RayC

I replied to your question about an alternative solution on p2. I would stress that I don't expect my alternative scenario to play out as Trump has made it clear than he sees himself as a latter-day Chamberlain rather than Churchill.

Notwithstanding the fact that Russia has started a war on the EU's doorstep, she also regularly engages in actions to undermine the stability of the EU and some of the EU member states. Reason enough for the EU to be wary of her. If the heads of government of those countries feel that their values are more aligned with modern day Russia than those of the EU then they should leave the bloc. There's a reason to engage a "tired old cold war mentality". It's because Putin is nothing more than an unreconstructed Soviet dictator. I cannot for the life of me why anyone from the West would act as an apologist for him.

During the presidential campaign, Pavel described himself as "right of centre, with a strong social emphasis". So clearly Pavel is not a 'lefty hypocrite'.

In 2021 (latest figures I could easily find), Bulgaria was the net beneficiary of over €1.3 bn from EU funds, Slovakia benefitted to the tune of €1.7bn and Hungary over €4bn. Those figures exclude the financial benefits of being members of the Single Market and Customs Union, plus the intangible benefits their citizens enjoy from having freedom of movement within the EU bloc (27 countries). Do you really think that these countries will swop that for some slightly cheaper oil and the uncertainty of living under Putin's dictat?

I'm confused. You previously stated that Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria might go back under the 'Russian umbrella'. You now appear to rule that out? I wouldn't expect a full scale European war either but who knows. Putin has often stated that Ukraine is not a country and that some of the Eastern Polish states were gifts from Stalin. Russia could do with a period of relative calm but it's not impossible that in 5+ years time, an emboldened Putin decides to push his luck further. Could the West really just look the other way then?

The chances of that happening in the foreseeable future are virtually zero. It is inconceivable that a country could align economically or militarily with Russia while at the same time remaining in the EU. None of these countries will leave the EU as they have too much to lose. Not only are they are all net beneficiaries of EU funds, but leaving the Single Market and Customs Union would be an act of economic masochism. Mind you, never say never. The UK decided on masochism.

Hardly a win-win given how indebted many African and Asian countries are to China, and the price that they pay for that debt.

Trump appears to view Ukraine's role as little more than a rubber stamping exercise. They may have been initial talks but publicly stating that Ukraine 1) will not join NATO 2) will have to cede territory and 3) Zelensky is to blame for starting the war, seems a pretty strange opening gambit. With friends like that, etc. Given Trump's proclamations I agree that It is difficult to see how Ukraine can revert to its' pre-war borders. Sadly, it is also difficult to view the likely outcome as anything other than almost total victory for Putin. Russia is suffering economically - inflation is rampant - and she is almost certainly storing problems for further down the line - but, sadly, sanctions are only having a limited effect. There doesn't appear to be major food shortages, so the Russia public are unlikely to revolt. Wrt oil and gas exports. There are no shortage of willing buyers e.g. China, India, Turkey. Although revenues (in $ terms) dropped significantly in 2022 since then they have been relatively stable. Increasing the hit to Putin's pocket is no easy task.

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.