FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > USA military aid to Ukraine stopped
USA military aid to Ukraine stopped
Jump to: Newest in thread
The Trump administration has suspended delivery of all US military aid to Ukraine, according to US media reports.
Official announcement later today blocking billions in crucial shipments as the White House piles pressure on Ukraine to sue for peace with Vladimir Putin
A White House official confirmed to BBC's US partner CBS News.
The official says "we are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Trump administration has suspended delivery of all US military aid to Ukraine, according to US media reports.
Official announcement later today blocking billions in crucial shipments as the White House piles pressure on Ukraine to sue for peace with Vladimir Putin
A White House official confirmed to BBC's US partner CBS News.
The official says "we are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution"."
Was this not expected Trump wants a deal so is trying to force Ukrain to deal.
If Europe can't or won't help more the ukrain will lose more land.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm in charge, only me..
How dare those Europeans belatedly start to look at a solution that's for me and only me to take the credit for..
Other side of the coin is he wants a deal now that's acceptable to Putin which includes a cease fire, less of Ukraine lost maybe a better price for the resources I want..
Plus the only kit in town now at the levels Ukraine needs is American without which they lose more people and more importantly infrastructure which Putin will want to degrade in the run up to a cease fire.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order."
Exactly this
Russia keeps Crimea and Donbas (20% Ukraine)
100’000’s people have lost their homes and life savings (95% home ownership rate in Ukraine before the invasion), evacuated and now refurbished Mariupol flats can be bought at €45000. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Apparently the most valuable single asset in Europe is the agricultural land in the Ukraine. Now that the rights to that land belong to Blackrock America has no need to fund the deathmatch. Unless trump is pressuring the Ukraine for remaining mineral rights. This is his MO where negotiations are concerned. Starmer is scrambling to take advantage of the moment. The Ukraine has been on this path since their president declined loans from the European Central Bank which had terms controlling the assets of the Ukraine. It’s a circus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order.
Exactly this
Russia keeps Crimea and Donbas (20% Ukraine)
100’000’s people have lost their homes and life savings (95% home ownership rate in Ukraine before the invasion), evacuated and now refurbished Mariupol flats can be bought at €45000. "
Plenty of spaces for golf courses too.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By stopping supplies, presumably the billions $$$ of Himars and US supplied equipment cannot function without USA made ammunition "
Plus spares for any kit, intelligence support..
Zelensky has his nuts in a vice and trump is turning the screw.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Shameful 
Yes, 'art of the deal' at its most base level ..
Yes 😥"
What's got to be a concern even for the most ardent trump horny blowers is he's been bankrupt what is it four times ?
And now he's using his business brain which is under constant interruptions from his ego and petulance to apply his skills in the future of another sovereign countries future and it's citizens lives to the same criteria as the bottom line on a condominium..
What next, USA walk away from NATO..?
Vladimir can't have stopped smiling..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What next, USA walk away from NATO..?
"
Probably. He's made his disdain clear.
"
Vladimir can't have stopped smiling..
"
Indeed. This is the slow collapse of "The West". Cheered on by both American isolationists (we don't need anyone else) and Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk (it's time for The West to suffer). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *usie pTV/TS 9 weeks ago
taunton |
If Putin gets given the Ukraine we best get out over the next few days and rip up all those solar panels on farm land and get some corn planted only, only got a few weeks to get some planted for making bread this next winter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Probably the most stupid move by an American administration ever, the most stupidest since..... last Friday.
Putin can now take Ukraine and then go for Moldova which should only take 2yrs at the rate they get things done and then Lithuania and attempt on Poland, Hungary and Czechaslavikia, as by then America will be out of Nato.
Peace.....no peace. Putin is stroking his white furry pussy and laughing his head off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Is anyone really shocked? Trump made it clear before he was elected that this would happen.
Why the outrage at the US for not wanting to endlessly fund a war?
What’s the plan? more deaths for no gains, keep going until Russia walks into Kyiv unopposed, or do people believe in some magical moment where Putin suddenly decides to stop? What exactly do you want from the continuous funding?
Maybe it’s time to look at Europe, the UK, and the EU, who have spent years turning a blind eye to Russian aggression out of fear. European countries have lost their way under the extended influence of a trade bloc focused on avoiding internal conflicts and strengthening their bloc powers, than facing external threats and understanding the vulnerabilities. We in the UK, even after leaving, still walk the EU’s shadow, not knowing what direction go in, stuck.
The US has stepped away as it said it was going to do, what did Europe plan to do about this, nothing until it was too late and then act in disbelief. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Putin gets given the Ukraine we best get out over the next few days and rip up all those solar panels on farm land and get some corn planted only, only got a few weeks to get some planted for making bread this next winter."
Reported that Ukraine is the world's largest exporter of sunflower oil (50% of world exports), the third largest one of barley (18%), the fourth largest one of maize (16%) and the fifth largest one of wheat (12% - 32 million tonnes). In 2021 Ukraine exported cereals worth almost $12 billion (about €11.5 billion).
Inevitable impact of wholesale prices while Mrs Reeves and Brexit have made it more difficult for Uk farming, this country can’t feed itself and reliant on imported foods. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *end1Man 9 weeks ago
southend on sea |
"This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order."
trump has signed off on 90billion dollars of arms to Israel since taking office the yanks fully support the genocide
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order."
hey we keep being told europe and the uk are together for Ukraine so it shouldn't be a problem...oh yea that's right there are a few country's in the eu who don't want to get involved,mainly country's in the East who know only to well what going to war with Russia will entail
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Starmer jumped the gun by saying that he works send British troops to assist the US with peace keeping if they sent in their military. However that's not likely now!
Other European countries stated they would not be sending it troops so I certainly don't see European going to full out war with Russia and I hope that never happens.
I'm sure zelensky would have signed the minerals deal if it was actually a proper peace deal with guaranteed security should putin attack again.
I'm hopping that the USA will offer a better deal and zelensky will take it.
If not well....... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order. trump has signed off on 90billion dollars of arms to Israel since taking office the yanks fully support the genocide "
What as that got to do with Ukraine? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order.hey we keep being told europe and the uk are together for Ukraine so it shouldn't be a problem...oh yea that's right there are a few country's in the eu who don't want to get involved,mainly country's in the East who know only to well what going to war with Russia will entail"
So EU needs to did deep and push hard for Ukraine giving moor now to counter Russia and North Korea.
And now is the time for the RAF with others to do lots of sevalance on and behind the front line to see where and what Russia has and is planning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer jumped the gun by saying that he works send British troops to assist the US with peace keeping if they sent in their military. However that's not likely now!
Other European countries stated they would not be sending it troops so I certainly don't see European going to full out war with Russia and I hope that never happens.
I'm sure zelensky would have signed the minerals deal if it was actually a proper peace deal with guaranteed security should putin attack again.
I'm hopping that the USA will offer a better deal and zelensky will take it.
If not well......."
Dare I say for now there is a mineral deal to be done should the uk try and get to the front of the queue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Starmer jumped the gun by saying that he works send British troops to assist the US with peace keeping if they sent in their military. However that's not likely now!
Other European countries stated they would not be sending it troops so I certainly don't see European going to full out war with Russia and I hope that never happens.
I'm sure zelensky would have signed the minerals deal if it was actually a proper peace deal with guaranteed security should putin attack again.
I'm hopping that the USA will offer a better deal and zelensky will take it.
If not well......."
This is not moving away from the reliance on the US.
There is a possible solution, but the lack of backbone across Europe will prevent that being implemented, that is from leaders and the population who are more than willing to see Ukrainians or US soldiers thrown under the bus...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer jumped the gun by saying that he works send British troops to assist the US with peace keeping if they sent in their military. However that's not likely now!
Other European countries stated they would not be sending it troops so I certainly don't see European going to full out war with Russia and I hope that never happens.
I'm sure zelensky would have signed the minerals deal if it was actually a proper peace deal with guaranteed security should putin attack again.
I'm hopping that the USA will offer a better deal and zelensky will take it.
If not well.......
Dare I say for now there is a mineral deal to be done should the uk try and get to the front of the queue. "
That really would piss off trump! Again starmer has to try and do what's in the best interest of the UK. Would that be in our best interest? Not sure on that, really wouldn't want to be the PM right now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 9 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
If this is all about “negotiation “ I’ve yet to hear about Russia’s giving up anything… it all about Ukraine giving up land, and rare earth minerals, and the leader going, and giving a grovelling apology
This combined with the US telling cyber command to halt any operations against Russia tells a lot
I just want one European leader to basically say in public that in effect the US has swapped sides
Ukraine and Europe are not asking for American troops on the ground, they are basically just asking for logistical support such as air cover!
If that is too much for this transactional administration, then basically do it without them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer jumped the gun by saying that he works send British troops to assist the US with peace keeping if they sent in their military. However that's not likely now!
Other European countries stated they would not be sending it troops so I certainly don't see European going to full out war with Russia and I hope that never happens.
I'm sure zelensky would have signed the minerals deal if it was actually a proper peace deal with guaranteed security should putin attack again.
I'm hopping that the USA will offer a better deal and zelensky will take it.
If not well.......
Dare I say for now there is a mineral deal to be done should the uk try and get to the front of the queue.
That really would piss off trump! Again starmer has to try and do what's in the best interest of the UK. Would that be in our best interest? Not sure on that, really wouldn't want to be the PM right now"
Europe needs to look after Europe Trump has made that clear.
Ukraine has around 500,000 tons of lithium worth about £50,000/ ton
This is what Trump and Russia are after as well as gold and othere minerals.
A small % would help clear UK debt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this is all about “negotiation “ I’ve yet to hear about Russia’s giving up anything… it all about Ukraine giving up land, and rare earth minerals, and the leader going, and giving a grovelling apology
This combined with the US telling cyber command to halt any operations against Russia tells a lot
I just want one European leader to basically say in public that in effect the US has swapped sides
Ukraine and Europe are not asking for American troops on the ground, they are basically just asking for logistical support such as air cover!
If that is too much for this transactional administration, then basically do it without them! "
And if Russia has North Korean troops on the ground Why can't Europe give air cover. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If this is all about “negotiation “ I’ve yet to hear about Russia’s giving up anything… it all about Ukraine giving up land, and rare earth minerals, and the leader going, and giving a grovelling apology
This combined with the US telling cyber command to halt any operations against Russia tells a lot
I just want one European leader to basically say in public that in effect the US has swapped sides
Ukraine and Europe are not asking for American troops on the ground, they are basically just asking for logistical support such as air cover!
If that is too much for this transactional administration, then basically do it without them! "
Sorry for the deletes!±!
The US has not swapped sides, that is a narrative that keeps being thrown about like confetti, so why would a European leader say such a thing? ....
The US is clear it is not getting involved any further, I'm not sure why it is felt okay for Europe or Ukraine to continue to keep pushing on the US? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 9 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
And if there was any doubt…. These are the words of the vice president, JD Vance, on hannity last night , about what he thinks of the UK
Give America the economic upside in the future of Ukraine, that is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years….
JD…. Go and fuck a couch!!!
I think if I’m the American ambassador who thought the UK job was going to be a cushy one, I think I might call him in to the foreign office and give him “a dressing down “ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He a bit of a pillock. Led and advised by self interested pillocks.
What Don is good at is doublespeak - rejecting something one minute and supporting it another (and vice versa).
He does seem fairly predictable in his unpredictability, in that he tells you who he doesn't like or what he's going to do and does it. He's never like the EU, NATO, UN, WHO, Zelensky, his bromance with Macron has always been short lived.
What I'm getting at is his WW3 comment. This could well have been deflection hoping (knowing), he has a base group of supporters that see him as God like, his actions however US detrimental, seen US plus. So by pushing the dictator, WW3, resign, he doesn't want peace narrative.. anything that happens after that is not a consequence of any US action - Trump said there would be, Trump tried to stop it, Trump was right. When in fact, Trump laid the ground work for war in Europe by leaving allies.
I wonder how far Reps will let him continue the path before the strain will be too much. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
i get the impression that this the begining of the sidelining of america by the global community.
also i think we are closer to the time where trump tells the UN to find a new headquarters by convincing his maga base that they're paying for everything |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is all just giving encouragement to the Russians, who will now give a massive push. The US has effectively surrendered on behalf of Ukraine and it's Western supporters. Notably arms support of Israel doesn't seem to vexing the White House quite as much. We're probably witnessing the stirrings of a new world order. trump has signed off on 90billion dollars of arms to Israel since taking office the yanks fully support the genocide
What as that got to do with Ukraine? "
There's only x amount of $ to go around? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It couldn’t be any more clearer - Trump is taking his instructions from the Kremlin. This is clearly a Russian plan - American has been masterfully manipulated and controlled. "
And they have done that without anybody noticing.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This will turn into a terms of surrender talks. Let's hope Russia doesn't go for the unconditional sort of surrender talks.
Chamberlain caame back from munich waving a piece of paper and bought time to re arm. I would suggest Trump is about to do the same.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This will turn into a terms of surrender talks. Let's hope Russia doesn't go for the unconditional sort of surrender talks.
Chamberlain caame back from munich waving a piece of paper and bought time to re arm. I would suggest Trump is about to do the same.
"
Putin is just being greedy, he already has the USA. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ada123Couple 9 weeks ago
Glasgow |
"This is good news.
Trump wants peace.
Meanwhile Starmer is ramping up the war rhetoric and trying to get bankrupt UK involved in another unwinnable war.
"
This is not good news but to be expected. Russia's ability to wage war is diminishing fast, international economists believe they will be bankrupt by this time next year so it is very important to Trump and Putin that Zelensky is dragged to the negotiating table asap and forced to capitulate.
Trump does not want peace. He wants MONEY, personal money. He is now trying to sell the Ukraine down the river to get an obscene, unjustified, proportion of their rare earths for far less than they provided. Trump says they spent $350 billion on support. That is a lie. It is $183 Billion with $80+ Billion being spent in the USA.
Starmer is the only one of the 3 signatories to the 1994 Ukraine defence agreement still trying to honour it. As Zelenzky said, Russia has signed 11 agreements with Ukraine and it has renaged on every one of them; a cease fire now would only give Russia an opportunity to rearm for the next attack. The only thing that will keep Russia out is a show of force. That is what Starmer and Europe are trying to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is good news.
Trump wants peace.
Meanwhile Starmer is ramping up the war rhetoric and trying to get bankrupt UK involved in another unwinnable war.
This is not good news but to be expected. Russia's ability to wage war is diminishing fast, international economists believe they will be bankrupt by this time next year so it is very important to Trump and Putin that Zelensky is dragged to the negotiating table asap and forced to capitulate.
Trump does not want peace. He wants MONEY, personal money. He is now trying to sell the Ukraine down the river to get an obscene, unjustified, proportion of their rare earths for far less than they provided. Trump says they spent $350 billion on support. That is a lie. It is $183 Billion with $80+ Billion being spent in the USA.
Starmer is the only one of the 3 signatories to the 1994 Ukraine defence agreement still trying to honour it. As Zelenzky said, Russia has signed 11 agreements with Ukraine and it has renaged on every one of them; a cease fire now would only give Russia an opportunity to rearm for the next attack. The only thing that will keep Russia out is a show of force. That is what Starmer and Europe are trying to do. "
Agreed. But they have all had three years. As soon as USA signals withdrawal Europe filling its pants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?"
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development "
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Hungary has blocked more EU support to Ukraine, and that is one of the problems with EU if one country votes against something then it just puts the brakes on.
So if Europe can't agree quickly on support the door will be open for Russia to grab more for it self. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is all a circus. Noise. While we all debate about new world orders, WW3 and expansion the real one is silently walking away with all the spoils, right under our noses. They are not a nation state. They are a corporation. Blackrock.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country.."
I beg to differ His diplomatic skills are lacking and who knows a well pressed shirt and suit might remind of the occasion he is in, after all military leaders in the field change their attire accordingly.
Maybe you could be his batman |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 9 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country..
I beg to differ His diplomatic skills are lacking and who knows a well pressed shirt and suit might remind of the occasion he is in, after all military leaders in the field change their attire accordingly.
Maybe you could be his batman "
You have not seen the Churchill pictures.. have you?
Also.. the symbolism behind why he wears what he does
Anyway… President today has managed to piss off Canada and Mexico, vice president today has managed to piss off the UK and France … it’s like torching down everything on your way out the door! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country..
I beg to differ His diplomatic skills are lacking and who knows a well pressed shirt and suit might remind of the occasion he is in, after all military leaders in the field change their attire accordingly.
Maybe you could be his batman
You have not seen the Churchill pictures.. have you?
Also.. the symbolism behind why he wears what he does
Anyway… President today has managed to piss off Canada and Mexico, vice president today has managed to piss off the UK and France … it’s like torching down everything on your way out the door! "
I have seen the photos of Churchill, you do know he wasn't always dressed in overalls
Canada in particular was pissed, off, Justin showing a bit of energy for a change, who knew.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country..
I beg to differ His diplomatic skills are lacking and who knows a well pressed shirt and suit might remind of the occasion he is in, after all military leaders in the field change their attire accordingly.
Maybe you could be his batman
You have not seen the Churchill pictures.. have you?
Also.. the symbolism behind why he wears what he does
Anyway… President today has managed to piss off Canada and Mexico, vice president today has managed to piss off the UK and France … it’s like torching down everything on your way out the door! "
This seems to be a very deliberate process to alienate the American people from the rest of the world with the aim of bringing the people together us against the world so to speak. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country..
I beg to differ His diplomatic skills are lacking and who knows a well pressed shirt and suit might remind of the occasion he is in, after all military leaders in the field change their attire accordingly.
Maybe you could be his batman "
He's been doing fairly well on the diplomatic front this past three years without wearing a suit..
If he chooses to then fair play to him..
I'm firmly of the opinion that we as mere outsiders don't have a single iota of what the pressures on him and his family have been and are.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I fear Starmer is walking into the Blair trap - plunging the nation into a war as a leading player when it's peripheral to our national interests. It works for Labour because it distracts from all the crap at home and gives them a convenient coat hook for their excuses. How is a guy who can't stop refugees in inflatables washing up on our beaches every day of the year gonna stop the Russian army? It's just ludicrous. The EU, and Germany especially, have lived well off cheap Russian oil and gas, so let them grapple with the Bear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country..
I beg to differ His diplomatic skills are lacking and who knows a well pressed shirt and suit might remind of the occasion he is in, after all military leaders in the field change their attire accordingly.
Maybe you could be his batman
He's been doing fairly well on the diplomatic front this past three years without wearing a suit..
If he chooses to then fair play to him..
I'm firmly of the opinion that we as mere outsiders don't have a single iota of what the pressures on him and his family have been and are.."
Oh I agree with that, but there is a measured approach that needs to happen and sometimes that means simply changing a little thing here or there to get a result.
It is no big thing to you and I, or Trump as he did say he looked smart. Remember it was the journalist who asked the question |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I fear Starmer is walking into the Blair trap - plunging the nation into a war as a leading player when it's peripheral to our national interests. It works for Labour because it distracts from all the crap at home and gives them a convenient coat hook for their excuses. How is a guy who can't stop refugees in inflatables washing up on our beaches every day of the year gonna stop the Russian army? It's just ludicrous. The EU, and Germany especially, have lived well off cheap Russian oil and gas, so let them grapple with the Bear."
In the cold light of day it would be a bold move to put troops on the ground and try and bring in article 5, however the rules might not have been followed and NATO is weak.
The cracks are everywhere |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
But..
Will he wear a suit..?
I hope so, there is room for some self awareness and personal development
After three years of leading a country at war I think his personal development is far and above the likes of others who once had 'bone spurs' to dodge serving his country..
I beg to differ His diplomatic skills are lacking and who knows a well pressed shirt and suit might remind of the occasion he is in, after all military leaders in the field change their attire accordingly.
Maybe you could be his batman
He's been doing fairly well on the diplomatic front this past three years without wearing a suit..
If he chooses to then fair play to him..
I'm firmly of the opinion that we as mere outsiders don't have a single iota of what the pressures on him and his family have been and are..
Oh I agree with that, but there is a measured approach that needs to happen and sometimes that means simply changing a little thing here or there to get a result.
It is no big thing to you and I, or Trump as he did say he looked smart. Remember it was the journalist who asked the question "
The journalist who is the boyfriend of Marjorie Taylor Greene..
Yup, obviously it was an off the cuff remark ..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is it about Labour governments that they are always gagging to go to war somewhere?
Do they just overcompensate for being weak?"
If you think the Tories would have stayed out of any of the conflicts that Labour were in power for I have a bridge to sell you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Get rid of Putin and the problem is solved, he is a relic from the old Soviet scene, a kgb thug, and deep down hates the West for humiliating Russia after the end of the cold war. The Afghans kicked Russia out so can Ukraine.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Says a lot about signed agreements between state leaders.
The Budapest Memorandum was signed in January 1994, the U.S., Russia and Ukraine issued an historic Trilateral Statement that promised security assurances to Ukraine once the START I Treaty entered into force and Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapons state and a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get rid of Putin and the problem is solved, he is a relic from the old Soviet scene, a kgb thug, and deep down hates the West for humiliating Russia after the end of the cold war. The Afghans kicked Russia out so can Ukraine.
"
you do realise if putin goes there are plenty just like him who will take control, if you think that with putin gone a freindly pro western person would take control i have some magic beans to sell you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ada123Couple 9 weeks ago
Glasgow |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago.."
Of course he wants the war to end. He is President of a country that is bombed every night and has had 10s of thousands killed.
The question is on what terms? If Ukraine capitulates now, with no gurantee of protection from the west, Russia (facilitated by Trump's spineless appeasement) will just rearm and roll accross the rest of his weakened country.
Then where? Poland? Rumania? Moldova? the Baltic states. At what point does Europe get involved? Because it will have to. Then we WILL have world war 3 with Trump selling arms and amunition to the highest bidder.
The sadest thing is Trump believes Putin is honest. He thinks he will stick to the private deals he has made. He won't; and Trump will be out of office when Putin renages on their agreements. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
Of course he wants the war to end. He is President of a country that is bombed every night and has had 10s of thousands killed.
The question is on what terms? If Ukraine capitulates now, with no gurantee of protection from the west, Russia (facilitated by Trump's spineless appeasement) will just rearm and roll accross the rest of his weakened country.
Then where? Poland? Rumania? Moldova? the Baltic states. At what point does Europe get involved? Because it will have to. Then we WILL have world war 3 with Trump selling arms and amunition to the highest bidder.
The sadest thing is Trump believes Putin is honest. He thinks he will stick to the private deals he has made. He won't; and Trump will be out of office when Putin renages on their agreements. "
You are projecting the same scenarios I hear time after time.
Russia would not go anywhere near the countries you mention, especially Poland..
Zelensky if given the tools would have continued to send his people to the front line, with Europe and the US happy to keep providing weapons rather than get involved.
The protection will come through the US mining to recoup the money owed.
What is the best outcome in your opinion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If Ukraine capitulates now, with no guarantee of protection from the west, Russia (facilitated by Trump's spineless appeasement) will just rearm and roll accross the rest of his weakened country.
"
That guarantee exists and was signed on 5th December 1994.
What is interesting is that it (Budapest security memorandum) has conveniently been keep out of media for the last three years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Says a lot about signed agreements between state leaders.
The Budapest Memorandum was signed in January 1994, the U.S., Russia and Ukraine issued an historic Trilateral Statement that promised security assurances to Ukraine once the START I Treaty entered into force and Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapons state and a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty."
It’s exactly this and to my knowledge Ukraine had never broken their side of the agreement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If Putin wasn't trying to take Ukraine there would be no need for any Ukrainian leader to send troops to defend their country..
"
Everything in life is fluid and needs reacting to.
Europe has been weak, allowing Putin to encroach into Ukraine, or maybe it hasn't been weak at all and knows that Ukraine is the only place he can go.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
"
The examples of why we need to ramp up military spending is all around us now, and if China started hostilities now, my god the world would be a totally different place.
Europe would fold like a paper bag... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
"
Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum."
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes. "
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 9 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
"
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Guardian reporting European air force of 120 fighter jets could be deployed to secure the skies from Russian attacks on Kyiv and western Ukraine without necessarily provoking a wider conflict with Moscow, according to a plan drawn up by military experts.
Sky Shield, its proponents argue, would be a European-led air protection zone operated separately from Nato to halt Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years…."
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Guardian reporting European air force of 120 fighter jets could be deployed to secure the skies from Russian attacks on Kyiv and western Ukraine without necessarily provoking a wider conflict with Moscow, according to a plan drawn up by military experts.
Sky Shield, its proponents argue, would be a European-led air protection zone operated separately from Nato to halt Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure. "
This would help still living there and stop attacking infrastructure. And as I said if Russia has North Korea help as in boots on the ground why can't EU help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU."
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU.
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me."
no he can't .... he's just suffering from europe derangement syndrome |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 9 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU.
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me."
The EU did NOT place any limits on how much each member state could spend on defence.
Usual anti-EU lies being spouted to justify a false accusation.
No surprise there!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 9 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Guardian reporting European air force of 120 fighter jets could be deployed to secure the skies from Russian attacks on Kyiv and western Ukraine without necessarily provoking a wider conflict with Moscow, according to a plan drawn up by military experts.
Sky Shield, its proponents argue, would be a European-led air protection zone operated separately from Nato to halt Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure. "
That would be akin to a “no fly zone” which would make sense as long as planes in question are not flying anywhere near Russian airspace….. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Guardian reporting European air force of 120 fighter jets could be deployed to secure the skies from Russian attacks on Kyiv and western Ukraine without necessarily provoking a wider conflict with Moscow, according to a plan drawn up by military experts.
Sky Shield, its proponents argue, would be a European-led air protection zone operated separately from Nato to halt Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure. "
NATO planes under a different title will probably be a no no for Putin ..
Interesting idea if it gets UN support.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
BBC now reporting 18-20 countries willing to participate some in, some not in, as deterrent.
For Russia, Sergei Lavrov says Russia's stance on European peacekeepers in Ukraine.
"We see no room for compromise here". He made it very clear that whatever flag the peacekeeping force would fly under, EU or national flags, Moscow would see it as troops from Nato countries, and as a direct participation of Nato countries in the "war against Russia".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU.
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me.
The EU did NOT place any limits on how much each member state could spend on defence.
Usual anti-EU lies being spouted to justify a false accusation.
No surprise there!
"
I worded that badly! The EU Stability and Growth Pact, indirectly constrains how much countries can allocate to defence. The EU suspended those rules on the 4th to allow more money to be spent on the military.
Anti EU |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU.
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me."
As I mentioned in the post above, I worded that badly.
The EU Stability and Growth Pact, indirectly constrains how much countries can allocate to defence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 9 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU.
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me.
As I mentioned in the post above, I worded that badly.
The EU Stability and Growth Pact, indirectly constrains how much countries can allocate to defence"
That is also strictly not true as countries such as Poland have allocated greater amounts than others (Poland spends the highest amount on defence at about 3.8% of GDP closely followed by Greece and some Nordic nations).
What the EU have recently done is to allow a change in the way that spend on defence can be counted within fiscal rules as the EU Stability and Growth Pact (which you mention) is a set of rules designed to ensure that countries in the European Union pursue sound public finances and coordinate their fiscal policies.
To spend money on any sector, including defence, which risks that countries financial position is foolish as I am sure you will agree (the UK also manages budget spend hence cannot simply magic up money to spend on defence).
There is nothing wrong with the way that the EU manage this and the problem is not the EU as you have said (but come back from slightly in your last statement).
The EU doesn't want to have to bail out another country as they have had to do in the past hence the sensible approach.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU.
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me.
As I mentioned in the post above, I worded that badly.
The EU Stability and Growth Pact, indirectly constrains how much countries can allocate to defence
That is also strictly not true as countries such as Poland have allocated greater amounts than others (Poland spends the highest amount on defence at about 3.8% of GDP closely followed by Greece and some Nordic nations).
What the EU have recently done is to allow a change in the way that spend on defence can be counted within fiscal rules as the EU Stability and Growth Pact (which you mention) is a set of rules designed to ensure that countries in the European Union pursue sound public finances and coordinate their fiscal policies.
To spend money on any sector, including defence, which risks that countries financial position is foolish as I am sure you will agree (the UK also manages budget spend hence cannot simply magic up money to spend on defence).
There is nothing wrong with the way that the EU manage this and the problem is not the EU as you have said (but come back from slightly in your last statement).
The EU doesn't want to have to bail out another country as they have had to do in the past hence the sensible approach.
"
The last thing I'm going to say on this. Look at the news from 4th March ref, the suspension of existing EU budgetary constraints and fiscal rules that will allow more money from EU countries to be spent on enhancing their military capabilities. Those same rules prevented countries uplifting their military budgets, hence them having to be suspended. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 9 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Anyone explain why you'd want to ramp military spending just as war ends? If there's no wars, there's no need for countries to focus revenues on military away from more needed areas of their economies.
Tariffs along with the above will only mean companies going bust, unable to raise funds or remain profitable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Trump was talking about nuclear demilitarisation with Russia and China a month or so ago.. holding all the land, all the chips and ports, doesn't match him cutting his own defence spending by $50bn or veterans programmes - 80,000 employees cut that service them.
It seems a rhetoric is being pushed on others whilst the US is free to do what it likes.
America first... Trump is telling the rest of NATO to pay more because they are going to pay less, they provide over 16% of the NATO budget.
Not sure what has been changed ref veteran programmes or if it could be said it is military spending?
The 16% number is a bit disingenuous because each country is supposed to have defence spending which is equivalent to 2% of it’s GDP
So the us number is actually 3.3% ….
Yes there are countries that do worse, but there are also countries within nato that do better (Poland, all the Baltic states, the Czech Republic)
The UK, France and Germany have now all committed to getting to 3% in the next few years….
It doesn’t matter how you dice it, whether as a percentage of GDP or total contribution when the actual money difference is massive. The US still puts in far more than any other NATO member. Let’s not forget, the EU placed limits on how much its member states can contribute to defence, restricting those who might actually want to invest more....
You can see the problem, the EU.
Can you provide evidence of EU placing limits on how much MSs can contribute to defense?
This is new information for me.
As I mentioned in the post above, I worded that badly.
The EU Stability and Growth Pact, indirectly constrains how much countries can allocate to defence
That is also strictly not true as countries such as Poland have allocated greater amounts than others (Poland spends the highest amount on defence at about 3.8% of GDP closely followed by Greece and some Nordic nations).
What the EU have recently done is to allow a change in the way that spend on defence can be counted within fiscal rules as the EU Stability and Growth Pact (which you mention) is a set of rules designed to ensure that countries in the European Union pursue sound public finances and coordinate their fiscal policies.
To spend money on any sector, including defence, which risks that countries financial position is foolish as I am sure you will agree (the UK also manages budget spend hence cannot simply magic up money to spend on defence).
There is nothing wrong with the way that the EU manage this and the problem is not the EU as you have said (but come back from slightly in your last statement).
The EU doesn't want to have to bail out another country as they have had to do in the past hence the sensible approach.
The last thing I'm going to say on this. Look at the news from 4th March ref, the suspension of existing EU budgetary constraints and fiscal rules that will allow more money from EU countries to be spent on enhancing their military capabilities. Those same rules prevented countries uplifting their military budgets, hence them having to be suspended. "
Glad that you agree with what I said, took some time but you got there!
Well done! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ada123Couple 9 weeks ago
Glasgow |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
Of course he wants the war to end. He is President of a country that is bombed every night and has had 10s of thousands killed.
The question is on what terms? If Ukraine capitulates now, with no gurantee of protection from the west, Russia (facilitated by Trump's spineless appeasement) will just rearm and roll accross the rest of his weakened country.
Then where? Poland? Rumania? Moldova? the Baltic states. At what point does Europe get involved? Because it will have to. Then we WILL have world war 3 with Trump selling arms and amunition to the highest bidder.
The sadest thing is Trump believes Putin is honest. He thinks he will stick to the private deals he has made. He won't; and Trump will be out of office when Putin renages on their agreements.
You are projecting the same scenarios I hear time after time.
Russia would not go anywhere near the countries you mention, especially Poland.
Zelensky if given the tools would have continued to send his people to the front line, with Europe and the US happy to keep providing weapons rather than get involved.
The protection will come through the US mining to recoup the money owed.
What is the best outcome in your opinion?"
Simply because they are often stated does not make them wrong.
Why will Russia not go near those countries? Trump's next move is to leave NATO then those countries will be vulnerable to a rejuvinated Russia. Putin wants to recreate the former Soviet Union, which he believes wrongly gave away the ex-USSR satelites. He belives they should be controlled by their motherland.
Zelensky and the people of Ukraine will continue to defend their country and try to eject the invaders who have occupied 20% of it. That is what courageous, honourable, people do. What is wrong with that? Russia is in the wrong here, why criticise the Ukranians for fighting back?.
There are already USA interests in the areas taken by Russia. Why is Trump not demanding them back? Because he has already agreed with Putin a private deal whereby he continues to benefit, probably personally, from those interests. That is why Zelensky and Europe knows "USA interests" provides no protection in the future.
The best outcome? The Russians are pushed out of the Ukraine including Crimea. The former USSR and its favourite son know of only one thing that would prevent them invading the baltic states and Europe; a bigger, stronger, defending force.
With the USA out of the picture that will have to be a European army, in Ukraine. The sabre rattling Russia does every time a peace keeping force is discussed indicates they do not want the rump of NATO in there.
That is the reason why Putin's asset, Trump, took a NATO peacekeeping force and Ukraine's NATO membership off the negotiating table at the start. That is the reason Trump has halted the supply of weapons and early warning intelligence which help protect civilians from Russia's indescriminate bombing. All this is in order to force Ukraine to capitulate and gift their land and resources to Putin before the Europeans get their act together.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Zelensky looking to bring the war to a close.
Remarkable turn around of events from 2 months ago..
Of course he wants the war to end. He is President of a country that is bombed every night and has had 10s of thousands killed.
The question is on what terms? If Ukraine capitulates now, with no gurantee of protection from the west, Russia (facilitated by Trump's spineless appeasement) will just rearm and roll accross the rest of his weakened country.
Then where? Poland? Rumania? Moldova? the Baltic states. At what point does Europe get involved? Because it will have to. Then we WILL have world war 3 with Trump selling arms and amunition to the highest bidder.
The sadest thing is Trump believes Putin is honest. He thinks he will stick to the private deals he has made. He won't; and Trump will be out of office when Putin renages on their agreements.
You are projecting the same scenarios I hear time after time.
Russia would not go anywhere near the countries you mention, especially Poland.
Zelensky if given the tools would have continued to send his people to the front line, with Europe and the US happy to keep providing weapons rather than get involved.
The protection will come through the US mining to recoup the money owed.
What is the best outcome in your opinion?
Simply because they are often stated does not make them wrong.
Why will Russia not go near those countries? Trump's next move is to leave NATO then those countries will be vulnerable to a rejuvinated Russia. Putin wants to recreate the former Soviet Union, which he believes wrongly gave away the ex-USSR satelites. He belives they should be controlled by their motherland.
Zelensky and the people of Ukraine will continue to defend their country and try to eject the invaders who have occupied 20% of it. That is what courageous, honourable, people do. What is wrong with that? Russia is in the wrong here, why criticise the Ukranians for fighting back?.
There are already USA interests in the areas taken by Russia. Why is Trump not demanding them back? Because he has already agreed with Putin a private deal whereby he continues to benefit, probably personally, from those interests. That is why Zelensky and Europe knows "USA interests" provides no protection in the future.
The best outcome? The Russians are pushed out of the Ukraine including Crimea. The former USSR and its favourite son know of only one thing that would prevent them invading the baltic states and Europe; a bigger, stronger, defending force.
With the USA out of the picture that will have to be a European army, in Ukraine. The sabre rattling Russia does every time a peace keeping force is discussed indicates they do not want the rump of NATO in there.
That is the reason why Putin's asset, Trump, took a NATO peacekeeping force and Ukraine's NATO membership off the negotiating table at the start. That is the reason Trump has halted the supply of weapons and early warning intelligence which help protect civilians from Russia's indescriminate bombing. All this is in order to force Ukraine to capitulate and gift their land and resources to Putin before the Europeans get their act together.
"
Repeating a scenario where Trump is actively working to dismantle NATO and "gift" Ukraine to Putin doesn’t make it fact either. Trump hasn’t left NATO, and even if he reduces US involvement, European nations are now increasing defence spending something they should have done years ago.
As for Russia taking the Baltic states or Poland, that’s a huge leap and a bigger undertaking than Ukraine.
At some point, diplomacy will have to be on the table, whether you and Zelensky like it or not. The question is how to secure Ukraine’s longterm sovereignty without prolonging a war, not wild speculations of Trump being in Putin's pocket an asset or in the KGB as some have said...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Repeating a scenario where Trump is actively working to dismantle NATO and "gift" Ukraine to Putin doesn’t make it fact either. Trump hasn’t left NATO, and even if he reduces US involvement, European nations are now increasing defence spending something they should have done years ago.
As for Russia taking the Baltic states or Poland, that’s a huge leap and a bigger undertaking than Ukraine.
At some point, diplomacy will have to be on the table, whether you and Zelensky like it or not. The question is how to secure Ukraine’s longterm sovereignty without prolonging a war, not wild speculations of Trump being in Putin's pocket an asset or in the KGB as some have said...
"
It isn't wild speculations. He's appeasing Putin and undermining allies. How sovereign will Ukraine be after Russia keeps 1/5th land it's captured, the US and Saudis are given (likely indefinite) right to mine other areas but with no security guarantees.
The only thing that may happen is the US/Saudis/Russia benefit from Ukraine minerals and no doubt Tesla, Starbucks and McDonalds will be front and centre on every Ukrainian street corner - profits going to America not Ukraine.
It would be sovereign if the US gave them security, giving Russia ultimatums it did Ukraine. Trump hasn't signed off any US arms since coming to office, it has all been the overhang of Biden's last package.
I agree peace talks must happen, though it is clear to see they are one sided, forced and for the benefit of the US not anyone else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
Repeating a scenario where Trump is actively working to dismantle NATO and "gift" Ukraine to Putin doesn’t make it fact either. Trump hasn’t left NATO, and even if he reduces US involvement, European nations are now increasing defence spending something they should have done years ago.
As for Russia taking the Baltic states or Poland, that’s a huge leap and a bigger undertaking than Ukraine.
At some point, diplomacy will have to be on the table, whether you and Zelensky like it or not. The question is how to secure Ukraine’s longterm sovereignty without prolonging a war, not wild speculations of Trump being in Putin's pocket an asset or in the KGB as some have said...
It isn't wild speculations. He's appeasing Putin and undermining allies. How sovereign will Ukraine be after Russia keeps 1/5th land it's captured, the US and Saudis are given (likely indefinite) right to mine other areas but with no security guarantees.
The only thing that may happen is the US/Saudis/Russia benefit from Ukraine minerals and no doubt Tesla, Starbucks and McDonalds will be front and centre on every Ukrainian street corner - profits going to America not Ukraine.
It would be sovereign if the US gave them security, giving Russia ultimatums it did Ukraine. Trump hasn't signed off any US arms since coming to office, it has all been the overhang of Biden's last package.
I agree peace talks must happen, though it is clear to see they are one sided, forced and for the benefit of the US not anyone else. "
It is wild speculation to claim Trump is a KGB asset or secretly conspiring with Putin. What he has done is make his position clear, he wants the war to end and has stopped US military aid to Ukraine. This was never hidden, he said it openly before taking office. Yet, the world acts shocked when he follows through??
If the media stopped focusing on stirring up those who are emotionally invested in the worst case scenario, the noise would be flattened.
At the end of the day, Trump has pulled US support, every decision on the strategy and direction of the war is in the hands of Ukraine, Russia, and Europe if they actually step up. If you disagree, then tell me exactly where I’m wrong. Facts, not speculation  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usie pTV/TS 9 weeks ago
taunton |
It's a disgrace of the highest order, the only way to deal with the likes of Putin is for the rest of the free western world to kick his ass back over the Russian border and tell him if does not bother us we will not bother him |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a disgrace of the highest order, the only way to deal with the likes of Putin is for the rest of the free western world to kick his ass back over the Russian border and tell him if does not bother us we will not bother him"
ah another oldie who has no skin in the game cheering on ww3
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ada123Couple 9 weeks ago
Glasgow |
I think we can say now without any argument that Trump has the blood of dead Ukranians on his hands after withdrawing early warning missile intelligence. Considering he did it to obtain minerals at a discount by coercion that is thin justification. How low has America sunk? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think we can say now without any argument that Trump has the blood of dead Ukranians on his hands after withdrawing early warning missile intelligence. Considering he did it to obtain minerals at a discount by coercion that is thin justification. How low has America sunk?"
Agreed.
So the bigger Question is should Europe try and steel the deal.
EUROPE gives more support for a return on the minerals. Sum have segregated there is not enough minerals to make it a worthwhile deal but could you not add grain and Energy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this is all about “negotiation “ I’ve yet to hear about Russia’s giving up anything… it all about Ukraine giving up land, and rare earth minerals, and the leader going, and giving a grovelling apology
This combined with the US telling cyber command to halt any operations against Russia tells a lot
I just want one European leader to basically say in public that in effect the US has swapped sides
Ukraine and Europe are not asking for American troops on the ground, they are basically just asking for logistical support such as air cover!
If that is too much for this transactional administration, then basically do it without them!
And if Russia has North Korean troops on the ground Why can't Europe give air cover. "
they can but don't be to surprised if they fly over the land russia has taken they will likley be shot down |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ada123Couple 9 weeks ago
Glasgow |
"I think we can say now without any argument that Trump has the blood of dead Ukranians on his hands after withdrawing early warning missile intelligence. Considering he did it to obtain minerals at a discount by coercion that is thin justification. How low has America sunk?
Agreed.
So the bigger Question is should Europe try and steel the deal.
EUROPE gives more support for a return on the minerals. Sum have segregated there is not enough minerals to make it a worthwhile deal but could you not add grain and Energy. "
I think if it all pans out well europe will do the deal with Ukraine and the untrustworthy, self absorbed, arrogant, USA will be left out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think we can say now without any argument that Trump has the blood of dead Ukranians on his hands after withdrawing early warning missile intelligence. Considering he did it to obtain minerals at a discount by coercion that is thin justification. How low has America sunk?
Agreed.
So the bigger Question is should Europe try and steel the deal.
EUROPE gives more support for a return on the minerals. Sum have segregated there is not enough minerals to make it a worthwhile deal but could you not add grain and Energy. "
i think if they tried to do a deal with them on grain european farmers would have something to say about that, was only last year they were stoppinh trains carrying grain, think they ended up emptying a few tons over the train tracks in poland also i dont think tjere grain meets eu standards |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think we can say now without any argument that Trump has the blood of dead Ukranians on his hands after withdrawing early warning missile intelligence. Considering he did it to obtain minerals at a discount by coercion that is thin justification. How low has America sunk?
Agreed.
So the bigger Question is should Europe try and steel the deal.
EUROPE gives more support for a return on the minerals. Sum have segregated there is not enough minerals to make it a worthwhile deal but could you not add grain and Energy.
I think if it all pans out well europe will do the deal with Ukraine and the untrustworthy, self absorbed, arrogant, USA will be left out. "
In the meantime how much more destruction and lives lost.
Trump currently the bogie man for withdrawing support enabling the bombing but Europe very quiet on actual support after their recent meetings and meaningless pledges. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this is all about “negotiation “ I’ve yet to hear about Russia’s giving up anything… it all about Ukraine giving up land, and rare earth minerals, and the leader going, and giving a grovelling apology
This combined with the US telling cyber command to halt any operations against Russia tells a lot
I just want one European leader to basically say in public that in effect the US has swapped sides
Ukraine and Europe are not asking for American troops on the ground, they are basically just asking for logistical support such as air cover!
If that is too much for this transactional administration, then basically do it without them!
And if Russia has North Korean troops on the ground Why can't Europe give air cover. they can but don't be to surprised if they fly over the land russia has taken they will likley be shot down"
The Russia party representative interviewed on bbc last night said exactly this ‘You put troops in Ukraine and we will send you back coffins’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If this is all about “negotiation “ I’ve yet to hear about Russia’s giving up anything… it all about Ukraine giving up land, and rare earth minerals, and the leader going, and giving a grovelling apology
This combined with the US telling cyber command to halt any operations against Russia tells a lot
I just want one European leader to basically say in public that in effect the US has swapped sides
Ukraine and Europe are not asking for American troops on the ground, they are basically just asking for logistical support such as air cover!
If that is too much for this transactional administration, then basically do it without them!
And if Russia has North Korean troops on the ground Why can't Europe give air cover. they can but don't be to surprised if they fly over the land russia has taken they will likley be shot down
The Russia party representative interviewed on bbc last night said exactly this ‘You put troops in Ukraine and we will send you back coffins’"
I have no doubt he meant it aswell,I wonder if has even entered starmmers head that we could be seeing flag dropped coffins coming back from a war that is none of our business,not really a vote winner is it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I think we can say now without any argument that Trump has the blood of dead Ukranians on his hands after withdrawing early warning missile intelligence. Considering he did it to obtain minerals at a discount by coercion that is thin justification. How low has America sunk?
Agreed.
So the bigger Question is should Europe try and steel the deal.
EUROPE gives more support for a return on the minerals. Sum have segregated there is not enough minerals to make it a worthwhile deal but could you not add grain and Energy.
I think if it all pans out well europe will do the deal with Ukraine and the untrustworthy, self absorbed, arrogant, USA will be left out. "
Nothing could be further from the truth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
