Did you watch the interview with Oleksandr Chalyi, where he literally states he believes the Russians were serious and ready for a negotiated settlement during the Istanbul agreements?

There will be many people who think Putin can be trusted, but the only person who can answer the question is Putin. All we can do is judge him from his actions and the verdict is not good.

There is a narrative coming out of Russia which we can assess. Which is basically saying our safety, autonomy, sovereignty etc can only be protected, secured, with the emasculation of Ukraine.

Any negotiations which Putin agrees to which does not achieve this is sure to be reneged on. Presumably this is why Trump is pushing for this. Whether he is happy to facilitate this end for Putin, or he is being blackmailed, or conned into it.

Whether the Russians can be trusted is a completely different topic.

When two countries have been at war, there is no trust. It needs to be built step by step after a cease-fire is agreed. First by small, non-commital actions, then larger actions, etc.

This is a basic principle of peace negotiations.

It's a very long way for Europe to become a united world power. See, UK is not even in the EU (the Brexit, remember?). I don't see the point of getting enthusiastic over strategic revisions that are still on the making. And then let our imagination jump to desirable future scenarios as if they were already within reach. Things can go awfully wrong in so many ways.

Yes, it’s a long way off for Europe, but the forces against this outcome have taken a knock.

This is not about enthusiasms for outcomes, but rather looking for trends. I gave you my reasoning before for why the U.S. turning against her closest allies in Europe puts her in a weak position globally, resulting in a pincer movement whereby the U.S. becomes distracted by developments in Europe while she becomes overstretched in her pivot to the east. That thinking that Russia is powerful is flawed out of date thinking. She is small, ie, the state and run by a tinpot dictator, who relied on oil and gas revenues. There may have been a time a generation ago when Russia was a world power. But that time is long gone. Although by turning against Europe the U.S. may enable Russia to regain her world power status.
So for the U.S. there are two choices. A powerful U.S. allied with Europe as a counter to China, with an inconsequential Russia. Or a powerful U.S. alone in the world against a powerful Russia allied with China, with an inconsequential Europe.

Now if the U.S. sees China, rightly, as the greatest threat. Then the first option is the logical one and the second is insane.

Yes, but Ukraine’s autonomy has effectively been given away before the negotiations have begun. And Russia will not soften her line that Ukraine must not join NATO, and there must not be a peacekeeping, or deterrent forces on the ground in Ukraine. The negotiations are over before they have begun. Unless that is Trump finds some cajonas and forces Russia into a much weaker position.
Do you think he will go there?

Here is an expert to explain the situation,
https://youtu.be/vyCS1GSLqzk?feature=shared

The path Putin's Russia has taken is decidedly unfavorable, it's been covered, domestic and foreign regress both.
Something analogous could be said for Trump's US recently.
Trust gone or eroding.

Who has given Ukraine's autonomy away? Surely, if the Ukrainians were autonomous the only ones who could have done so is they themselves.

I'm not sure whether Russia is categorically against peacekeeping forces. I don't think they are. They're against a NATO peacekeeping force, for reasons which should be obvious. They do not want Minsk 3.

All parties to the conflict should have a say in the peacekeeping process, and ideally a potential peacekeeping force consists of combined force of all involved parties, or a party which all agree is neutral - possibly Turkiye.

Unless that is Trump finds some cajonas and forces Russia into a much weaker position.
Do you think he will go there? — Punshhh

He won't, because he can't. I recall seeing your mention in other posts that the Russians are militarily in a weak spot and can be pressured. I think the opposite is true.

A new trend?

Russian Deputy Proposes Renaming Black Sea to ‘Russian Sea’ (— UNITED24 Media · Jan 21, 2025)
Russia discusses renaming the Black Sea (— ФАКТИ·БГ · Jan 22, 2025)

Who has given Ukraine's autonomy away? Surely, if the Ukrainians were autonomous the only ones who could have done so is they themselves.

Trump would blackmail the Ukrainians into capitulation.

He won't, because he can't. I recall seeing your mention in other posts that the Russians are militarily in a weak spot and can be pressured. I think the opposite is true.

All Trump needs to do is say if Russia doesn’t compromise, U.S. support for Ukraine would be doubled. Or they would give them full air support. A Strong U.S. leader would be able to do this. I suspect Trump is weak.

But Boris, what about Moose and Squirrel?

All Trump needs to do is say if Russia doesn’t compromise, U.S. support for Ukraine would be doubled. Or they would give them full air support. A Strong U.S. leader would be able to do this. I suspect Trump is weak. — Punshhh

Everything points to this. Forget even the talk, forget the "great television", if we just look at the actions that Trump actually has done, they all favor Russia and hinder the ability for Ukraine to defend itself.

Now it really is about if Europe truly see the urgency here, because Ukraine will start having real problems soon, not just that more missiles and drones get through the air defense and Russian aircraft can fly closer as now.

To cut off the updates to F-16 fighters actually sends a quite nasty message to all clients of American weapon systems. If Trump can so easily stab in the back Ukraine here, how easily will the US do this to any of the so-called allies? Trump has shown that he can easily stab in the back his allies. Just like he doubted that if US would seek Article 5 protection, that France would come really to help. Likely he didn't remember that France did come to help the US when Article 5 was implemented after 9/11. But the comment does hint that the US wouldn't come to help France.



And the possibility of Trump exiting NATO is growing. Because the next issue is when Europe starts to replacing US systems with it's own to help Ukraine, Trump might get angry about it.

Already the idea is floated around that the US should leave NATO:

(Fox News, March 3rd 2025) Momentum is building among some Republicans and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk to withdraw the U.S. from NATO amid stalled negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

While President Donald Trump reportedly privately floated pulling the U.S. from the alliance during his first term, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has publicly backed such efforts in recent weeks and said it's "time to leave" the alliance after NATO countries held an emergency meeting with Ukraine in London without the U.S.

Lee said in an X post on Sunday that if "NATO is moving on without the U.S.," the U.S. should "move on from NATO." Lee also suggested various names for the movement on Monday.

"What should we call the movement to get America out of NATO? AmerExit? NATexit?" Lee said in an X post on Monday, referencing Brexit, the term used to describe the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union.

"It’s a good thing our NATO allies give us such favorable trade terms based on the fact that we provide a disproportionate share of their security needs Oh wait ….They don’t," Lee said in another Monday post on X.

On the good side, Musk backed down from shutting down starlink from Ukraine. At least Elon understood that his commercial product will face problems, if the producers shuts down the service from customers so easily.

And the possibility of Trump exiting NATO is growing. Because the next issue is when Europe starts to replacing US systems with its own to help Ukraine, Trump might get angry about it.

Insane it is then. Will this mean all the U.S. military bases in Europe being put under wraps.

On the good side, Musk backed down from shutting down starlink from Ukraine. At least Elon understood that his commercial product will face problems, if the producers shuts down the service from customers so easily.

We’ll Tesla stock is tanking, he’ll have to keep his Starlink clients on board to avoid bankruptcy, or at least to keep his ambitions in space flight going.

Also going back to the point about how feeble Trump is about worries of economic recession. Has it not occurred to him that the economic prosperity the West has enjoyed over the last 80years is reliant on peace and stability and good relations between trading partners around the world. And that all this strong man disruption that he’s doing is only going to disrupt that peace and stability resulting in recession, or depression?
I bet that in the minds of the republicans driving this madness forward. Everyone is equally prosperous, indeed the economy is booming and by cutting all the bureaucracy, red tape and global supply lines. All their consumer goods will still be supplied on time and with up to date tech’. In the minds of the Brexiters we were going to alight in the sunlit uplands of free trade and prosperity, freed from the shackles of the single market. The reality was the exact opposite.

This is not about enthusiasms for outcomes, but rather looking for trends. — Punshhh

The prospect of Europeans re-arming still looks more like a knee-jerk reaction under emergency than a raising trend spanning over years, if not decades (as it was the case for Russia and China), right? We will see how persistent, consistent and integrated the European effort will be in building up a credible deterrent against the big sharks.

Under the mental framework you're suggesting, the US does not actually have any interest in European military capability though, has it? Under that framework Europe is an "entangling alliance" to ditch and replace with more easily controllable client state relations. — "Echarmion

The US has a greater interest in having Europeans buying US weaponry, intelligence, troops than having European military capabilities that could fully replace the US… its US security as a service ("If they don't pay, I'm not going to defend them.” https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-if-nato-members-dont-pay-us-wont-defend-them-2025-03-07/)

Scaring Europe into investing significantly more into defense is a workable strategy, as current events demonstrate. Yet the US would have to start injecting itself back into the debate before the European plans have really solidified. Or else bet on European attempts failing. Which I guess could be a way to go about it but seems like an unnecessary risk. — "Echarmion

Or worse, the US may try to indirectly interfere with the European debate (as much as Russia did/does) to sow division among Europeans, since this may help keep in check both Russians and Europeans.

Yeah, that does seem plausible. Though Trump is only part of the mystery to me. There's also Elon Musk and JD Vance, who seem to be pushing US policy towards Russia and Ukraine in the same direction. Thus this seems to be more than just a personality quirk in Trump. — "Echarmion

Well, Musk may see Trump as a way to pressure Europe into opening to his multi-pronged business.
For Trump, Musk’s transnational business plans can help to explore and bridge margins of cooperation with Russia and/or China (https://apnews.com/article/musk-putin-x-trump-tesla-election-russia-9cecb7cb0f23ccce49336771280ae179). Yet, the liaison between Musk and Trump may be more ambiguous than it looks so one can’t really tell who is manouvering whom (https://theconversation.com/how-elon-musks-deep-ties-to-and-admiration-for-china-could-complicate-trumps-beijing-policy-249988). Indeed, even though Musk can help and helped Trump via X, X can be used also by Russian and Chinese trolls. Musk may have his own political agenda. So if Trump feels the need to have his own social network, maybe that’s also because he doesn’t feel like to fully trust Musk.
JD Vance looks more prone to isolationist views, as fas as I’ve understood, and because of that his role may be to Trump as Medvedev’s role is to Putin: namely, to be more outrageous than their leaders. It can be convenient to strong leaders like Trump and Putin to showcase more extremist views than theirs. So theirs can appeal to their target audience as more moderate.

Is Putin offering support for a US autocratic turn in the form of Russian information operations and possibly some kind of public gesture? That's a frightening possibility. — "Echarmion

Frightening indeed.

My issue is that the changes we actually see are haphazard and chaotic. In particular, apart from the suppression of internal dissent, there seems to be little reason to rush decisions as much as they're doing. — "Echarmion

All right, but there are two hints that could make this behaviour more intelligible: one is the “madman theory”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory#Donald_Trump . The other is timing: Trump may feel pressed to reach results as soon as possible by institutional factors (mid-term elections and congress/supreme courts interventions can weaken/obstruct his power), political competition (democrats and/or pieces of the deep state could sabotage him), international competition (Trump’s window of opportunity is constrained by the reaction time of other actors like Russia, China, Europe, so as long as these actors feel to be some steps behind his moves, he can play them better), and… terrorist threats? (Trump has survived an assassination attempt, so we can’t exclude extremists on the loose who would want his head). Given how deeply revisionist his approach to domestic and international politics is, he may find himself caught in a situation where he has lots to do in so many directions yet in too little amount of time.
Then of course you can always add bluffs, whims, poor execution, unforeseen consequences, etc. on top of this.

Sure the US doesn’t look in an existential danger as Europeans are. — neomac

Are you really sure about that? Putin hates the US. Yet the Maga idiots thinks that Putin being a cultural conservative and against Gay Europe is a friend. As if Putin would break ties with China to a few years of Trump chaos? He surely knows that 80% of Americans don't trust him (Putin). His intention is to destroy US power in the World. How isn't that a danger? — ssu

I can readily concede that Trump’s approach is not immune from risks. But we can agree on the fact that the US doesn’t look in danger of being aggressed and occupied as other European countries bordering with Russia, right?
Said that, given the Russian cultural prejudices and security concerns, it’s plausible to assume that no matter how much Putin hates the US, still he wishes to deal with Trump way more than with Xin. Besides, Putin has always been looking for a US confirmation for precluding to Ukraine a future inside NATO, no matter what France, Germany, Hungary could say against it, right? After all Putin is a nostalgic of the Stalin and the Cold War era where the US and the Soviet Union were the superpowers deciding the fate of the rest of world. Putin’s endorsement of Trump and waving at business prospects seem to confirm a convergence of interests.
On the other side, Trump seems willing to concede Russia its sphere of influence, differently from his predecessors. In addition, he seems also willing to remove sanctions against Russia. All this in exchange for a strategic partnership that his predecessors (especially the democrats) couldn’t much afford to sponsor as Trump can. The hidden bug I see in this approach , as I said in another post, is that Trump is not an autocrat like Putin, his power is way more constitutionally and temporally constrained than Putin’s, so Putin may not be willing to play along as Trump wishes if this partnership won’t survive Trump’s mandate and whims. Still, turning down Trump’s offer may trigger a bitter reaction from him as well.

But not all European are in existential danger as those which are bordering with Russia. — neomac

Before weren't, but now the issue is of the whole defense treaty. Don't underestimate how historical this is. If Trump withdraws the US troops and perhaps leaves a small detachment to Orban's Hungary, don't think that people have gotten the message already.

At least for Sweden and Finland it isn't so bad because we have had to have already a military capability to defend ourselves. It's actually countries like Netherlands or others that really have trusted their security policy on NATO that have to think it over now.

Our politicians might be diplomatic, but for example reading comment section in the biggest newspaper, the majority think that Trump is a traitor, a Russian agent and a Quisling. In fact, the few politicians that have said something positive about Trump are getting their asses chewed off by the public. — ssu

I don’t mean to discount the gravity of this predicament or to dismiss concerns about Russia military aggressiveness in Europe (nuclear threats against Europeans could be already enough). Still threat perception is not the same in all Europe. And European public opinions, especially on the Western side of Europe, may be very reluctant to abandon their comfort zone when thinking about risks of war with Russia. We can’t ignore this fact. (Side note: it’s interesting to note that Trump is meditating to push the US troops not only closer to Russia but inside pro-Russian Hungary which may be bad news for Germany but also for Russia)

he’s still addressing issues which preceded him and will likely follow his mandates, in ways that are more consistent and arguably more sustainable than their predecessors’. — neomac

Actually, he isn't. Not in any way now. And Trump knows it, actually.

Getting your allies to participate more in the cost isn't the same thing as going against your allies, against the shared values and becoming an enabler for your adversary.

Alliances are a lot more than transactions like buying a service, just as soldiers of fortune are far less trustworthy than soldiers that have taken an oath to serve their country. NATO has been around for 76 years, so I guess there has been something to it. Yet when a country doesn't care of those values, when everything is just a transaction, a lot has gone wrong. — ssu

Trump’s aggressive approach is alienating many Europeans and may end up being overall counterproductive as a negotiation strategy, ok. But you keep forgetting that it’s not only Trump who is averse to NATO and EU. Also many vocal Europeans (people and politicians) are/were averse to NATO and EU or to engaging with Russia.

Broadcast on Russian TV last night. Solovyov saying that there is no need for a ceasefire now, JD Vance is their man.
https://youtu.be/5QyOiYAkWPM?feature=shared

Has it not occurred to him that the economic prosperity the West has enjoyed over the last 80years is reliant on peace and stability and good relations between trading partners around the world. And that all this strong man disruption that he’s doing is only going to disrupt that peace and stability resulting in recession, or depression? — Punshhh

No. Absolutely not. Likely as old he is and when surrounded by sycophants, he won't get the message.

For example, there's absolutely no reason to believe that anybody would dare to say to him just how bad the Doha peace agreement with the Taleban was and how it totally pulled the rug from under the Republic of Afghanistan. No, what he thinks is that only Biden fucked it up and everybody around him repeats this. And hence he is doing the bidding of Putin now with Ukraine, intentionally or unintentionally.

Trade and tariffs? Let's remember that this has been what he has been talking all his life, earlier it was how Japan was ripping the US off and how the US should have trade barriers. Now it's just China and Europe. Everybody is ripping of the US. Why wouldn't he believe that, because he himself is more of a scam artist? Things like the market crashing and US facing recession doesn't just stop him for a while in his tracks, but he cannot let go of the tariff-stupidity. And hence the markets waver and we head more likely to a recession.

The idea, which history has proven again and again, is that trade and commerce between countries is the thing that creates prosperity to all doesn't get to him. He genuinely believes that Europe has been a free rider and that the West being an alliance hasn't been beneficial to the US. And that the European Union was formed to rip off the US. Not that the whole idea of European integration was a result of the Great War and it's sequel, WW2 and the millions of dead Europeans, not just a trick for the rich to get richer.

Apart of Trump and the populist rhetoric, I think here I would find one real culprit is how the US government itself. It has been incapable of getting the message through to it's citizens about just why the US has had a foreign policy of engagement. The foreign policy establishment, the blob, has simply resorted to paint only threats that the US has to respond to. And that kicks up a patriotic fervor especially after something like 9/11. And then it's off to the races. And then the people forget just why was the fighting something that seems to be a forever war

European governments have acted differently. They've always repeated to their citizens about how important working together is. And just to reaffirm this reality, the UK showed to all Europe just what an epic failure Brexit was. And this shouldn't be underestimated: the absolute failure of Brexit showed other Europeans just how much it would suck to get out of the EU and just how little benefits would there be.

All right. Look, I can get that the business model of the military industries in a capitalist society introduces some moral hazards and it can somehow railroad US foreign policies into certain directions, also in Ukrainian-Russian conflict. However I still find very questionable the explanatory power of your beliefs.
First of all, historical evidence doesn’t seem to fit well with your theory. Concerning the current conflict, why can’t the drip feed approach continue another year or another 10 years? The longer the conflict lasts the better is for the US defence industry business. So if they managed to push Biden in keeping the conflict with Russia alive and sustainable, they could the same with Trump. Yet Trump now wants peace (and not only in Ukraine but also in the Middle East).
Besides, If “socialism is a far more efficient and strategically sound approach to arms production”, yet it’s socialist Soviet Union which collapsed not the capitalist US at the end of Cold War.
Secondly, and most importantly, your conceptual framework is plagued by oversimplification for reasons that I’ve already laid out in previous posts. In short:
1 - Lobbies can directly influence politics to the extent they can finance politicians to win the political competition or grant results that are politically marketable by politicians. The defence industry is one powerful lobby, but in the US capitalist society there are many powerful lobbies (financial, energy, big tech, trade, ethnic, agricultural, labor union, etc.) that can compete with the defence industry lobby and even overtake them by far (https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252498552/Big-Tech-eclipses-telecoms-and-arms-giants-as-biggest-lobbying-spenders). Besides Ukraine is rich on resources (energetic, alimentary, metal and mineral, etc.) that can be exploited by the US (instead of the EU). And also rebuilding Ukraine is a source of business. So other lobbies could benefit from that more than the defence private companies. Besides the US can feel the financial burden of engaging in neverending conflicts, however geographically contained.
2 - Any state concerned about its own security has to offer a credible deterrence against potential enemies. So either they build such deterrence themselves or they get it from others. Hence the importance of having a solid military industrial complex to create credible deterrence because it ensures defense + strategic independence + power projection (making others dependent on your defense industry and win over competing foreign military industrial complexes). And there are also other benefits with a domestic military industrial complex: technological progress and work opportunities. Being security a paramount collective good, it can hardly be driven just by strictly market logic. So psychological reasons (the greediness of defense private industries) are relevant to the extent they are proven to be disfunctional to the US national interest (from national security to hegemony). Not only you didn’t provide any compelling evidence to support that, as far as I’m concerned, but...
3 - The current geopolitical predicament is such that Trump is determined to brutally cut down on imperial overstretch which brought internal instabilities, and empowered both China and Russia. So now the strategy is arguably to focus on China’s containment with the help of Russia (and in the literature I’ve always found more convergence on this explanation than on the perceived risks of a nuclear escalation). So also the defense private industries must adjust their business strategies according to national interest as perceived by Trump, not the other way around.

To me, deeper structural factors bear a greater explanatory power over geopolitical collective dynamics, then just the psychology of leaders or business people.

I can readily concede that Trump’s approach is not immune from risks. But we can agree on the fact that the US doesn’t look in danger of being aggressed and occupied as other European countries bordering with Russia, right? — neomac

A lot of countries aren't danger of being occupied by Russia, but they sure can feel Russian hybrid warfare and the political pressure. Don't think that this only about direct military confrontation. What the US is doing, is just destroying it's own credibility and it's own base of power, that has grown from having such wide alliances. Russia has just one ally willing to fight alongside it: North Korea. China doesn't have even that. Yet the US has many that have been willing to fight it's wars. But this naturally Trump doesn't understand: that it has been the military alliance that has made the West, the largest competitors to the US in trade, to agree on things like the US dollar being the reserve currency.

Broadcast on Russian TV last night. Solovyov saying that there is no need for a ceasefire now, JD Vance is their man. — Punshhh

This is the reality. There is no need for Russia to negotiate anything while Trump is giving everything to them. It's only in these hallucinations of Trump that Putin would want peace and be willing to sit down for negotiations. For surrender, he might be willing to sit down.

But do the MAGA-people get this? Of course not.

A lot of countries aren't danger of being occupied by Russia, but they sure can feel Russian hybrid warfare and the political pressure. Don't think that this only about direct military confrontation — ssu

I agree on this, see my my previous post:

Russia’s threats to Europe are not limited to conventional warfare. Hybrid warfare must the taken into account and hybrid warfare can be enough to induce concessions to Russia’s demands. — neomac

US is doing, is just destroying it's own credibility and it's own base of power, that has grown from having such wide alliances. — ssu

I think you are looping over the same arguments. From the US perspective, such military alliance with Europeans was more a burden than a deterrence to rival powers, do you deny that? And if Trump's manages to bring Russia on a strategic partnership to contain China, this may be an acceptable compensation. If it doesn't, well Russia will remain the primary incumbent threat to the Europeans wrt the US, and this will keep Russia occupied on its western front. So the US will still rip some benefits off without indebting itself further toward Europe.

Musk expresses support for rival to Reform UK as feud in Farage’s party intensifies:
https://www.ft.com/content/d7cbb26a-57b8-4fd5-ac5b-00de25d53a0e

Musk expresses support for rival to Reform UK as feud in Farage’s party intensifies:

That article is behind a paywall, I don’t need to read it though. The Reform party is Nigel Farage, this is what Musk doesn’t understand. Just like the way that the Republican Party is Trump. Take Farage out of the party and Reform reverts to some form of the BNP. A fringe party of racists that the electorate won’t go near.

The prospect of Europeans re-arming still looks more like a knee-jerk reaction under emergency than a raising trend spanning over years, if not decades (as it was the case for Russia and China), right? We will see how persistent, consistent and integrated the European effort will be in building up a credible deterrent against the big sharks.

You obviously don’t understand the European people, Germany has flung open the doors to over a €trillion for defence spending. Including large grants for member states to invest. The U.K. with the EU is looking at some kind of associate membership of the Single Market so as to streamline the process of cooperation in this endeavour. This development itself will bring the EU into new economic growth in one move. The U.K. and France alongside some others already have the skills to usher in a military industrial complex.

You do understand don’t you why European countries haven’t re-armed significantly over recent decades? And that the reason for this “complacency” has disappeared in an instant.

Europeans was more a burden than a deterrence to rival powers, do you deny that? And if Trump's manages to bring Russia on a strategic partnership to contain China,

You keep repeating this, it would only have some validity as an argument if Trump had become an authoritarian dictator. At the moment, Trump’s “rule” is looking like a temporary aberration and we will be back to business as usual come the next election. But the trans-Atlantic alliance will be in a much stronger position with a re-arming Europe.

But you suggest the U.S. for some reason would want to strengthen Russia,, have a blind eye to her expansionism and the resultant turmoil this might engender in Europe. Lose the alliances with Europe. For some notional strategic goal re-China. It’s a weird take, even if Trump were a dictator.

Musk expresses support for rival to Reform UK as feud in Farage’s party intensifies:

That article is behind a paywall, I don’t need to read it though. The Reform party is Nigel Farage, this is what Musk doesn’t understand. Just like the way that the Republican Party is Trump. Take Farage out of the party and Reform reverts to some form of the BNP. A fringe party of racists that the electorate won’t go near. — Punshhh

The evidence still serves to better understand Trump's administration strategy in Europe, which includes supporting far right movements. So, bold and repeated attempts of interfering with European politics by Trump and his entourage (Musk, Bannon, etc.) should be expected.

You obviously don’t understand the European people, Germany has flung open the doors to over a €trillion for defence spending. Including large grants for member states to invest. The U.K. with the EU is looking at some kind of associate membership of the Single Market so as to streamline the process of cooperation in this endeavour. This development itself will bring the EU into new economic growth in one move. The U.K. and France alongside some others already have the skills to usher in a military industrial complex.

You do understand don’t you why European countries haven’t re-armed significantly over recent decades? And that the reason for this “complacency” has disappeared in an instant. — Punshhh

Focus. If you are talking “trends”, I’m talking “trends”. Bringing up what you wish to see in an “instantaneous” change of attitude, even if it is true, it’s not very compelling as a counterargument.

Europeans was more a burden than a deterrence to rival powers, do you deny that? And if Trump's manages to bring Russia on a strategic partnership to contain China,

You keep repeating this, it would only have some validity as an argument if Trump had become an authoritarian dictator. At the moment, Trump’s “rule” is looking like a temporary aberration and we will be back to business as usual come the next election. But the trans-Atlantic alliance will be in a much stronger position with a re-arming Europe.

But you suggest the U.S. for some reason would want to strengthen Russia,, have a blind eye to her expansionism and the resultant turmoil this might engender in Europe. Lose the alliances with Europe. For some notional strategic goal re-China. It’s weird, even if Trump were a dictator. — Punshhh

I keep repeating because you keep ignoring. Do you deny that pivot to Asia and the danger of overstretch (which includes the burden transatlantic alliance) are major issues for American administrations, and especially for Trump? I’ve argued about this on several posts, I don’t remember you bringing pertinent evidence or arguments against my claims. And I take into account great powers’ actual strategic reasoning over their foreign policies way more seriously than your imaginative future scenarios grounded on instantaneous decisions made under emergency. Decisions may be instantaneous the collective impact of such decisions can take years to materialise, if they ever materialise, since things can go wrong in so many ways (see, also the Ukrainians’ expectations about Western support).

From the US perspective, such military alliance with Europeans was more a burden than a deterrence to rival powers, do you deny that? — neomac

Yes, I definately do!

If the US walks away from NATO alliance, that past American leaders worked so hard for, it will leave 31 countries 633 million people simply being competitors, which don't have much incentive to adjust their policies to the US foreign policy or basically even listen to the US as they have done now.

Secondly, the US just lost a HUGE, REALLY HUGE (as Trump would say) defense market that the Europeans will now try frantically to bring up, because the US is so unreliable. The US has been selling more weapons and arms to Europe that it has sold to the Middle East. Tell me, how on earth has that been a burden to you? 1/3 or so of arms exports going to Europe EVEN when Europe was spending so little on defence. You think it's a little thing that you lose more than a third of your arms exports to Europe, really? Even now, there like 500 aircraft still being in the lines to be delivered to Europe. That should tell you something. Now there's going to be a dramatic change, just like there has been with Tesla sales. But you can go with the "Europe is a burden for us" narrative.

Thirdly, France has already said that it can enlarge it's nuclear deterrence (as there is no credible US nuclear deterrence) to other EU/NATO member states. This is called strategic autonomy. It means simply: don't rely on America. And now other European countries have to agree with this. Crucial weapon systems like the nuclear deterrent should be 100% in your own hands. The UK's

Fourth, when for the first time since basically 1945 you voted in the UN against your allies and with your adversaries like North Korea, which btw you have only a cease-fire agreement, it seems that the US doesn't stand anymore for those ideals that it stood with alongside it's Western allies. If it's all just transactional, then it's quite evident that the Russia/US will ideologically.

That all above just shows how the Great Weakening of the US will happen. Why Americans want to emasculate themselves, drop their values and just serve few billionaires is beyond me. In fact what Trump (and seems that you too) don't understand at all is the following: keep your largest potential rivals as friends and allies to you. That is how you had Pax Americana, or the US as a Superpower. Now thanks to Trump, the MAGA-crowd is destroying this.

If you have the time, just listen this speech by Ursula von der Leyen about the urgent need for rapid rearming of Europe. And do notice that she talks of EUROPEAN military industry, EUROPEAN joint acquisitions and never, ever, talks about the US or relying on it's defense industry. Perhaps what Trump in his senility doesn't understand that if he demands Europe to pay, Europe will increase it's defense spending, but that won't come to him...

And if Trump's manages to bring Russia on a strategic partnership to contain China, this may be an acceptable compensation. — neomac

And just where do you get this sort of hallucinations from? Why would Putin do that? What fucking delusional incentive would he have for that? At least one third of Russia's exports go to China now. Russia has a huge long border with China and a nearly empty Siberia facing populous China. It makes absolutely great sense for Russia to be good friends with China. What the hell do you think Russia would gain from opposing China and braking the warm ties the countries have? That China could then demand back the territories that belonged to it earlier in Siberia? It makes absolutely NO SENSE at all.

If it doesn't, well Russia will remain the primary incumbent threat to the Europeans wrt the US, and this will keep Russia occupied on its western front. So the US will still rip some benefits off without indebting itself further toward Europe. — neomac

Aren't you forgetting, that the parasitic Gay Europe wokesters aren't going to be around like they were in Kuwait/Bosnia/Kosovo/Indian Ocean (Somali pirates)/Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq? So go to fight your fight with China, because even Australia doesn't seem worth as an ally to you:



Either we have the "agent Krasnov" case or then, well, I don't know the reasoning here.

It's like a leader of a wolfpack that has gotten tired of it's position and see's his own pack as just a futile bunch of meaningless followers, who don't even stand up against him. Well, if the leader then decides to bite and attack every of pack members and decides to go it alone, it's should know it leaves a pack of wolves behind it. And good hunting all alone.

Seems that Russia is getting it's deal thanks to it's friend Trump.

(Kyiv Post) The White House is rapidly moving toward accepting key Russian demands to end the war in Ukraine, including by backing the Kremlin’s four-point “peace plan” – undercutting Kyiv’s position – and by pushing a global narrative that calls for the replacement of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky among other pro-Russian actions, according to interviews with multiple senior Ukrainian officials and previously unreported documents reviewed by Kyiv Post.

The documents suggest that Washington has grown more receptive to the Kremlin’s narrative on the origins of the war – one that Moscow is now aggressively promoting to Western audiences, say sources. This narrative claims that NATO expansion and alleged discrimination against Russian speakers in Ukraine were key triggers for the conflict, despite these claims having been repeatedly debunked since Russia first used them to justify its 2014 invasion of Crimea.

A 30-day cease fire.

Wonder how long that will last.

Yes, I definately do!

Thanks for laying it out ssu, I don’t really have the time to go through all this with neomac right now. It certainly does seem that the U.S. has got some big problems to sort out. Her greatest enemy at the moment is the U.S.

Indeed it does.

And if Ukraine is slaughtered by a Molotov-Ribbentrop, sorry, Trump-Putin agreement, and given to Russia, it will stiffen the European response to a whole new level.

Her greatest enemy at the moment is the U.S. — Punshhh

Add to that how Trump is behaving his own Constitution and the separation of powers, this all could end up very ugly.

If the US walks away from NATO alliance, that past American leaders worked so hard for, it will leave 31 countries 633 million people simply being competitors, which don't have much incentive to adjust their policies to the US foreign policy or basically even listen to the US as they have done now. — ssu

You are offering reasons which could plausibly be compelling to many Europeans (people and politicians). Still “31 countries 633 million people” are not a DE FACTO compact front where each and everyone thinking and feeling exactly the same things that you think and feel on these matters. So I’m simply pointing out the fact that there are enough frictional factors like European Nationalisms (which were fuelling anti-NATO and anti-EU rhetoric even before Trump), demographic decline, all sorts of economic vulnerabilities (trade/energetic dependencies, etc. which can also impact the defense industries) which could obstruct a European collective strategy in the short, medium or long term. And both Russia and the US could profit from that.

Secondly, the US just lost a HUGE, REALLY HUGE (as Trump would say) defense market that the Europeans will now try frantically to bring up, because the US is so unreliable. The US has been selling more weapons and arms to Europe that it has sold to the Middle East. Tell me, how on earth has that been a burden to you? 1/3 or so of arms exports going to Europe EVEN when Europe was spending so little on defence. You think it's a little thing that you lose more than a third of your arms exports to Europe, really? — ssu

Thirdly, France has already said that it can enlarge it's nuclear deterrence (as there is no credible US nuclear deterrence) to other EU/NATO member states. — ssu

If you have the time, just listen this speech by Ursula von der Leyen about the urgent need for rapid rearming of Europe. And do notice that she talks of EUROPEAN military industry, EUROPEAN joint acquisitions and never, ever, talks about the US or relying on it's defense industry. Perhaps what Trump in his senility doesn't understand that if he demands Europe to pay, Europe will increase it's defense spending, but that won't come to him... — ssu

These are all consequences that you anticipate not accomplished facts.
The US didn’t lose yet the entire European market (whose demands increased during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but prior to that the trend was decreasing), France has not yet extended its nuclear deterrence, a EUROPEAN military industry is not yet a reality.
It will take several years and financial/technological/cultural efforts to Europe to build a credible deterrence based on its own military industrial complex. Consider just Russia’s nuclear arsenal which dwarfs the combined Anglo-French stockpile warheads. And the asymmetry isn’t just quantitative but also doctrinal. Moscow’s “escalate to de-escalate” strategy is designed to coerce adversaries into concessions, while British and French nuclear arsenals, are just meant for minimal deterrence.
I’m not saying the Europeans are doomed to fail. Nor that Trump’s decisions won’t backfire as you suggest.
I’m saying that the problems I pointed out (imperial overstretch, pivot to Asia, and European “parassitism”) are of paramount importance to the US, and in order to address them a strategic revision of the US foreign policy was necessary. Besides Trump can pursue this revision in ways which preceding administrations committed to the globalization (Western-style liberalism, democracy, universal human rights, international law, multilater partnership) couldn’t easily afford.

But you can go with the "Europe is a burden for us" narrative. — ssu

That all above just shows how the Great Weakening of the US will happen. Why Americans want to emasculate themselves, drop their values and just serve few billionaires is beyond me. In fact what Trump (and seems that you too) don't understand at all is the following: keep your largest potential rivals as friends and allies to you. That is how you had Pax Americana, or the US as a Superpower. Now thanks to Trump, the MAGA-crowd is destroying this. — ssu

Many geopolitical analysts and U.S. foreign policy advisors have critiqued NATO’s role in the years prior to Trump’s presidency, emphasizing that the U.S. bears a disproportionate financial and military burden and questioning NATO’s strategic relevance in the post-Cold War era. They argue that NATO's expanded responsibilities and military commitments have not always aligned with U.S. interests, and that a reduced U.S. commitment or a restructured NATO could better serve American national security.
Maybe these are good summaries of burden sharing issue within NATO:
https://cdainstitute.ca/back-to-the-past-a-critical-review-of-nato-burden-sharing-from-1949-to-the-present/
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=ohiou1658418238274699&disposition=inline

And if Trump's manages to bring Russia on a strategic partnership to contain China, this may be an acceptable compensation. — neomac

And just where do you get this sort of hallucinations from? Why would Putin do that? What fucking delusional incentive would he have for that? At least one third of Russia's exports go to China now. Russia has a huge long border with China and a nearly empty Siberia facing populous China. It makes absolutely great sense for Russia to be good friends with China. What the hell do you think Russia would gain from opposing China and braking the warm ties the countries have? That China could then demand back the territories that belonged to it earlier in Siberia? It makes absolutely NO SENSE at all. — ssu

I already told you what possible incentives Putin may have. Cultural prejudices and security concerns may compel Putin to unwelcome a strategic dependence on China. Russia is forced into such a partnership by the circumstances due to their costly ambitions to assert a sphere of influence in Ukraine which was about to fall under the Western sphere of influence, right? So Trump can use Ukraine as a bargaining chip. Also letting Russia expand its political influence in other parts of Eastern Europe could be a bargaining chip. Also removing sanctions to let Russia sell oil/gas to Europeans (a greater price than what he sells to China) and weaken Russophobic sentiments is a bargaining chip. Also establishing a strategic partnership to contain China (Siberia, Central Asia and the Arctic region over Russia can be contended by China if Russia is weak enough and isolated) and grant Russia a superpower status for deciding the fate of the rest of the world like in the Cold War era may be a bargaining chip for Russia. And I think that other forms of business/technological cooperation can be offered by Trump to lure Putin and vice versa (like the rare earth extraction and trade)
In any case, it’s not on you to establish if these bargaining chips are enough but on Putin.

Aren't you forgetting, that the parasitic Gay Europe wokesters aren't going to be around like they were in Kuwait/Bosnia/Kosovo/Indian Ocean (Somali pirates)/Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq? So go to fight your fight with China, because even Australia doesn't seem worth as an ally to you: — ssu

But the US would not be alone if Russia partners with the US. Besides countries near China (like Japan) may still be compelled to contain and fight China as much as Europeans are compelled to contain and fight Russia, no matter how embittered the partnership with the US is.

A neat little article explaining why Ukraine has so much of what the ridiculous orange emperor calls "raw" earth...

What’s so special about Ukraine’s minerals? A geologist explains

As far as I can tell, Putin switched Russia to a wartime economy some time ago, in part anyway.
Maybe someone can correct/confirm or offer insights?


Russia’s War Economy
^{— András Rácz, Ole Spillner, Guntram Wolff · DGAP · Feb 14, 2023}
The Russian economy on a war footing: A new reality financed by commodity exports
^{— Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Iikka Korhonen, Elina Ribakova · CEPR · May 2, 2024}
Russia’s Wartime Economy isn’t as Weak as it Looks
^{— Richard Connolly · RUSI · Jan 22, 2025}
Exclusive: Putin growing concerned by Russia’s economy, as Trump pushes for Ukraine deal
^{— Darya Korsunskaya, Guy Faulconbridge, Gleb Stolyarov, Andrea Shalal, Frank Jack Daniel · Reuters · Jan 23, 2025}
Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
^{— Wikipedia}

I keep repeating because you keep ignoring. Do you deny that pivot to Asia and the danger of overstretch (which includes the burden transatlantic alliance) are major issues for American administrations, and especially for Trump?

No I don’t deny it, but getting into bed with Russia doesn’t reduce overstretch. It increases it. If the U.S. really doesn’t want overstretch, all she needs to do is enable Europe to take on the role of policing Europe and Western and Northern Asia. Then the U.S. can pivot. Although that pivot will trigger an arms race and increased tensions between U.S. and China. Again, more overstretch of a different kind.

In this unholy alliance between the U.S. and Russia, Russia will be planning the downfall and Balkanisation of the U.S. from day one. She was planning the same for Ukraine from the day that Ukraine began to disarm following the Bucharest memorandum. https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lk5qg6eh5c2e Putin will continue and increase his efforts to destabilise Europe. Europe will become a thorn in the side of the U.S., while Russia cannot be trusted. Just to deal with this is level of global overstretch would require a vast army of spies to keep Europe under check, see that Russia doesn’t undermine the U.S. and to manage the new arms race with China. And of course none of this will have occurred to Trump, or his sidekicks.

You see, Russia is an imperial expansionist, can’t you see that? Just talk to a Kremlinologist or something. She has been doing it for hundreds of years, it’s not going to stop. As far as she’s/Putin is concerned if the whole world is in disarray and fighting amongst themselves the Soviet Union will stand proud. She will be great again.

All your talk of mineral deals is just trade and money, Trump is a used car salesman, he has no idea about the geopolitical implications of his wheeler dealing. He will mess up big time, although it looks as though the U.S. economy will implode before he does too much damage.

Also Trump is out on a limb, as I was pointing out, Putin is Kriptonite to most people in the West. Trump is pretty much going it alone. While the West (including 99% of the U.S. population) looks on in horror with a bitter taste in its mouth.