RayC

Unfortunately, I think that you are correct. However, to answer your previous question, 'How could this war have been brought to an end?'. Imo not like this. The exclusion of Ukraine - and to a lesser extent, Europe - from these preliminary talks stinks of a bi-lateral Russia/US carve-up. Russia gets a land grab and the US gets economic concessions e.g. access to Rare Elements. Ukraine gets ..well, what exactly? And Europe gets to foot the bill for policing the arrangement. Imo what should of happened - but almost certainly won't - is for Trump to have said: "Call a ceasefire, freeze the existing terrorital positions. However, this does not mean that these positions are the starting point for negotiations. If you (Putin) do not agree to these conditions, we will put boots on the ground. If you (Zelensky) do not agree, we will withdraw military aid". I recognise that that this is a high-risk strategy both in terms of possible military escalation if Putin refuses, and also domestically for Trump from a political perspective, but imo it offers the possibility of a much better outcome for Ukraine than the current carpitulation.

If this 'global establishment' doesn't include any of the Presidents of the US, China or Russia, then it's global political authority and influence would appear to be quite limited.

Can you name some members of this 'global establishment' please? Roughly how many members are there?

Why do his sources negate the criticism? I am not interested enough to spend money on the book.

Mosier's is a contranian view. This book has been widely criticised. From his Wikipedia entry: "Mosier has come under criticism, with some scholars calling his work "deeply flawed"[4] and "dreadful".[5] The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I has been said to have a "contempt for history,"[5] and overlooks huge parts of history that debunk the narrative being created".

Very debatable. A great help.

No. Please read the thread from the start. It should explain everything.

US money and non-human resources were invaluable in both conflicts, but to say that the US saved Europe is over stating matters. The US did not officially enter WW1 until 1917. WW1 would almost certainly have lasted longer without US involvement, but a German victory was far from certain. Similar story for WW2 except that the sheer number of Russian troops would have probably meant that the Allies would have won even without US boots on the ground. The link you posted is an interesting read. However, far from proving that direct US involvement was crucial to the Allied victory, it highlights how the two world wars actually benefitted the US by establishing and solidifying the US's position as the world's banker.

Greenland obviously prefers to follow its' own path to wealth. As believers in democracy, I'm sure that the US can understand and support that aim. Presumably Denmark and/or Greenland are repaying any financial debts owed to the US. If not, I'm sure that President Trump would have made the world aware of the default.

Don't be silly.

Greenland is an autonomous region of Denmark, so what the Danes think is very much relevant. Whether a referendum is held or not is up to Denmark and Greenland. The US does not get a say. It's ironic that you label Denmark, 'exploitive colonists' when that is the exact role you want the US to adopt. I have no idea how many divisions Denmark has.

My (original) point was that if VP Vance is so concerned about protecting democracy then he should focus closer to home (at least initially).

Indeed. And the Danish and Greenland voters elected governments which do not wish to be part of the US.

If you had bothered to actually read the piece and followed the embedded link, rather than lazily dismissing the matter because you don't like the source of the article, you would have found that the poll relates to a survey conducted by Danish/ Greenland pollsters. Greenland has decided: It does not want to become part of the US.

The Danish government and elected representatives from Greenland have rejected the offer twice (now and 2019). Whether there is a referendum on the issue is a matter for the Danish and Greenland authorities to decide. If the latest opinion poll is anything to go by, Trump's offer would be resoundingly rejected. However, that is all besides the point which I made in my previous post: If VP Vance is so concerned for democracy's survival in the West, a good starting point would apparently be to ensure it is present in the Oval office https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5294315/greenland-trump-red-white-blueland-denmark-california

Although overstated, VP Vance's comments aren't without merit; however, he should firstly deal with issues closer to home. For example, the citizens of Greenland (and Denmark) have made clear that they have no desire to accept President Trump's offer to become part of the US. That should be the end of it, however, Trump has taken umbrage at this refusal and not ruled out taking Greenland by force. In the interests of democracy and preserving freedom of choice, VP Vance should have a word with his boss.

More of your usual Russian apologist propaganda with a bit of rhetoric against the Western democratic model thrown in for good measure. Btw: You are wrong (yet again) in your analysis of WW2. The German Military High Command warned Hitler against starting a war in 1938, as it knew that it was incapable of defeating the European Allies at that time: The Luftwaffe was not ready for war; the combined land forces of the UK and France outnumbered Germany's and the Royal Navy had military superiority. If Chamberlain had supported Czechoslovakia over the Sudetenland, then events would have turned out very differently. For example and critically, it is almost unthinkable that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact would have been signed. Indeed, given that Russia had a mutual assistance pact with Czechoslovakia (and a pact of sorts with France), if the UK and France had faced down Hitler's aggression - while at the same time increasing their own rearmament - it is extremely likely that Stalin would have joined the allies in any war against Germany in 1938/9, and there is no way that Germany could have successfully fought on so many fronts as was proven by events from 1943 onwards.

Doesn't Canada have enough problems to deal with currently without having to cope with the buffoon, Verhofstadt's support? 75% of Canada's trade is with the US. Unless it can somehow manage to become a member of the EU, while at the same time remain a member of USMCA, it's a non-starter. Canada leaving USMCA would be as bone headed a decision as the UK leaving the EU.

To misquote Mrs Merton: "So Bianca, what first attracted you to the multi-millionaire Kanye West?" TBF she deserves every penny of the divorce for putting up with the fruitcake.

Imo the EU, NATO and the majority of the individual member states have mishandled the relationship with Russia. Putin's intentions were clear from, at least, 2014 and a strong response was required then. Unfortunately, it did not happen. You state, quite correctly imo, that Ukraine cannot now win without direct NATO military intervention. Imo the possibility of this happening should be an option. Therefore, rather than Trump's opening gambit being effectively appeasement, I would have preferred the telephone call to have progressed along the following lines: I (Trump) recognise 1) that you (Putin) have a genuine concern regarding the treatment of Russian speakers in the Donbass and that there should be measures taken to safeguard their safety and to ensure that they are represented fully in the decision-making process in the region 2) you have a genuine concern regarding the strategic importance of Crimea and measures should be enacted to ensure that Russia does not feel threatened in this region 3) you have concerns about the possibility of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. While I strongly believe in the right of self-determination (both for Ukraine and NATO), I again accept that you have a genuine concern. Again, discussions can be held to attempt to alleviate your fears. In order for any discussions to take place there has to be an immediate cessation of hostilities. During the ceasefire, existing terrorital positions will be maintained. However, it should not be assumed that the initial positions will be the starting point for negotiations. Indeed, my view is that the pre-war borders should be re-established. If you do not accept these conditions then we will have no alternative but to deploy NATO resources directly in order to support Ukraine. Do I think that this will happen? No. Do I think that it should happen? A guarded 'Yes' but I recognise that it is a strategy fraught with danger (of uncontrollable) escalation. Moreover - and you are more knowledgeable about this aspect than me - the US political establishment (and public?) may well not support it. However, you did ask for alternatives.

Stiddle Mump, I used the Mayo clinic as an example; I could just as easily have used any number of well-respected health organisations to illustrate my point. You seem like a polite sort of chap, so it would be remiss of me to call you a liar; 'misguided' is probably more apt. As you disregard the overwhelming body of evidence which undermines your opinions, I can only conclude that there is little chance of me alone being able to change your mind. In the circumstances, I will take my leave of you and withdraw from any further discussion on this topic. I wish you well, sir.

I believe the figures. It feels like an additional 4.8m people have been idly standing around blocking my way this year😤

We can all create versions of the truth, Stump.

Middle Stump, You'll forgive me if I prefer the explanations proffered by, dare I say, a more illustrious source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/flu/symptoms-causes/syc-20351719 https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/topics/covid-19

In that case, perhaps Europe should move towards aligning its' economic and foreign policy objectives more closely with China and/or India rather than the US.