4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is a sad state of affairs when countries that claim to be civilised are not prepared to move away from that.

But then Americans have never really seen the cost of war on their own soil.

Of course, but, as I've said, the world doesn't seem to work that way.  

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Severance from Westminster does not equate to returning land to its original owners.

You perfectly free believe the British overseas territories were not under foreign rule.

Posts using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Tell that to the native Americans!

Did they claim to be civilised?

18 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Ok, so you choose Roman times as the date.

Which would mean returning most of northern Europe to the descendents of the Germanic tribes. I'd be happy to support that idea, as I am one of those people.

 

   Germans came from Africa, so you would have to go back to Africa

3 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Of course, but, as I've said, the world doesn't seem to work that way.  

Of course it does, numerous regions have negotiated or pursued legal channels both successfully and unsuccessfully in respect of claims.

Crimea should have done the same rather than the nanny state taking control by force. Indications are that there was  probably not the numbers for a legal challenge so Russia makes a grab, and the so called democratic countries stand by and watch.

8 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

He’s negotiating in case you haven’t figured that out.

 

Biden did nothing but extend the war at the expense of the American taxpayers with a blank check.

 

He's negotiated a deal with Ukraine here, however it has nothing to do with ending the war, except perhaps in the most indirect sense. This is a deal to invest in a fund for the future rebuilding and development of Ukraine but does nothing, in and of itself, to end the war.

 

For instance, it doesn't involve Russia in any way and I don't know about you but I reckon any deal to end the war would have to involve them.

On 5/1/2025 at 6:36 AM, thesetat said:

Zelenski gives in and signs the minerals deal with Trump. This will impact the war in Ukraine because now America will begin to supply weapons and aid to the war effort. 

 

https://kyivindependent.com/breaking-ukraine-us-sign-minerals-deal/

 

I guess now Trump will have to deal more with Russia as well to end the war so America can reap the benefits from the minerals deal. Either that or commit more resources to Ukraine. 

I'm not sure I'd refer to this as a win for Trump. I'd say it's more of a win for Ukraine.

 

What the deal actually does, is create a: 

 

Quote

Reconstruction Investment Fund for Ukraine, attracting global investments into the country ..

 

Where the minerals/resources come into it is as follows:

 

Quote

50% of funds from new licenses for projects in critical materials, as well as oil and gas, [...] will be directed to the budget after the fund is established. 

 

So the short term effects of this fund being established, will all go to investment within Ukraine, so pretty much exclusively to Ukraine's benefit.

 

And while there should be some gains for the US eventually, that's unlikely to be for at least a decade, given the following provision. 

 

Quote

during the first 10 years, profits and revenues from the fund will not be distributed, but can only be invested in Ukraine—in new projects or reconstruction. 

 

Svyrydenko and Bessent signed an agreement to create a US–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund

 

https://odessa-journal.com/svyrydenko-and-bessent-signed-an-agreement-to-create-a-usukraine-reconstruction-investment-fund

 

5 hours ago, jas007 said:

"Marginal gains."  No Nazis in Ukraine?  LOL

 

What surprises me is how anyone who actually supports Ukraine is OK with a US proxy war in which Ukrainians die to the last Ukrainian for a bunch of Neocon nutcases who couldn't care less about Ukraine, Ukrainians, or Ukrainian "democracy." 

 

What you're going to end up with is no Ukraine at all and thousands of more dead Ukrainian kids.  

So you mean this year will be the same as last year and the year before and the year before? 

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Funny how the trumpeteers can put different spins on the same scenario.

The first deal was nothing more than a manipulated surrender.

How can you call it a spin? It was in all the news. Including the Vdo of them together in the WH supposedly to sign the agreement. The only thing not shown was their meeting prior to the public signing. 

12 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

He’s negotiating in case you haven’t figured that out.

 

Biden did nothing but extend the war at the expense of the American taxpayers with a blank check.

Well, he's not negotiating any more. 

 

Quote

The United States will no longer act as a mediator in peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, the State Department has confirmed, signalling a shift in Washington’s role in the ongoing conflict.

 

US pulls out of formal peace talks between Ukraine and Russia

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-withdraws-ukraine-russia-peace-talks-b1225632.html

17 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Well, he's not negotiating any more. 

 

 

US pulls out of formal peace talks between Ukraine and Russia

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-withdraws-ukraine-russia-peace-talks-b1225632.html

yeah.. and the US ha already approved of the first haul of weapons to be sent there. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/01/tables-have-suddenly-turned-putin-russia-dire-trouble/

 

Quote

 

Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron have together pulled off a remarkable feat of high statecraft. They may have averted a strategic debacle of the first order in Ukraine, and with it irreparable damage to the credibility of the West.

 

The long-fraught US-Ukraine minerals deal signed in Washington – actually a shale gas deal – is a radically different document from Donald Trump’s original demand for $350bn (£262bn) of war debt “reparations” and the US colonial takeover of the country’s infrastructure.

 

The full story behind Trump’s Damascene conversion will emerge over time, but Ukrainian officials say the British and French leaders played a critical role in steering the US president away from his pro-Kremlin infatuation, as did Boris Johnson. It was this patient whispering that paved the way for the Trump-Zelensky tête-à-tête on the marble floors of St Peter’s in Rome.

 

.........The tables have turned: it is suddenly Vladimir Putin who is in trouble, trying to hold together an exhausted war economy as the price of Urals crude crashes to $56 a barrel – from $77 in mid-January – and as the global economic downturn tips the whole commodity complex into a cascading bear market. The spot price of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Asia has fallen 30pc over two months.

 

.......The tables have turned: it is suddenly Vladimir Putin who is in trouble, trying to hold together an exhausted war economy as the price of Urals crude crashes to $56 a barrel – from $77 in mid-January – and as the global economic downturn tips the whole commodity complex into a cascading bear market. The spot price of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Asia has fallen 30pc over two months........

 

.......

he Kremlin has clearly overplayed its hand, miscalculating how far it could push its maximalist demands and how long it could keep stringing along a prickly and impatient US president.

Republican senator and Trump golf partner Lindsey Graham is going for the jugular. He may soon have a veto-proof 67 votes in the Senate for legislation that imposes 500pc punitive tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy or strategic minerals, if the Kremlin “refuses to negotiate a peace agreement, violates a peace agreement or invades Ukraine again in the future”.

 

Russia’s “hot Keynesian” war machine is now in the same state of exhaustion as the imperial German war machine in 1917. Germany had been able to preserve something close to a normal civilian economy over the early years of the First World War but the Allied blockade, chronic shortages, lack of manpower and money eventually forced the military to take over the whole productive apparatus. That too failed, and ultimately incubated Weimar hyperinflation.......

 

....Russia has depleted the liquid and usable reserves of its rainy-day fund. Military spending almost certainly exceeds 10pc of GDP in one way or another and it is being funded off-books by coercing the banks into lending some $250bn to defence contractors, storing up a crisis for the banking system.

 

 

On 5/1/2025 at 8:05 AM, Lacessit said:

Check your facts. In dollar terms, the EU and other countries have contributed more to Ukraine than America.

 

Source: Radio Free Europe

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the US us expected to give as much or more than all of the other countries combined 

9 hours ago, thesetat said:

yeah.. and the US ha already approved of the first haul of weapons to be sent there. 

 

I believe the shipment was symbolic, in the week that Europe delivered 6 million shells, and the UK developed a new artillery shell propellant, whch replaces nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine; significant because both these materials are in short supply globally, and Europe was largely dependant US supplies. The deal assures Ukraine's financial future, and, in principle, allows it to finance its own defence, rather than being dependent on the fickle largesse of Western powers. Economically, Russia is kaput. Its kleptocratic government has financed the war through debt that it can't pay back. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

 

The recent US announcement on talks is also an attempt to exert pressure on Russia. Ukraine is free to buy arms on a lend lease basis now.  And the difference is rather than before getting whatever they can, now they can buy what they need.

 

In the Vietnam War, there were apothrical tails of disillusioned troops "fragging" their officers. In Russia, the officers frag their own men.

 

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russian-officer-kills-three-own-soldiers-with-grenade-in-donbas/

 

The Russian Army has changed from a military with a substantive professional core, to a largely reluctant citizen army interspersed with convicts

13 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Tome for Zelensky and Putin to be big boys now and work it out.

 

Trump will intervene again in the future.

 

Still much more than Biden ever accomplished..

So the Neocons got to Trump and now the war continues with US support?  And with a deal that is unacceptable to Russia? All paid for by US taxpayers, once again. 

 

That's too bad.  Unless it's all part of some larger negotiating tactic, it sure doesn't sound to me like "ending the war in 24 hours."  What happened to "stop the killing"? 

 

It doesn't make much sense to me. 

15 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Still, more productive than Biden ever ATTEMPTED.

Biden never attempted to do anything much, except fund the war for Ukraine. 

 

At least Trump tried, I guess. Still, it seems silly. Make a deal with Zelenskyy that he should know full well Russia will never accept.  

 

Maybe that's the point.  Appear to do something, even if that something doesn't change anything. 

On 5/2/2025 at 3:34 PM, jas007 said:

Right now, Finland is not a focus for Russia.  And for what it's worth, Finland probably knows better than to allow missiles to be installed on its territory.  Like it or not, they're probably neutral territory. 

Well, except that Russia's third invasion of Ukraine was what finally pushed them out of their sideline, neutral stance into NATO membership.

5 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Well, except that Russia's third invasion of Ukraine was what finally pushed them out of their sideline, neutral stance into NATO membership.

And what they may well find out is that NATO membership is not necessarily a guarantee of security under Article 5. It's not necessarily a binding guarantee.  Moreover, NATO itself may dissolve over time. That's already taking place, to a degree, as not all NATO members are on the same page concerning Russia.  That's probably a  good thing.  Nations should be able to act in their own best interest. 

 

Finland may be back to square one before too long. 

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Nations should be able to act in their own best interest. 

And yet you won't oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

 

And unless you support Russia continually invading/destroying/absorbing other countries, who in the world would think NATO's dissolution is a good thing?

39 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

And yet you won't oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

 

And unless you support Russia continually invading/destroying/absorbing other countries, who in the world would think NATO's dissolution is a good thing?

At this point, it’s not a matter of what I “oppose” or what I “support.”

 

Zelenskyy had his shot. Ukraine had its shot. And they had so much support that they had no problem whatsoever squandering half of that support by way of corruption.They still lost. To think otherwise is delusional.  Russia is never giving back that territory it now occupies and is now part of Russia. .

 

And I think you assume too much about Russia’s intentions.

 

Several years ago, Russia was willing to end the war until Ukraine was persuaded by Boris Johnson to continue. At that time, all Russia wanted was a cessation of hostilities, a de-militarization/de-Nazification of Ukraine, and a buffer zone.  And they were willing to stop with the territories already occupied and incorporated into Russia.

 

And so today, I look at reality.  I try not to live in the same fantasyland occupied by Zelenskyy.

 

Ukraine can stop now, make a deal acceptable to Russia, and perhaps save what’s left of Ukraine. Or, they can continue with the Zelenskyy fantasy and perhaps lose it all.  And in the process, how many more young men will die for no good reason?

On 5/3/2025 at 7:13 AM, MicroB said:

 

I believe the shipment was symbolic, in the week that Europe delivered 6 million shells, and the UK developed a new artillery shell propellant, whch replaces nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine; significant because both these materials are in short supply globally, and Europe was largely dependant US supplies. The deal assures Ukraine's financial future, and, in principle, allows it to finance its own defence, rather than being dependent on the fickle largesse of Western powers. Economically, Russia is kaput. Its kleptocratic government has financed the war through debt that it can't pay back. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

 

The recent US announcement on talks is also an attempt to exert pressure on Russia. Ukraine is free to buy arms on a lend lease basis now.  And the difference is rather than before getting whatever they can, now they can buy what they need.

 

In the Vietnam War, there were apothrical tails of disillusioned troops "fragging" their officers. In Russia, the officers frag their own men.

 

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russian-officer-kills-three-own-soldiers-with-grenade-in-donbas/

 

The Russian Army has changed from a military with a substantive professional core, to a largely reluctant citizen army interspersed with convicts

.........interspersed with convicts and North Koreans.  

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

At this point, it’s not a matter of what I “oppose” or what I “support.”

 

Zelenskyy had his shot. Ukraine had its shot. And they had so much support that they had no problem whatsoever squandering half of that support by way of corruption.They still lost. To think otherwise is delusional.  Russia is never giving back that territory it now occupies and is now part of Russia. .

 

And I think you assume too much about Russia’s intentions.

 

Several years ago, Russia was willing to end the war until Ukraine was persuaded by Boris Johnson to continue. At that time, all Russia wanted was a cessation of hostilities, a de-militarization/de-Nazification of Ukraine, and a buffer zone.  And they were willing to stop with the territories already occupied and incorporated into Russia.

 

And so today, I look at reality.  I try not to live in the same fantasyland occupied by Zelenskyy.

 

Ukraine can stop now, make a deal acceptable to Russia, and perhaps save what’s left of Ukraine. Or, they can continue with the Zelenskyy fantasy and perhaps lose it all.  And in the process, how many more young men will die for no good reason?

I'm pointing out that in a conversation about Ukraine you state one thing but support another -- inconsistency, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it.  "Nations should be able to act in their own interests" -- except Ukraine.  "For Ukraine, Russia gets to decide what happens."

 

This is the universal response of the Russia supporter who won't admit he is a Russia supporter.  While claiming neutrality, the absolute refusal to denounce Russia, coupled with an eagerness to denounce Ukraine.  You just want peace, right?  But only on Russia's terms.  Russia's victory is both inevitable and imminent, correct?  And has been for more than three years.

1 minute ago, ChicagoExpat said:

I'm pointing out that in a conversation about Ukraine you state one thing but support another -- inconsistency, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it.  "Nations should be able to act in their own interests" -- except Ukraine.  "For Ukraine, Russia gets to decide what happens."

 

This is the universal response of the Russia supporter who won't admit he is a Russia supporter.  While claiming neutrality, the absolute refusal to denounce Russia, coupled with an eagerness to denounce Ukraine.  You just want peace, right?  But only on Russia's terms.  Russia's victory is both inevitable and imminent, correct?  And has been for more than three years.

For the purpose of discussion, let's assume Ukraine has the absolute right to act in its own best interest.  Fine. I have no problem with that whatsoever. 

 

And how is Ukraine's best interest any business of the United States?  

 

Let me guess. You're going to tell me that if Putin isn't stopped now, he'll just keep on moving west until Russia eventually conquers all of Eastern Europe, all of Western Europe, and then moves on to the USA where he starts  on the East Coast and eventually ends up in Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

 

And with a straight face you'll tell me that that's not too far fetched. A very convenient lie for the warmongers, no?  A Boogeyman.  Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption.

 

I don't buy it.

17 minutes ago, jas007 said:

For the purpose of discussion, let's assume Ukraine has the absolute right to act in its own best interest.  Fine. I have no problem with that whatsoever. 

 

And how is Ukraine's best interest any business of the United States?  

 

Let me guess. You're going to tell me that if Putin isn't stopped now, he'll just keep on moving west until Russia eventually conquers all of Eastern Europe, all of Western Europe, and then moves on to the USA where he starts  on the East Coast and eventually ends up in Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

 

And with a straight face you'll tell me that that's not too far fetched. A very convenient lie for the warmongers, no?  A Boogeyman.  Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption.

 

I don't buy it.

Ukraine not being conquered and absorbed into Russia is definitely in the interests of the United States.  And Europe.

 

For the rest, you set up a silly straw man.  That's on you.

8 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Ukraine not being conquered and absorbed into Russia is definitely in the interests of the United States.  And Europe.

 

For the rest, you set up a silly straw man.  That's on you.

Please explain why, without the boogeyman angle.   

 

If you know history, you must know that people have been fighting over that part of the world for centuries.  What's different today? What's different, other than Ukraine wanting a continuing flow of money from the USA?  That's understandable, from a financial/corruption angle, of course, but other than that, what's the reality? 

 

As for a straw man?  I think you're the one who set up Russia as the boogeyman.  I'm just looking for specifics. 

21 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Please explain why, without the boogeyman angle.   

 

If you know history, you must know that people have been fighting over that part of the world for centuries.  What's different today? What's different, other than Ukraine wanting a continuing flow of money from the USA?  That's understandable, from a financial/corruption angle, of course, but other than that, what's the reality? 

 

As for a straw man?  I think you're the one who set up Russia as the boogeyman.  I'm just looking for specifics. 

No, the straw man is completely your creation.  Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S.  And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption."

 

"I'm just looking for specifics," as one dishonest AseanNow contributor once said to me.

33 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

No, the straw man is completely your creation.  Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S.  And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption."

 

"I'm just looking for specifics," as one dishonest AseanNow contributor once said to me.

So, how is a continuing involvement in the war in the "best interest" of the US?  You say that as if it's self evident.  It's not. That's your boogeyman, not mine. Please explain.  

 

I really don't care what Ukraine does in its own self interest, so long as it doesn't require my tax dollars, half of which go down the drain for some sort of kickback scheme to corrupt politicians and the war machine. I just paid some taxes not too long ago, and it wasn't much fun.

 

And let's not forget about the inflation that results when the USA borrows money it doesn't have to fund the continuing war and the continuing corruption schemes. And because of the way the world economy works, it isn't just the USA middle class that funds the nonsense.  The USA inflation is primarily exported to the rest of the world, in case you didn't know that. 

An interesting article about the minerals deal recently signed between Trump and Zelensky

Mining projects are slow, high-risk and enormously expensive processes which can often take over a decade.

It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US, boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important, given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals.

The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”.

Zelensky just might have beat Trump at his own game

 

2 hours ago, bannork said:

An interesting article about the minerals deal recently signed between Trump and Zelensky

Mining projects are slow, high-risk and enormously expensive processes which can often take over a decade.

It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US, boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important, given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals.

The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”.

Zelensky just might have beat Trump at his own game

 

That's all well and good, except for the fact that Ukraine doesn't have any minerals that Russia doesn't also have.  Aren't the valuable minerals in the territory currently occupied by Russia?

 

I'm not sure what Trump is thinking, other than he's got some scheme to get Zelenskyy talking to Russia while the US exists, stage left.