JazzG Starmer did yesterday and he came out well out of his meeting

He may have come put well in a PR sense but his meeting was a total failure, given the entire purpose of it was to try to persuade Trump to adopt a more moderate position on Ukraine.

Don't disagree with the assessment you posted but the WW3 warning with regards to America offering more support is pretty pejorative. There are any number of ways via any of the three scenarios mentioned that lead to WW3.

Zelenskyy desperately needs to buy time. A humiliating cease fire is probably the only way to do that, save for some curve ball like China involving itself.

      JazzG I agree.

      But the reason this is big news isn’t because the US is dismissive of the concerns of smaller countries (fuck knows how the US will approach Israel v Palestine).

      If Russia decided to push forward and occupy a Baltic state will the US intervene? Is NATO a credible deterrent? If not, is there even any point in Europe expanding its military budget if all their weapon systems are reliant on the US anyway? And if the US isn’t the solution to European defence, exactly how much of will it cost to build a replacement model and how much will that cost an ageing continent with anaemic growth. What would that do for European solidarity? My worst case view is that by the end of this century Europe will be carved up by Russia (Eastern Europe), the US (Western Europe) and China (whatever’s left) if Europe + UK don’t recognise the hand their dealt

          JazzG this is the state of media and people today lol. "Some guy told me". Lol. One guy told me this guys is full of shit

          jones he gifted it to trump. With a bunch of other stuff

              Mirth do you really believe Russia would invade a the Baltics? It took eight years of ethnic Russians getting shelled until they invaded a neutral country in Ukraine and look how that war is going, we're just going to assume they'll willy nilly march into a NATO country?

                  Qwiss haven't really clocked him speaking before but he's a total weasel. I thought it was interesting when Zelenskyy said have you been to Ukraine and he instinctively said yes ugh I've seen it on TV. That's not going to be the same. Such a scum bag berates Zelenskyy for needing to say thanks to us right here why haven't you and then after goading him you shouldn't have done this in front of the press, you totally started this you clown.

                  It's funny the US internally seem to think this looks good for them but they look risky pathetic and fully subservient to Russia.. It's laughable that trump can claim he's good at deas.

                    jones did you believe Russia would march into Crimea when they did it that they would resort to attempting to kill people with poisoning in the UK because I would have said exactly as you, there is no way. The history of the world is littered with moves that seemed totally disastrous or like they were never going to happen. Who knows what lesson Putin takes from this but it isn't going to be the end. He'll have won his "patriotic war" Russia is a big nation we can't be bullied and with a Trump president maybe he can just say help me get this piece of land.

                      jones not imminently but it is a strategic objective that Russia would be prepared to wait out.

                      NATO even without US support is potent on paper but the absence of Tier 1 leadership would most likely fragment the alliance over the longer term (beyond this administration) and once the will is lost then all bets are off imo.

                      More interestingly, the US, China, Russia and even emerging players like India see the world very differently to Europe (civilisational empires vs neo-colonial). I think it’s only a matter of time before their view will prevail

                          jones do you really believe Russia would invade a the Baltics?

                          To be fair, the question of Russia invading the Baltics here is about whether Europe should re-militarise under the aegis of a treaty without the United States.

                          Other than the situation in Ukraine, what else would a re-militarised Europe be expecting to defend itself against, if not a Russian incursion into a Baltic state?

                          I guess the answer is that the situation in Ukraine may require European security guarantees, and NATO might no longer be a viable mechanism to deliver them. So something the EU cooks up in the next six months looks pretty likely.

                              Mirth there is also the fact Russia's gambles have paid off and seen no significant push back. Maybe Russia didn't believe that the US would get involved if they went after a near neighbour. The lesson from this is America don't want to be involved and Putin is a gambler and he's been winning so it's not impossible he thinks he could out manoeuvre the west and they don't have the stomach to do anything.

                                  Mirth not buying it, Russia has been reactive in most conflicts so far. Sure you could look at hypothetical Russian strategic objectives that might pan out if NATO falls apart after the US pulls out and infighting in Europe causes the group to lose the "will" relevant but that'd be a bit weird when today you actually have German soldiers and tanks participating in military exercises 100 miles from St. Petersburg.

                                  The last paragraph is interesting but not sure I understood it correctly. You say the Americans Indians and Chinese have one world view opposed to that of Europe?

                                      Burnwinter I'm not sure I'd equate those questions but if the question is should Europe ramp up arms production then clearly the answer should be no? The only enemy that could overwhelm Europe is the US and they're not bridging that gap any time soon nor should we.

                                      Infrastructure decaying, economic standards dropping across the board, democracy failing with far right parties on the rise literally everywhere - but yea let's sink what little money is left to governments under self imposed austerity programmes in the black hole that's defence spending lol

                                        jones enduring is what matters,if he gets fully welcomed back to the fold and sanctions are dropped as US seen to want 3 years it's a price worth paying for invading a neighbour.

                                          jones NATO is already undermined, does anyone believe that it would respond to an incursion on its eastern flank. Nearly 60 years of post war peace was based on the fact that was true. I don't think you could be confident of that right now and you can bet Putin would be thinking. What would that actually do. From the west's response to the recent crisis they will be annoyed but nothing of consequence.

                                              awooga83 — I think it depends who you’re referencing on the Eastern front.

                                              Poland being invaded would certainly trigger a response - partly because they’ve invested enough in their defenses/army that they wouldn’t need as much support. NATO as an organization, and its countries individually, would be far more bullish on a positive outcome which in turn makes support easier to sell and more compelling on the backside.

                                              I do fully agree with you though that the Baltic countries may not be afforded that same support. An invasion of those countries would require NATO fighting back by forcibly attacking within Russia which is a far greater step than supporting defensive operations.

                                              Hungary is another possible inflection point. Russia’s “invasion” there would more likely be via political influence, and softer actions, but would how would NATO (and the EU) respond to that tampering and potentially internal encouragement?

                                                  MistaT Russia owns Hungary for 20 years now. why would they attack them? And how? If they don't get all of Ukraine, and I don't think they will

                                                      Poland and the Baltics are members of NATO, the other members are formally committed to reacting as if they are directly attacked. Trump may refuse to do so, but the treaty commitment was ratified by the Senate, which makes it part of "the supreme Law of the land".
                                                      Putin's first goal is to conquer as much Ukrainian territory as possible and incorporate it into Russia. His second goal is to make sure that whatever remains of Ukraine cannot join NATO as Poland did.

                                                      HomeSteak -- I'm with you, and well aware of Russia's current influence.

                                                      I was responding to awooga and suggesting that while NATO may have postulated a standard (universal) response if a member was attacked, it's quite apparent that the response will not be standardized.

                                                          MistaT recognize they don't need to do anything in hungry financially and as you said I don't mean a country like Poland. It's the Baltics I think he would be looking to test and I don't think it's as clear today what would happen in reality. Putin has operated on he takes these actions knowing the west is sluggish and often takes time to respond which then makes it hard to actually do anything.

                                                            JazzG public debt can be eliminated in one year with a relatively limited but progressive capital tax. Even a one time tax. There is no need to gut the government. That's just what the billionaires who steal your money want you to believe.

                                                            • Daz likes this.