Trump tells Zelensky 'make a deal or we're out' in angry White House meeting
The Ukrainian leader was told to leave the White House after an angry exchange with the US president.
You're viewing a single thread.
Does anyone else have the feeling that Ukraine is safer with no deal?
Yeah, and the EU should immediately step up, and triplicate support for Ukraine.
We (Europe) already did most of the heavy lifting for Ukraine. The US mostly gave old stockpiles of weapons that they would've needed to destroy anyway. We are the ones actually paying cash to keep them afloat.
The problem is, in the post-WW2 order, our defense and our defense industry was made dependent on the USA by design. And even up until last November, Europe didn't want to challenge this arrangement and just went full steam ahead with this arrangement, ordering US made weapons. I think Europe was in denial that Biden could lose or that NATO could ever end.
Only France, and to a limited extent, Sweden and Turkey, have independent defense industries.
In the future, we will have it again. And Ukraine will actually be a key player.
But in the short term, there is no magical button to press that can produce the arms.
Undoing decades of integration isn't going to be easy.
Indeed, especially during the first Cold War, the US Military Industrial Complex was everywhere. Germany and Japan were forced to buy out dated shit from the Americans. The magical button, tell the US military to shutdown all their European military installations and leave. What would the US MIC do then? I highly doubt they want to lose business.
You just made all of the points that I was thinking about.
Putin is going to make a hard move into the baltics during Trump’s first 2 years, including NATO countries. And Europe won’t be able to do shit about it. They need defenses now and European leadership needs to fast track it.
you talk as if Europe doesn't have agency, or a military.
they do. they have gaps in their capability that have been created by the departure of US. and they no longer have the overwhelming advantage against Russia, but the thing is Russia will still get absolutely smoked.
the only thing that has changed, is it will be a far bloodier fight. Europe and America are both casualty averse. the prospect of things like Bucha Mariupol and Irpin happening in their cities, the population isnt ready for that.
(And to be clear, what happened in those towns and cities were a crime against humanity, after what Russia did there the Ukrainians understood very well this is a genocidal total war, its kill or be killed, and I dont think Europe has understood thats what its going to be.)
Maybe,just maybe, look up your world politics again.
So while the Baltics are in a shitty situation it's not like Russia could attack a "non NATO" Baltic nation - as your "including" make it seem.
And currently there are 40.000 Soldiers of the ARF either deployed in the Baltics or ready to deployed within short notice - while the EU battlegroup is also available and gaining speed. The former is - for the first time - not sustained by US troops mainly,the later one of course never was. And as the ARF is a very British corps the UK has made it very clear that the ARF also operates under the British nuclear deterrence - so did France with both battlegroups.
Will that be enough to deter Putin? Who knows. Is it nothing? Definitely not - at the moment it would be, even without US support, enough to cause either the Ukrainian front or the "new front" (wherever that would be) to collapse fast.
Your narrative is either influenced by Russian misinformation or you are Russian misinformation - it is known that Russia tries to "it's not worth it to even fight" narrative heavily into Europe and it has done so in Ukraine before.
Making a dumbass geography mistake proves I’m American, not Russian 😅
Anyway, I don’t think 40,000 is enough if the USA is aligned or even allied with Russia. Which you know, seems entirely possible given current events.
40.000 is what is currently part of the reaction force - not the total force strength.
Active service/Reserve forces of the nations with direct borders to either Belarus or Russia:
That does not include the countries that are currently heavily investing in the Baltics. Germany plans to have 4.000 soldiers stationed there permanently with 30.000 active personal rotating in and out. Canada has also a brigade stationed there, the UK does the same and hosts the command in the UK.
If you count the other Baltic sea nations that mostly have a very high interest in keeping the Russiand at bay you also have Sweden (24.000+22.000 Homeguard/32.000), Denmark (16.000/12.000+51.000 HomeGuard) and Germany (180.000/930.000) you have even higher numbers.
These are roughly twice as many soldiers as Putin currently can access at the moment - and he is heavily based on conscripts and semi general mobilization which is not part of the equations for most countries here, neither are other key players (e.g. UK 135.000/32.000), France (270.000/63.000), Spain(133.000/264.000), Italy (165.000/35.000), Romania (81.000/55.000) and the smaller but often highly motivated nations, e.g. the Czech Republic (34.000/4000). Even though there are some countries who's motivation may be shaky (Italy, to some extend Germany and some smaller players like Hungary) Europe very likely would be united against a common cause in a situation like that. The most interesting point would be how Erdogan in Türkiye would respond - he has one of the largest armies on this side of the pond (481.000/380.000) and there are quite a lot of people who believe that Erdogan would actually stick with "European NATO" in this case simply he would be too afraid that Putin could either reconsider his "future" border (post Georgia invasion which is far more likely) with Türkiye or simply because he would be afraid of his old military guard.
Would that guarantee victory against a joint Putin-Trump full on attack against Europe? No. Not at all. All sides would loose. Terribly.
In total soldier numbers Europe does actually surpass both the current Russian and all US armed forces combined (narrowly). Of course the US have a huge material advantage,but this is partially based on logistics from Europe (and often stored here). All this facilities would be lost then and Russia would be unable to easily supply similar logistical capacities - they simply don't have them and transport via eastern polar routes(as the western routes are within Norwegian and Finnish reach) or the eastern ports of Russia is bothersome.
While the US navy is mighty,it would be operating very far from home - further away than it has operated from any allied base ever and in very very hostile waters. (Actually the British navy is the last modern navy to have operated that far away from an allied base during a combat mission) So the US would be limited to high flying stealth bombers (don't do that much damage and can absolutely be detected by modern western radar), stuff they drag all the way through Russia, whatever they can ferry through the pond which would be infested by various submarines that, while mainly non nuclear, are still a major treat to their navy (ask the Swedes).It would certainly not be enough for a D-Day like operation.
So the other option is: Well... intercontinental ballistic missiles. While I am absolutely sure that the fascist orange wouldn't hesitate a minute to use this option if someone tells him it makes his golf course worth more as all of Scotland's course are now burned to crisps it would also mean that Putin and Trump himself would be fucked. Because the very next minute he presses the button someone else will press a button - either in London or Paris. France is already offering to place nuclear capabilities in eastern and central Europe for this very reason. In the end Washington would be nuked the same way Moscow, London, Paris and Berlin would be. And while the Orange acts irrational his buddy Putler does not - the mediocre KGB officer understands what happens to him if his puppet in Washington overreacts.
The NATO wargamed expectation for the Baltic's is that Russia invades very quickly ( faster than the planned ukraine 3 day operation as they're smaller), overthrowing the government before NATO can react in the expectation that NATO would struggle to invade a deafeated nation, and so fragmenting the alliance.
If this sounds insanely risky, well Putin never did it. But as a plan it's not too bad. I think you know better than me the state of Europe's readiness to counter this, they are extremely aware of the possibility.
The other point is that for Ukraine support this isn't just a generic issue with size of military in the abstract, Europe as a whole does not have enough factories producing specifically artillery shells to support the artillery dominated land war in Ukraine. Ramping those up would take time, so even if Europe tries to help the forms it can take will differ to the USA and force different (worse? I can't judge) choices on the ground.
The NATO strategy reacted by placing the ARF there + placing some Polish high readiness forces there. Artillery shell production is an issue,but has been massively expanded during the last year, so has been the production of other ammo- the issue with Ukraine is more the fact that they do not use NATO standards and that there are a multitude of systems in use.
But art. ammo also is an issue for the Russian armed forces,so at least in that direction it basically equals out.
Triple*
Any deal with Trump is no deal at all. He's the kind of guy that, if you give an inch, starts waving his hands around about how you stole 16 inches from him, and how you must be thrown in a hole somewhere.
Granting him anything is telling him that you are weak and ripe to be exploited.
Just like with any dictator deals are worthless. Putin broke the ceasefire and Trump is breaking trade deals.
Yes. USA already knows what its going to do. A hypothetical trade agreement isn't going to change the decision, so Ukraine should make exactly zero concessions in pursuit of influencing a decision which has already been made.
Exactly, Trump already decided he was going to surrender. Zelensky knew he wasn't going to get anything, but it was worth a shot I guess
This guy does (he was there too, sitting next to vance, btw)
A man who, by the way, was fully supported by every single democratic senator.
He was supposed to be the "adult" in the room. They all fear Trump... For some reason, I don't get it.
trump is a good punishment for power-hungry politician types, too bad that it is at everyone else's expense.
I'm certain Dr Birx can recommend him a therapist who specializes in sold souls...
They're safer if they develop nuclear weapons on their own.
Libya and Ukraine convey the same warning to non NATO states. Have nukes or perish.
I'd suspect they're safer with a deal... but they absolutely shouldn't honor that deal.
They're safer with a deal with guarantees, but Trump doesn't want to give any, only take the profit. Otherwise it's a choice between soldiers dying and soldiers dying with profit sharing.
All to play for . Join EU. Agree no NATO Putin fucks off.
America frozen.
Not sure how the US would react. Probably war.
They can sign a 50 year deal and stop payment 10 years from now, hopefully thing change for better then.