that the Ukrainians regret giving up their nukes in return for the US and Russia! guarantee of their borders. I don’t know how they could trust any treaty with the US or Russia.
@Bauxite
I think this is a misreading of the situation, particularly factoring in things like Russia’s deteriorating internal situation and the war.
If war were fought by bodies alone, Afghanistan would still be a communist dictatorship or a quasi/pseudo-Western “Islamic Republic.” I think the key is to not focus so much on bodies so much as other things, and also to make the Kremlin tied down dealing with other issues such as having to devote more troops to Belarus and also dealing with possible anti-mobilization protests/riots.
And from the brutally or even amorally pragmatic level, the issue from an America First point of view is whether or not it would be better for the US to help the Ukrainians fight until they run out of willing manpower. Trump disagrees and I can understand why, but I think it is worth considering, especially given my evaluation of the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran-Islamabad-Havana Axis and how solid I feel it has become. Especially given how depending on the terms Putin imposes and the calls for cultural genocide it might not be much different.
Agreed, which is one reason I find this frustrating.
Well said.
To be fair that has changed the facts on the ground. What was meant to be a typical Russian style decapitation blow on the style of the 1794 march on Warsaw or the Prague takeover of 1968 or Kabul 1979 has turned into a multi year grinding bloodbath that has shaken the Russian military and society to its core, greatly degraded its conventional power, basically crushed the viability of the Donbaschukuos, and made Putin have to essentially put his closest ally under military occupation, even if all of this has come at grim cost to the Ukrainians.
It isn’t edifying Desert Storm style victory and it also isn’t cheap and there is not going to be some Nuremburg style international trial of the Kremlin’s senior leadership barring an absolute miracle, but then peer on peer fights usually aren’t and don’t. But slow wearing down of Russian material and will has had an effect and I think a victory like that by Croatia and Bosnia over Serbia would be possible.
The problem I see is that escalation is a multiplayer game, and this damn war started precisely because Putin sensed weaknesses and decided to invade his neighbor, much like he has multiple times. As such we should seek to cripple his ability to play the escalation game by conventional means.
I don’t seem to recall the Ukrainians occupying significant parts of Kursk Oblast in 2021. So it has changed facts on the ground. And moreover one reason Putin decided to go for broke when and how he did was because he and his puppets and misflagged troops were steadily losing ground in the Donbas, as we can see looking at “Separatist” held territory from 2015-2022. So facing the decision of losing the war gradually or going for broke, he decided to go for broke with his Special Military Operation. And that’s before talking about the prospects of a Special Military Operation into Transnistria (which frankly is where I think Ukraine should have struck in lieu of Kursk or in addition to it) or trying to light Belarus.
Trump may not see that or accept that, in which case fair enough, but I do think it points to the issue.
I agree. But I think the issue I have is that the results of the alternative line of thinking are even moreso, especially since I do not see Putin or those closely aligned with him joining our side or even remaining neutral in the future tussles with the PRC or Iran, and while I COULD be wrong I do think that demands a limit on how far we go.
Agreed, at least with the overall situation. But he holds a much weaker hand on the whole for the “longer game” and even if he “wins” the Ukraine “match” he will have fewer cards to play for the wider “Set.”
Indeed, which is why I utterly oppose pulling support for Ukraine, though apparently Trump and Vance may see otherwise.
Disagree. Unless the AntifA gang literally starts a Summer of “Love” style protests or terrorist bombing campaign on the scale of the 1960s (which admittedly they might), we’d still be in better domestic shape than Putin is dealing with recruitment and domestic peace, and also in terms of kit. The big issue I think is that Trump and DOGE picked the wrong time to try and prioritize cutting fat in the military budget, but I suppose the sooner it is done the faster it will be improved. But the Russians are flatly not going to be able to replace losses like the Moskva or their tank fleet and artillery shells in a generation or two, unlike us.
That stands to reason with those assumptions, but I think a key question is what such an offer would be, if Putin or those around him feel they can accept it even if they personally agreed, and what we can do if it turns out no such offer is possible or if it is struck but then betrayed after like Minsk I and II were
Which I agree that is their assumption, but I think that it is a misreading of the situation and in particular overestimating the pliancy and sincere intent of Putin (including the possibility of getting him on side), and also underestimating the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are war weary and fed up, but they’re also not inclined to trust themselves to Russian Fed rule (to say nothing of the likes of Russian, Georgian, and Belarusian exiles who can expect little good if Ukraine fails). Bandera fought on for a decade after WWII in Galicia alone and I think there’s a good chance even if Russia wins conventionally some guerilla actions will burn on in an even larger scale than they already are, Chechnya style.
I think the key issue is that to a great deal, the final word on if a deal can be made and enforced and on what terms does not lie with us. We should be prepared for that.
Fair enough, and I think he is wrong in part on this.
I can definitely believe that – it’s one reason I have been so frustrated – but I do think that Ukraine also has a better hand than Trump and Russia’s hawks do, even if to a moderate degree. And moreover even if it didn’t that they have more incentive to fight to the bitter end than accept a peace they do not have reason to believe can or will be kept.
The United States is not, but it might be fighting a wider struggle that may lead into an existential one like our Cold Wars with the PRC and Iran.
Moreover, factions in both Russia and Ukraine see the war as existential to some degree. Indeed to some degree if we really wished to torture the analogy we could argue this war is in a lot of ways a few different twisted reflections of the US Civil War, with Ukraine fighting “Confederate” uprisings (even the Novorossiyan flags are similar) to defend its territorial integrity and hope for a sovereign future, while Russian forces (whether Putinist, Eurasianist, Neo-Bolshevik, Neo-Nazi, NatBol, or what have you) seek to end the “mistake” of Ukraine having effective sovereignty and a separate existence, as outlined by Putin’s terms to end the war (at least officially).
It’s also that I’d point out how our own civil war was marked by fierce guerilla warfare and raiding both before and after the main spat of hostilities as not everybody could go home.
Even if we want to argue that the Russian government’s official policies are not existentially endangering the existence of Ukraine as a nation or culture,
A: The voices of several of his own leadership and trusted surrogates do, such as talking about nuclear war or erasing the very idea of Ukraine (see: Medvedev, among others).
and
B: Even if so it would effectively sacrifice Ukrainian independence and sovereignty, reducing it rather to a rump state at the mercy of the Kremlin paralyzing domestic life, like we see in Moldova and Georgia and arguably Belarus.
Now arguably none of that is of paramount or existential importance to the US and those are sacrifices we can make if we need to benefit the US. But the Ukrainians and other exiles would think differently.
Agreed, but there are also things Putin is not willing to do, at least yet.
Agreed, but I think the other side of the coin is true.
Well I think the answer is to spread the risk. Hence my discussions of a “Special Military Operation” to destroy a weakened and undermanned Transnistria and trying to help Belarusian opposition. Maybe helping sponsor nonviolent protests and spying in Koeningsberg/Kaliningrad. Which will help spread the Kremlin’s focus and troops out and economize Ukrainian ones without making it easy to justify lobbing a nuke on us or trying to “Denazify” Poland.
I disagree. Ironically I think deploying boots on the ground would be one of the few things that MIGHT have a decent chance of ending the war very abruptly (assuming the Kremlin or others fold, which is unfathomably risky and why I cannot justify and would oppose at almost every cost). I think that the results of another shotgun ceasefire will be similar to the last ones at Minsk and to similar ones at Georgia, of an open end to large scale combat operations but continued, savage guerilla war on some scale.
And while our leverage vis a vis Russia in Ukraine may erode with Russian manpower, so does Russia’s leverage erode with the amount of serving troops it feels they can safely call up without risking an Afghanistan style backlash, as does their military. And from an American standpoint for a likely showdown with the PRC and its allies (including Russia) that strengthens our hand.
I’m skeptical there, especially given the magnitude of both sides losses but particularly the Kremlin’s, and also what other cards can be played with Transnistria and Belarus, even if Trump and co do not necessarily agree.
I don’t think most people do, either strength or weakness.
Sure, but ditto the doves. We are largely theorycrafting based on our best guesses and new estimates.
I agree they don’t know, don’t care, or both. But I also think they don’t know, don’t care, and both about other factors. Similar I think goes for the Russian military.
Which is one reason why I generally oppose a deal, in addition to my different reading of the situation, flawed as it may be.
I’ll just toss this out there. I think Russia could use nuclear weapons on Ukraine and get away with it. They would suffer long term consequences, but it would settle the war. If I can think that, I’m sure there are Russians who think the same.
@JFM:I’m sure that the Ukrainians regret giving up their nukes
They never had any to give up. Russia had nukes on Ukrainian soil, controlled from Moscow. The nukes were repatriated to Russia. Similarly, the United States has nuclear weapons in the State of Montana, but they’re not “Montana’s nukes”.
@Niketas Choniates
Qualified disagreement. There are existential threats beyond WMD, such as economic and political. If the balloon went up in say 1938 over Munich there was basically no way that it would have become an existential war for the British Empire (even if it was for Czechoslovakia and maybe France), even if the Soviets suddenly betrayed the Czechoslovaks and they and the Poles somehow joined forces with a belligerent Italy and Japan or China to join the war. But allowing the Reich to take power in Czechoslovakia and use its resources helped give the ne’er-do-wells the leverage to make the conflict to come existential for Britain, and possibly fatal in the long run.
I don’t think it will LIKELY become existential for the US even if we somehow handed all of Ukraine to Putin, but I think the risk is there, especially if our ties to our allies are fraught, as is the question of our staying power.
I’m skeptical that a fake collective security agreement is arguably more dangerous than having none, especially since Article 5 has held firm and there can be strength in numbers. I’m reminded of the Long Telegram and Kennan’s statement on the Kremlin’s responsiveness to force and dedication.
But if worst comes to worst, I feel that if the situation so boils that we face the prospect of taking nukes, I think the interests of the US and the Free World are better served if Putin and his allies have to “spread the love” and nuke Kyiv, Odessa, Minsk, and so on in addition to doing so with Manhattan. Horrifying? Absolutely. But it’s also a prospect – however slim – we already face whenever Putin or his ilk go banging on the frontiers again like how Xi and the CCP do in the South China Sea.
We have to balance the odds of triggering a war with the advantages we’d have in winning it if it does start, and how to keep credibility at home and with our allies or neutrals.
(SNIP)
Disagree; we already saw Free Russian filibusters and now the Ukrainians invade Russia in a very limited fashion, hence the fighting in Kursk. If someone tries to play Napoleon or Tamerlane and go straight for Moscow and declare unconditional surrender, yeah I absolutely believe the response would be WMD.
But Putin has obviously decided that while he can bluster and saber rattle about nukes, he is going to be hesitant on using them precisely because doing so would likely end his regime, whether in MAD or by coup. Hence why he is trying to push the Ukrainians and their allies out of Kursk by conventional means with some success, and also gave up Kherson rather than go nuclear.
Similar to how even Brezhnev (who was FAR more ruthless about contemplating WMD first use than we have evidence Putin is) never decided to turn Islamabad into glass in spite of his obvious issues, and why considering going after the PRC involved asking us first and heeding our refusal when it was clear we wouldn’t accept it.
Fair, but the Russian expeditionary forces are also quite small, as is North Korea’s (and notably the NorKs have not covered themselves in glory and even though doubtless among the best and deemed to be most loyal – not THE most after all, those have to protect Dear Leader, but a couple shelves from the top drawer – have faced large scale casualteis and defections).
The Weathermen and domestic Jihad beg to differ about doing whatever, as does the refugees we had to take in, some of whom I know.
Agreed, and which is why I probably would never have suggested Ukrainian troops openly occupying Kursk, precisely because I’d fear it would be a bridge too far. And why I definitely do not advocate for some kind of road trip to Moscow. But that being said we HAVE seen the fact that the Russian government is nowhere near as nuke happy as it wishes us to believe, and it is willing to sacrifice lives and territory rather than go nuclear, or even to do things like call up a wider mobilization. That’s knowledge we can and should use to tax the Kremlin and its war effort.
Indeed, which is why I advocate.
Sure, but let’s not ignore the fact that one of the two major camps responsible for them are Kremlin mouthpieces or at least allies. Hence the talk of nuking Poland or a special military operation to Moldova. The other of course are military industrialists in the West.
We are talking about these situations in part because the Kremlin wants us to be talking about them as an attempt to psych us out. Which I think is what Hubert gets at by pointing out we need to be less fearful of what Putin can do to us and need to make him fear what we might do more. And this is something I think Trump should keep in mind, precisely because even if what he will accept in pursuing the war are different from mine he should be mindful of how the Madman is part of his branding now and making Putin fear and hope what he might do will be vital to getting the deals he wants.
Which is all the more reason we need to keep Putin, the Kremlin’s “Organs”< and others terrified of even testing this.
Disagree. It could also mean that the alliances AREN’T bullshit but the Kremlin – probably as part of some wider war – believes it has to play on Team Red and make a do-or-die attempt to contribute, similar to Mussolini banging his troops’ heads against the French Alps and into the African desert, Habsburg Spain felt the need to send troops to Germany in the 1630s-40s at the same time as it was fighting in the Colonies, Netherlands, and the Pyrenees for fear of their Austrian cousins quitting the war (which they did anyway), or Austria-Hungary had to send troops across three fronts in the Balkans, Italy, and the West in WWI (on top of occupying much of Eastern Europe) or fear that if they didn’t they’d simply collapse or be invaded by their German “Allies.”
In any case the Kremlin’s diplomatic strategy is based on significantly psyching us out on this possibility.
Or thinking that Putin might be emboldened to go on the attack, or otherwise feel he has no choice as part of a wider conflict.
And I am one of those that flatly does not believe in a domino theory here and mocked Zelenskyy for claiming there would be a 100% chance of Russia invading Europe if Ukraine fell. But it isn’t a 0% chance. And in any case it is better that the Kremlin’s strength be bled out further there.
It is credible enough, hence why Putin did not call our “bluff” (if it was a bluff) when Sweden and Finland spat in his face and humiliated him.
Sure, but some of them already are. In particular the Polacks were our third ally in Iraq.
You can spend less of the budget on Old Folk’s Homes and more on bullets or luxury yachts if you manage to bleed off old folks in trenches. Ditto with the third rail of pensions being easier to approach and do restrictions of in war. It’s a similar issue with the PRC’s dilemma, where their fundamental weaknesses and the coming demographic collapse staring them in the face even harder than it is most of the world will probably make them more reckless and urgent to contain.
@Hubert
Agreed absolutely here.
It’s a reasonable bad scenario case, and one we have to prepare for.
Agreed except for a small issue. I’d say the best way to discourage Putin from further aggression is to make sure there is no Putin around in the future. That would involve the dirty Regime Change issue though, and while potentially very high reward the risks are so extreme that I don’t think we can base our policy around seeking that directly. Ace had a nice post summarizing my thoughts.
So next best way is to make sure Putin and his war machine lack the resources and men with which to credibly wage future wars of aggression. Which bleeding him out in Ukraine and possibly other wars while also hitting him on the sly in the hybrid ops you mention are a good idea.
Fair.
God, I hope it is not.
I’d say he is preparing for it, even if realistically he won’t carry it out given the ragged state of his military. But also why we need to cooperate it.
Agreed there, but the issue I see is that it is more closely yoked to the PRC and a host of others than the USSR was, and their weaknesses will help prompt rash behavior. Which is also why I believe Russian troops that are dead and Russian equipment destroyed in Ukraine will not be able to endanger us later, even as a bluff. That can help free us up for focus on the Pacific, Hispanic America, and the Middle East.
om alluded to something a few days ago that can’t be discounted. If Ukraine is forced to accept losing territory in exchange for a “peace” deal, a certain segment of the population would just turn the war into an insurgency.
I assume/hope the Trump administration has calculated that eventuality into their plans. In face, a certain segment of Ukraine might take out their loss on any American presence in the country.
Farage had a Ukrainian/British businessman, Alexander Temerko, on his show and while Temerko was enthusiastic about the prospect of a mineral deal and the benefit for Ukraine having a promoter pushing the recovery of Ukraine.
Termerko was enthusiastic until Farage asked him this question:
The change was immediate. Temerko tried to rationalize the eventuality by saying Putin wouldn’t live forever and Ukraine would have to work with a Russian opposition to convince them to give Crimea back.
The point is, if Ukrainians can’t accept that a peace and rebuilding of their country isn’t worth losing Crimea– then the war doesn’t end, just changes.
It also means that Ukrainians don’t realize they don’t have a country without European and the US propping up their government and military.
Maybe that’s better than the level of destruction going on now, but I would be wary of even putting American civilians into that situation.
Fears Raised Over Zelensky’s Leadership Amid Peace Negotiations – ‘He Doesn’t Get Trump!’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeaQbgJ77u8
I’ve been following Willy OAM’s daily podcast and found him to be knowledgeable about the Ukraine-Russia war.
He talks about the most important element that the US brings to Ukraine’s side– the superior Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability and what it means for Ukraine if it’s withdrawn. He thinks it’s as or more important than the military hardware. Europe can probably replace most of the hardware. It can’t replace the ISR.
Looming Disaster – US CUTS Intel – UA Attacks For Optics | Strategic Mistake/EU Trouble | Map Update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6AM2mpSOWc&t=3s
Brian E:
So the narrative shifts again, in your scenario American civilians would not be safe in some future Ukraine that has not been restored to the 2014 territorial status. So Ukrainians in your imagination are worse than fundamentalist Muslims, Palestinians, or Gazamites of today?
Otay.
Another question. So Vladdy keeps Crimea, but Sevastopol is demilitarized, no Black Sea military base, Caspian Sea bases only. Would you be good with that; unintended consequence to Russia, a price for peace? No more holding the export of agricultural goods to the world hostage to the greatness of The Motherland?
om, you’re the one who said the war would revert to insurgency if Ukraine lost the east. It’s a natural extension that those Ukrainians fighting an insurgency would blame the US for their fate and might take it out on American workers.
An insurgency against Russia would spill over into Ukraine, putting American workers at risk.
I’d be fine with ending the war. The United States has more critical issues to our economic and military security.
turtler – You were easier on me than you usually are. 🙂
I just have one further comment. I may be misreading you, but I think our key difference is about the scenario where the Ukrainians fight until they are no longer able to field a functional army and then Putin wins militarily. I didn’t directly say so, but I think that is the worst case scenario for the US. I believe we lose a lot more in the eyes of our enemies and our potential allies if we allow our proxy to be militarily defeated and and subjugated than if we pressure them into signing even a bad peace deal.
If I were China, the propaganda value of Russian tanks parading through Kyiv would be more valuable than having a Russian military that is a little less run down as as it tries to tie down NATO in Europe.
Except the main event is with China the ones who killed a million people who have killed 100,000 a year with fentanyl
Those are the real casualties we have directly suffered, if we deplete most of our stockpiles where will we find ourselves,
Furthermore some fail the dichotomy that the most woke ministries and govts
The ones that persecute their citizens and privilege the invadersare most committed (lipservice) at least to Ukraine this is not true in all cases but enough to punctuate the point
Brain E:
You are the one who is saying Ukrainians would target Americans. Can’t you read your own writing?
Yeah, only natural in the eyes of someone who opposes the deal?
“Wouldn’t be prudent.”
The lengths some go in shaping a narrative.
miguel:
We must preserve the stockpiles of our “precious bodily fluids.” But that was a different foe and a different age.
@miguel: some fail the dichotomy that the most woke ministries and govts
The ones that persecute their citizens and privilege the invadersare most committed (lipservice) at least to Ukraine this is not true in all cases but enough to punctuate the point
You’re kind of hard to read but I think you are saying that Bad People who Hate America are supporting American involvement in Ukraine. And from that you infer that American involvement in Ukraine is bad for America?
If that is what you mean, that’s just Tribal thinking, and it’s simply not valid, because there’s not just two Tribes and we can’t do right by just doing the opposite of the Bad Tribe. Some things are still true if the Bad Tribe says them and some things are still right even if the Bad Tribe does them.
There’s a lot of reasons to support or oppose American intervention in Ukraine, some bad and some good, some smart and some stupid, and there’s no cause so good that some bad people don’t follow it.
Definitely there’s some nasty pieces of work out there opposing American involvement in Ukraine as well as nasty pieces of work supporting it.
I just can’t keep up any more. But a few things.
”Trump does hold the cards. If the US stops backing Ukraine, it will fall to Russia.”
The result of that is World War III. Well, the US has stopped backing Ukraine, and the world is preparing for war.
”They never had any to give up. Russia had nukes on Ukrainian soil, controlled from Moscow. The nukes were repatriated to Russia.”
You keep saying this, and you’re still wrong. Ukraine could have easily dismantled the weapons and used the parts to build their own.
Turtler: thanks for understanding the point I was trying to make. I quoted Grant not to draw a parallel between the American Civil War and the Russia-Ukraine War but to illustrate the folly of unnecessarily ceding the initiative to your enemy.
The question is whether Trump sees Putin as an enemy or a potential ally. I used to think the latter–clearly Trump respects Putin more, on a personal level, than he does Zelensky or our deadbeat NATO allies. Now comes news that Trump is threatening Putin with more sanctions to get him to the negotiating table. Unlike mkent, I suspect there is method to Trump’s behavior. There better be, because mkent is correct when he says that Trump is disrupting the entire postwar and post-Cold War security system. I think it badly needed to be disrupted, but this is turning into a queasy-making rollercoaster ride. Dangerous times; high stakes.
To your points: I agree that Putin’s ambitions exceed his capabilities and that the West can take advantage of that if needed. Stirring up trouble in Transnistria, Belarus, and Königsberg/Kaliningrad and the Suwalki Gap would fit the bill. I said in February 2022 that effing around on Russia’s periphery was a really stupid thing to do, but that was then and this is now. What’s Putin going to do–invade Poland and Lithuania with his depleted army and 1950s-vintage armor? With his “allies” in the PRC lurking on the border in the Russian Far East? Good luck with that.
“I’d say the best way to discourage Putin from further aggression is to make sure there is no Putin around in the future.” And the best way to do that is to make him appear ineffectual while saying nice things about him in public. If we can do that, we won’t have to take him out. Someone else will.
On NATO being a dead letter: sorry, but I can’t see how it isn’t. NATO = the U.S. The U.S. is not going to go to war against Russia to defend the territorial integrity of (say) Estonia. And once Article V goes, the whole thing collapses. Pace you and others on this forum, that may not be a bad thing. I think it was the Polish PM who recently pointed out that “Europe (450 million people) is demanding that the United States (300 million people) defend it against Russia (140 million people).” That’s ridiculous and unsustainable. Mkent referred on the other thread to Tusk talking about maybe developing a Polish nuclear deterrent, like that’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. It shows that some of the Europeans are getting serious about their own defense. As for mkent’s fear that proliferation will inevitably lead to WWIII and nukes flying all over the world, I would point to India and Pakistan. Two nuclear powers that hate each other’s guts but have somehow managed to avoid going to all-out war. Strategist Bernard Brodie rightly called nuclear weapons “the absolute weapon” in his 1946 book of the same name. By that token, they’re the ultimate deterrent.
I’m more optimistic about Ukraine’s military situation than others on this forum. It has fought Russia to a stalemate. As Bill Whittle said in the video I linked to a few threads ago, the Ukrainians have broken the teeth of the Russian bear. Whittle also said that Zelensky, unlike Churchill in 1940, came to the White House to ask for more resources but didn’t offer anything in return. Literally true but not true in a larger sense. Zelensky may not have explicitly offered anything to Trump, but breaking the Russian Army’s offensive power and exposing Russia’s weakness strikes me as not a bad quid for our $350 billion quo.
@mkent:You keep saying this, and you’re still wrong. Ukraine could have easily dismantled the weapons and used the parts to build their own.
You can only say this if you have no idea how nuclear weapons are secured, or how they are built and maintained.
They are hosted in foreign countries all the time. They are not passive devices with a big button on the side that anyone can push who walks by, and they can’t be tampered with without that immediately being known, and it’s not a simple matter to disassemble and rebuild them.
Furthermore they don’t last forever and Ukraine had no capability to replace them.
It was because Ukraine could not use the weapons, and Russia could but not with 100% certainty, that Ukraine didn’t want them, because it was a worst-of-both-worlds situation for both countries. For example, if Russia started a war Ukraine was trying to stay out of, the nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be a target. The most Ukraine achieved was a potential capability to prevent the launch of the weapons, which they couldn’t rely on. Every interaction of the Ukrainians with those weapons was known to Moscow and was a continual source of friction with Russia. They were a headache to both nations and Ukraine wisely decided to accept financial compensation for their repatriation.
South Africa is the only nation that has actually had its own nuclear weapons and then given them up.
I doubt that Nick actually knows what kind of Soviet nuclear weapons that Ukraine had.
And as things have played out Ukraine not having the Soviet era weapons on had seems to have reduced the uncertainty that Vladdy had to consider before he invaded Ukraine in 2022.
“They don’t last forever” … (as if anything does). That would mostly be the tritium IIRC, in a boosted design. Not all systems use tritium though, again IIRC. Opining just a geologist.
Just sayin’
South africa and libya (here endeth the lesson) to any power that would consider this problem of course the korea deal signed off by wendy sherman was an extra layer of stupid, shes the midwife of the last iran deal
The last two were part of aq khans nuclear development gig its remarkable how little is referred about him
Aq khan died in 2021 after a bout with covid so the story goes
As recently as 2005 the ukrainian govt was providing nuclear capable missiles to rogue states like north korea, which had been rewarded by the clinton administration
Of course the rise of new nuclear powers just encourages other like a leap frog act the syrians had acquired a reactor in deir er zour that was a litlle too close for all involved so the israelis blew it up in 2007
Of course nuclear foolishness for the clintons was ‘never to say i’m sorry, they engaged in similar actions at home.
Any sources on that Miguel?
The Ukrainian President from 1995-2005 was Russophillic, whereas the Ukrainian President from 2005-2010, was Russophobic or at least pro Western. So if the missile technology transfer happened before Jan. 2005 it would suggest that a Russia-aligned Ukraine has been a problem for more than 20 years. Is that what you wanted to imply?
And who are North Korea’s “rich uncles” BTW? Would they be China and Russia? Heavens to Betsy, I’m shocked!