World Leaders Stand with Ukraine following White House Meeting
- Thread starter noStemsnoSTICKS
- Start date
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
North Korea
And a bunch of small countries getting investment and bribes from Russia…you know, just like Trump.
A great move by Trump and Vance. Europe saves Ukraine!
I was proud the US helped Ukraine fight tyranny. Thank you Biden.
Total bilateral aid to Ukraine by donor & type 2024 | Statista
How much has each country given to Ukraine? The U.S. provided the highest bilateral aid to Ukraine as of June 2024, at over 67 billion euros.www.statista.com
Today is a dark dark day for US international relations. There is no excusing it. Shameful.
If you don’t understand how we got into this war, you won’t understand how we get out of this war.
And that’s why you ask ignorant questions about the neocons even after three decades of them driving American foreign policy into the ditch over and over with these feckless and reckless regime change efforts and their unintended consequences.
They are not an independent nation old man.
The are the definition of dependent. Zalenskyy just doesn't get that.
Why dont pull all our support and then they can remind us how independent they are. For the 20 days or so it remains true.
To paraphrase you They are free to make their own destiny as they see fit. Damn right they are.
If you want our help get a deal signed.
Part of today's maneuvers, which u think we're planned on advance, are designed to let Z know that his delays do not result in continued aid. He thinks if he prolongs the war his odds are better. Fair enough. But spend your own money, and europes if they wish, on that effort. We are out.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
I fully understand how Ukraine ended up in this mess. You blame it 100% on neocons meddling and destabilizing their relationship with Russia. I will grant you that our foreign policy has often made a mess of things. But that does not, in any way, absolve the one person who actually started a hot war - Putin. And yet all you do is blame the neocons. It’s neocons this, neocons that, all day long. Which again would be fine if this war was actually started by the neocons. It was not. And no matter how many times you say it you will still be wrong.
For the umpteenth time, one person started this war and one person could easily end it and that person is the war criminal Putin. It so weird how you never ever seem to put any blame on Putin. You are nothing more than a sympathizer to a brutal dictator wrapped up in some rabbit hole conspiracy bullshit.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,635
- 209,789
- 113
Can Europe deter Russia in Ukraine without US military?
Donald Trump appears to have more confidence in the capabilities of Britain's armed forces than some of his own generals - or, for that matter, many of Britain's retired military top brass.When asked at his news conference with the UK prime minister about US security guarantees for Ukraine, Trump said: "The British have incredible soldiers, incredible military and they can take care of themselves."
However, the US president did leave the question hanging in the air as to whether the UK military could take on Russia.
In public, senior US military officers are quick to praise the professionalism of Britain's armed forces. But in private, they're often highly critical of recent cuts to their size, especially to the British Army, which now has just over 70,000 regular troops.
Too small" is what one very senior US general said in a private briefing on a visit to the UK.
According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Russia's military expenditure is now higher than Europe's total defence spending, in terms of purchasing parity power. It's increased by 41% and is now the equivalent of 6.7% of GDP. In contrast, the UK will be spending just 2.5% by 2027.
President Trump's comments underscore the reality that he's not contemplating putting American troops on the ground in Ukraine to police any ceasefire. Any US presence will be economic, to exploit mining interests.
He suggests that that in itself might be a deterrent to Russia attacking again. But even his administration thinks there must be some hard power too - provided by others. It'll be up to European nations to do that. The question is not just whether Europe has the will: does it have the numbers too?
The short answer is no. That is why Sir Keir Starmer has been pressing for additional US security guarantees from the world's most powerful military.
Britain is not alone in cutting its armed forces in response to the end of the Cold War. That trend in Europe is slowly being reversed, with more nations increasing defence spending.
But Europe, on its own, would not be able to provide a force of 100-200,000 international troops, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky suggests would be needed to deter Russia from attacking again.
Instead, Western officials have said they're thinking of a force of up to 30,000 troops. European jets and warships would help monitor Ukraine's airspace and shipping lanes.
That force would be focused on providing "reassurance" at key sites - Ukraine's cities, ports and nuclear power stations. They would not be placed anywhere near the current front lines in Eastern Ukraine. European fighter jets and warships would also monitor Ukraine's air space and shipping lanes.
But these same Western officials acknowledge that this would not be enough, hence the calls for a US "backstop" - "to have the confidence that whatever forces are deployed will not be challenged by Russia" and to "give the prime minister confidence that he can deploy British forces safely".
Officials believe that, at the very least, the US could provide oversight to any European forces with a "command and control element" and US fighter jets ready to respond from its airbases in Poland and Romania. Europe cannot match American space-based surveillance or intelligence-gathering capabilities.
It could also agree to continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons.
While Europe has recently overtaken the US in terms of the proportion of Western weapons supplied to Ukraine, one Western source said the US had provided "the cream" - such as long range missiles and air defence systems.
European nations also do not have the necessary enablers to conduct large-scale military operations on their own. The supply of Western weapons to Ukraine has been dependent on US logistics.
Nato's bombing campaign over Libya in 2011 also highlighted deficiencies - with European nations supposedly taking the lead, but still dependent on US support. Allies relied on US refuelling tankers and US targeting.
But Sir Keir Starmer appears to have left Washington without any guarantees of US military support. Speaking to the BBC this morning, UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting suggested that Donald Trump's re-commitment to Nato's Article 5 - whereby an attack on one ally would be interpreted as an attack on all - might be enough.
But the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has previously stated that any international troops sent to Ukraine will be neither a Nato force nor covered by its treaty. At present, there is no such Nato-style security guarantee.
Europe's strength of will is being tested. The prime minister, who's convening a meeting of leaders this weekend, will soon find out whether warm words from Donald Trump are enough to convince others to join the UK in putting boots on the ground.
France is the only other major European power that so far appears to be willing to do the same. Some Northern European nations - Denmark, Sweden and the Baltic states - are willing to consider a commitment, but again would like US security guarantees. Spain, Italy and Germany are so far opposed.
Sir Keir may still believe there's room for negotiation, that the US might still be willing to back a European force. But as for Donald Trump's question - would Britain be able to take on Russia's military? Even though Russian forces have been weakened, the answer is no.
Ukraine war: Can Europe deter Russia without US military? - BBC News
Donald Trump will not get involved in security guarantees for Ukraine, but can Europe fill the gap?
www.bbc.com
If the Russians organized a coup in Cuba so they could install military bases the U.S. invasion that followed would be understood in history to have started with the coup, not the first GI boot on the ground in Cuba.
It was the definition of a conspiracy.
We were secretly trying to replace the elected government to get a change in policy the neocons wanted.
It’s only killed and wounded a million or so people, but least they weren’t Americans, amirite?
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Link to the US military bases in Ukraine?
It’s interesting to me how you blame everything on the US as if the Ukrainian leadership from that timeframe weren’t incredibly corrupt. They had agency in their actions and were the main reason for the revolution. Maybe they shouldn’t have been so shitty that they had to flee the country and maybe they should have followed the path that had been laid out to bring Ukraine closer to Europe vs sucking up to the corruption of Russia.
No matter how many weird spins you put on the history of Ukraine the fact is Putin invaded a country that had no US or NATO military presence. It was a preemptive aggression that caused the deaths of many many innocents. The US isn’t responsible for that. Zelenskyy isn’t responsible for that. Only Putin is responsible and he should be hung in The Hague hopefully choking to death vs having his neck snapped.
Preempting what, exactly?
You just boxed yourself into explaining why Russia attacked.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Preempting a time when they could not attack Ukraine and win. This is not the gotcha point you think it is. I have never argued Ukraine was not trying to get closer to the west. Of course they were. My point was that the west was never going to attack Russia from Ukraine.
Every day for years you have condoned the slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Ukraine because they, as a free nation, had the audacity to want stronger economic and diplomatic ties to the west. And why did they want that? Because of the threat of exactly what happened. Because they aligned more with a western world view than a Russian one.
You constantly spin reality to match some weird narrative that if there was a western presence in Ukraine it would be a threat to Russia. No, it would have been protection AGAINST a Russian threat. One which we of course know was very real and very dangerous.
If the Vietnam era saw what we would become 55 years later they would sh:: themselves
You are absolutely correct. But by then I will be cold and not concerned. Thankfully. What a punk he is. But, that he is what I see a lot of his generation as being…transactional, afraid and amoral.
Wait wait. Let me pull a libtard move. It’s too and you forgot a comma. Have you taken a single English class. Talk about flunking HBOT.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Uh…no it is not “too” in the context I was using. So let me return the libtard favor by explaining:
A party to something means you are a part of the thing. A “party too” would mean you were planing on doing something and also going to a party. That was not what I meant or wrote.
Nice try though.
You might be right about the comma, it sounds optional to my ear, but I suck at those.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,635
- 209,789
- 113
Latest posts
-
I de-committed, and nobody wanted to be my friend. (Kadyn Proctor)- Latest: TigersHawks
-
-
-
