European leaders unite behind Ukraine following Trump-Zelenskyy confrontation

[j brown's body]

Overnight, Trump has made Zelensky into an international hero of democracy and rule of law.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

You can "want to end the war" but you can't strike a deal with Putin and Zelensky without Putin involved. We're well into this war now with 3 years and over a million lost lives. The usefulness of calling Putin "a dictator who started the war" in the midst of an effort to bring the war to a negotiated end - escapes me.

But it's fine to negotiate without Zelensky?

 

[Peter]

Europe is led by a host of fascists who can hardly be described as Democratic. They stiffle the free speech of their citizens under threat of imprisonment and use gestapo tactics such as branding political opposition as hate groups and using that as a means to keep them under constant investigation.

They might not be anywhere close to Putin but they're moving in his direction.

Just absolute bollocks.
You are about as unbiased about Europe as I am about Luton Town FC.

 

[Callen]

You can "want to end the war" but you can't strike a deal with Putin and Zelensky without Putin involved

Although it seems you think it can be done without Zelenskyy's involvement.

 

[Callen]

Trump will step out of this mix

No he won't, he will continue to support Putin.

 

[maxparrish]

Be prepared to spend more than 5% of your GDP on your (and Ukraine's) military.

Also, the technology level of European militaries is about a generation behind the US so this will result in less capability for Ukraine. Therefore needing increased quantities of munitions (so even more money).

I get that you, and those who give you a thumbs up, just say stuff to be adversarial. I am not even sure if you take yourself seriously. But really, no one is forcing you to not look it up or familiarize yourself with the literature.

First, it depends on who you mean by "you". If it means European NATO countries, excluding the US, it won't require 5 percent GDP just for Ukraine. European (and Canada) countries total 20 Trillion dollars in annual GDP. US appropriated amounts to Ukraine are about 60 billion dollars per year. If EUROPE had to replace US funding, it means that NATO countries would have to increase their spending by a PALTRY .3% PER YEAR.

Second, it depends on WHAT kind of American retreat you are speaking of. If it means that the US government will no longer contribute to Ukraine's survival then that means the 60 billion dollars a year that directly or indirectly goes to US ARMs manufacturers will NOT be paid by US loans or gifts to Ukraine. Rather, Ukraine will have to come up with the "cash and carry" to purchase them from US manufacturers.

This shouldn't be too hard as long as European Nato (and Canada) contribute that extra 60 billion a year needed. Naturally there will be a shift to prefer European sources (if only because US list prices are sometimes absurdly high) but it is doable.

Third, IF Trump imposes an arms embargo on Ukraine, then that would be a far more serious blow. Europe doesn't make HIMARs rounds, for example. It doesn't have a vast surplus stock of Bradley's. Europe would have to double its 155mm shell production.

In theory Trump would be a fool to do that. IF he is an actual "America Firster" rather than a petty and vindicative asshole he WOULD NOT be punishing US employers and rewarding European sellers. The only reasons he might impose and embargo is a) he hates Ukraine and b) he is in love with Putin.

Last, European technology is every bit as advanced as American technology, ESPECIALLY regarding the items supplyed to Ukraine. Storm Shadow, Tarus, Meteor, etc. equal or exceed US equivalents. And there isn't any doubt that US's antiquated SP 109s are usually INFERIOR, sometimes WAY INFERIOR to the French Ceasar, the German Pz2000, and the Swedish SP and so on. And as for tanks, well, we already know that the handful of Abrahm models shipped to Ukraine have vastly disappointed - which isn't a great loss either.

So let us never hear more of this nonsense again.

 

[Along Came Jones]

In the context of the post WW2 global order, sure. The problem is Europe's always had a problem working together well, and even under the EU there are always issues between the member countries on this kind of larger strategy. What doesn't help the EU is they are not the military machine the US is, and scaling up to fill that void isn't going to happen overnight. The other factor here is what they can agree upon in actual support for Ukraine, and that will be determined once we're past the rhetoric phase we're in right now.

The next NATO summit is on the calendar for June, 2025 at The Hague. I'm thinking the meeting will happen much earlier now that our allies have questions as to our commitment to honor Article 5.

 

[gbg3]

Trump could have ended the war by siding with Ukraine

Well, that's quite a take. If so, why did the war continue for 3 years? Or are you suggesting Biden didn't side with Ukraine? And "end the war" how? Do you mean with a much greater level of contribution from the U.S., or what is it you have in mind that could have "ended the war by siding with Ukraine"?

You just tossed this into your comment, but I'd sure like to know what you meant and in what way it is you see that suddenly happening with a war which has dragged on for 3 years - with, I'd argue, quite a number of countries "siding with Ukraine" for all three years.

 

[Callen]

Well, that's quite a take. If so, why did the war continue for 3 years? Or are you suggesting Biden didn't side with Ukraine? And "end the war" how? Do you mean with a much greater level of contribution from the U.S., or what is it you have in mind that could have "ended the war by siding with Ukraine"?

You just tossed this into your comment, but I'd sure like to know what you meant and in what way it is you see that suddenly happening with a war which has dragged on for 3 years - with, I'd argue, quite a number of countries "siding with Ukraine" for all three years.

I'm talking about the peace talks.

 

[gbg3]

Simple, side with Ukraine against the invader in the peace talks. Put the screws to Putin instead of Zelenskyy. Stop elevating Putin on the world stage.

Oh Jeez, I hadn't reached this comment yet when I posted comment 558. "Simple"? Really?

Then why didn't Biden take that supposedly "simple" path? Why hasn't Europe taken this "simple" path?

 

[gbg3]

What was the usefulness in calling Zelenskyy a dictator?

None, IMO.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Trump wants to end the war in Russia's favour. He wants Ukraine to cede their lands. Trump could have ended the war by siding with Ukraine but for some reason he favours Putin.

I’m not a conspiracy theory guy, but that part of me thinks that Trump and musk are actively working to weaken the US directly for Russia’s benefit. For what exactly will be revealed by history.

 

[Callen]

Oh Jeez, I hadn't reached this comment yet when I posted comment 558. "Simple"? Really?

Then why didn't Biden take that supposedly "simple" path? Why hasn't Europe taken this "simple" path?

Again , I'm talking about the peace talks

 

[gbg3]

Although it seems you think it can be done without Zelenskyy's involvement.

He's been involved and had agreed to the mineral deal. He then arrived in Washington with a completely different agenda.

 

[Callen]

He's been involved and had agreed to the mineral deal. He then arrived in Washington with a completely different agenda.

No he didn't. He was deliberately provoked and bullied. He was having no part of it. It was not by accident Trump let that presser go on and on.

 

[mike2810]

Oh Jeez, I hadn't reached this comment yet when I posted comment 558. "Simple"? Really?

Then why didn't Biden take that supposedly "simple" path? Why hasn't Europe taken this "simple" path?

How many Trump supporters bought into his claim he would end the Ukraine/Russia war before he took office?
What happened to that campaign promise? Trump evidently at one time thought it would be easy. Guess it is not as easy as he believed.

 

[gbg3]

Again , I'm talking about the peace talks

That supposedly "simple" peace talk door is still wide open. Zelensky or any interested country can walk right through it and could have done so at any previous point in the last 3 years. Do you think they haven't walked through that simple peace talk door because they want the war to continue?

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Third, IF Trump imposes an arms embargo on Ukraine, then that would be a far more serious blow. Europe doesn't make HIMARs rounds, for example. It doesn't have a vast surplus stock of Bradley's. Europe would have to double its 155mm shell production.

In theory Trump would be a fool to do that. IF he is an actual "America Firster" rather than a petty and vindicative asshole he WOULD NOT be punishing US employers and rewarding European sellers. The only reasons he might impose and embargo is a) he hates Ukraine and b) he is in love with Putin.

Effectively Trump has imposed an arms embargo, but not officially.

Flow of U.S. Weapons to Ukraine Has Nearly Stopped and May End Completely link​

As the two men met, it had been 50 days since the Pentagon had announced a new package of weapons to Ukraine and the new administration had said little about providing any more.

A Trump administration official said later on Friday that all U.S. aid to Ukraine — including the final shipments of ammunition and equipment authorized and paid for during the Biden administration — could be canceled imminently.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion of that country in February 2022, such shipments of military hardware from the United States were announced roughly every two weeks during the Biden administration, and sometimes just five or six days apart.

According to the Pentagon, about $3.85 billion remains of what Congress authorized for additional withdrawals from the Defense Department’s stockpile. A former senior defense official from the Biden administration said the last of the arms Ukraine had purchased from U.S. defense companies would be shipped within the next six months.

After that, it will be up to a host of European and other countries to keep Ukraine’s guns firing.

........With none announced since the inauguration, the final shipments of Biden-era goods have slowed to a trickle.

 

[dobieg]

You’ll break it down? Don’t know which is more hilarious, that you claimed something so easily disproven while accusing others of being dishonest liars, or that four people actually agreed with it.

The entire transcript has been available.

No, Zelensky didn’t ’first question Vance about what he knew about negotiations in a disrespectful way and it devolved from there’. That part wasn’t left out because people were being dishonest, it was left out because that wasn’t how it transpired.

It devolved because Zelensky was trying to say that Putin can’t be trusted. And he’s right, but dear leader doesn’t like that given that he fully supports Putin, according to him ‘they went through the Russia hoax together’. Vance needed to put on a performance for dear leader.

————-

Full transcript below. Nowhere does it show that it devolved when Zelensky disrespectfully questioned Vance about what Vance knew about negotiations.

Full Transcript: Trump, Zelenskyy Face Off In Oval Office Shouting Match

A meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump devolved into a shouting match Friday.

www.forbes.com

Like I said. Liberals are some of the dishonest people on the planet.

Full video for all to see.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The next NATO summit is on the calendar for June, 2025 at The Hague. I'm thinking the meeting will happen much earlier now that our allies have questions as to our commitment to honor Article 5.

Trump's wavered on this before, and what's clear is his view on Russia as a threat is very different than those of NATO nations. Trump thinks of global politics only in the context of deal making, which it partially is, but there are other leaders who go beyond just deal making. Putin is a good example of this. I don't think anyone can be blamed for not being as assured by deals with Russia and them actually sticking to them.

 

[dobieg]

You can "want to end the war" but you can't strike a deal with Putin and Zelensky without Putin involved. We're well into this war now with 3 years and over a million lost lives. The usefulness of calling Putin "a dictator who started the war" in the midst of an effort to bring the war to a negotiated end - escapes me.

You're going down a rabbit hole with a poster who will run you in circles with stupidity. Been there, done that.

 

[Callen]

That supposedly "simple" peace talk door is still wide open. Zelensky or any interested country can walk right through it and could have done so at any previous point in the last 3 years. Do you think they haven't walked through that simple peace talk door because they want the war to continue?

You honestly believe Putin would have played ball? That is at best naive.

 

[dobieg]

Trump's wavered on this before, and what's clear is his view on Russia as a threat is very different than those of NATO nations. Trump thinks of global politics only in the context of deal making, which it partially is, but there are other leaders who go beyond just deal making. Putin is a good example of this. I don't think anyone can be blamed for not being as assured by deals with Russia and them actually sticking to them.

NATO countries think right leaning political parties are a threat as well as citizens who criticize their polticians. A jailable offense thoughout much of Europe. I could care less what they think.

 

[ElChupacabra]

None, IMO.

Agreed, which is why it made no sense to me either. The funny thing is I never faulted Trump's idea of improving relations with Russia when he first ran. I've always felt we could likely get more done with some type of improved relations and mutual understanding than just an adversarial one. The problem is we have competing views on what the world order is and what systems of government should dominate, so there's always going to be an unease there.

The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 changed everything because it brought back war to Europe, and not for very good reasons either. This is where the idea of improved relations with Russia went out the window for now. Between their actions in Ukraine, and efforts to destabilize other parts of Europe via electoral politics, we have to be on our toes. Support for Ukraine was about more than just defense of the country, but re-affirming the idea that countries can no longer pull off these territorial expansion quests. This is especially important given the threat of Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

 

[Brusan]

So theey're going to stand behind it for WWIII, troops and money or are they going to stand behind it by giving tweets full of platitudes?

Where does this "WWIII" bullcrap come from - Captain Bone Spurs sending the wind up your collective azzes.

The single greatest reason whey this has dragged out so long with Russia expending resources and manpower at rates it cannot sustain is because PUTIN thinks he has an ace in the hole -TRUMP. He was proven correct yesterday.