Only if he thinks the pact would hold.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
That's not happening, imo.
What he wants is to disengage from a front he sees as irrelevant to the US and a waste of money, to concentrate only on China.
The latter's always been his obsession, even during his first mandate. All his picks are China (and Iran) hawks.
He'd have to think that every single NATO country would break the pact which just obviously wouldn't happen.
I'm not sure it's that black and white. If, for example, the US would hesitate, I could easily see this affect other partners and make them reluctant as well. It would quickly become an all or nothing situation
Nonsense. Countries like Poland, Estonia, Latvia, even Finland know all too well the threat Russia poses, and they're not going to let themselves be picked off one by one even if failures of governance of the major powers left them exposed.
I'm not sure how good this argument is when two out of your four examples are themselves the Baltic countries, when the entire premise is that the Baltic countries rely on NATO to be able to fend off (or more likely deter) Russia. Finland was also out of NATO for the entire Cold War. I am absolutely sure they would join in if there was a committed NATO response, but I'm not so sure they would go to war over the Baltic countries if the US, UK, France, Germany, etc., hesitate. The same goes for Poland.
Poland and Finland are not in the same danger as the Baltic countries, simply because they could plausibly defend themselves for long enough to make it politically untenable to avoid honouring the pact (and in the case of Poland, Germany would never allow Russia on their border). But Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would in all likelihood fall within days, and then you've given the other nations, and the populations of those nations, the choice between starting World War 3 to invade Russia and liberate the Baltic countries, or accept the fait accompli and wag your finger (and maybe add some more sanctions).
I'm not at all sure they'd pick the former if Trump undermines NATO in his second term. That's not a given at all, but I don't think it can be dismissed as nonsense.
Putin has not considered the unintended consequences of the war with Ukraine.
That being that NATO and certainly the countries in Europe are stronger militarily than before.
Indeed.
How the new Trump administration decides to act is a big unknown.
But his MAGA policy needs to remember that the US has a huge export market in Europe for its military equipment providing hundreds of thousands of US jobs.
If he decides to distance himself from Europe or possibly even NATO, European countries will inevitably focus on developing their own equipment.
Ukraine's spy chief on Russian plans pre-invasion. I remember stories in 2022 about Russian troops searching for Ukrainian veterans from the 2014-2022 Donbas conflict, and US intelligence warning that Russia had created "kill lists".
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/42721
In that case there would be some bottles of champagne being opened (behind closed doors) at European arms manufacturers. Currently billions of Euros are send to the US defence industry that would than have to be rerouted to domestic production, especially if there is actual risk and danger of an imminent war with Russia. No US president would survive the amount of fired workers that this scenario would create in the US defence industry.
If Ukraine intends on using Kursk territory as bargaining chip in negotiations, then holding it will become an increasingly tougher task.
I don't think they'll be able to hold on to it until end of January.
Kurakhove is also as good as lost, and Toretsk not looking good. A lot more territory will be lost until any peace talks start.
They should get out of there sooner rather than later. They've already made their point by proving they can invade and hold Russian territory for long enough to humiliate Putin.
This is especially true with Trump at the helm. Doubly so given he will be much more powerful this time and will have more allies in places like Italy, Canada, and beyond.
Ukrainians now using drones with mounted machine guns
They were testing some prototypes of this earlier in the war, this is the first I've seen it in actual use.
They were testing some prototypes of this earlier in the war, this is the first I've seen it in actual use.
I hope new El Presidente of USA can practice lessons from his own book - The Art of the Deal. The World might go kaboom if current escalation progress continues. I am surprised by a lack of fear from a nuclear catastrophe.
That's from a game, isn't it?
Such a pointless stupid weapon
Its probably limited in usefulness in its current state as in that video, a lone drone firing a burst here and there into a treeline (manually firing I imagine). But they've been working on it for a while so I'm sure they'll keep improving it, or at least bringing it into use in more volume. With some automatic targeting tech it could become much more efficient than the exploding FPV drones against infantry.
No, it is from defending a recent Russian offensive in Donetsk. I think it is made by a Ukrainian squad called Wild Hornets who develop a lot of drones for the army: https://dykishershni.com/en.html
Edit: The Sun has an article on it from September this year which may have been its first use: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30280587/ukraine-queen-hornet-drone-kalashnikov-machine-gun/
(I'm sure a better source can be found, its the first one that came up while searching on it)
Last edited:
Indeed. It was a massive miscalculation on his part. Some have said it was partly down to him being isolated during the pandemic which resulted in extreme paranoia. In either case, if he thought it would result in his complete international estrangement with all countries that matter, a humiliation on the battlefield where a smaller country has repelled the mighty Russia and resulted him needing help from Iran, China, and North Korea, and two new European NATO member states; then he would've probably not invaded.
So you really believe that China doesn't belong to "countries that matter"?
For China, Russia turned from a useful partner in certain technical areas to a cheap supplier of natural resources. So even if it's not full estrangement, Russia definitely worsened their relation to China.
Was talking about western nations and the economic sanctions levied against Moscow because of Ukraine. In comparative terms, Russia has a small economy, so getting sanctioned by the two largest economic entities in the world is obviously going to result in a lot of domestic hardship.
Yemenis are lured to Russia under false promises and then forced to fight in Ukraine.
This mentality is among the main reasons the West has lost this war and sacrificed Ukraine in the process. The only hope of Biden's strategy (sic) working was to get the likes of China, India, Africa, and the rest of Asia to go along with the economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. They didn't, for reasons I've detailed previously on this thread (to wit: you're the last people on earth to be moralising to the likes of India and Africa about the iniquity of colonial conquest. And yeah, I know I know, "WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BAD STUFF WE'VE DONE, WE CARE ABOUT UKRAINE'S INVASION". I read the NATO guy's tantrum a few pages back). Hence Ukraine being in the mess it's in 34 months later. But sure, keep telling yourself that the West comprises "the only countries that matter" in this world. At some point even you guys will begin to realise you're not as important as you imagine you are. "The entire global order will collapse if we lose this war!!" - the West. "No it won't, get the f*ck over yourselves" - the rest of the world.
This sounds like Lindsey attempting to frame Ukraine to appeal to Trump’s venal instincts of getting something in return for his support.
Rare earths is mainly about refining processes and technology, not about access to ore. So this would be dumb rationale even if it were true.
He's obviously trying to create a selling point for Trump to rationalize and warm to the idea that a Ukrainian victory means more business opportunities for the the US in Ukraine. Lindsey is after all, a big Ukraine hawk.
Is that the same dude who said something like - Russians are dying, best money we've ever spent. I always appreciated his honesty. He is a dumb politician, but his honesty goes a long way. He is my favorite neocon.
If that were true he'd be doing it privately. Zelenskiy's biggest task right now is persuading Ukrainian men to sign up to the army. Lindsey Graham going on every talk show who'll have him saying "Ukraine provides the bodies, we get their resources" is not what he needs. You think scared Ukrainian men who are already reluctant to sign up want to hear this kind of thing? "Come get a one-way ticket to the front line so America can get our natural resources" is also not the wisest approach when you're trying to persuade Europe to play a bigger financial role. Is Lindsey planning to let Germany, France and the UK in on the plundering? The same Lindsey who yesterday vowed to "crush" Europe's and the UK's economies if they arrested Netanyahu?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tarmer-arrest-netanyahu-economy-b2652482.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/crush-graham-threatens-allies-sanctions-172527255.html
You're over-thinking this. This is just Lindsey Graham being Lindsey Graham, i.e the patron saint of neocons. He figures they've bled Ukraine dry, time to now wrap this up and get their money back on the project.
Last edited:
He could well be doing both in private and publicly. Indeed, with Rubio as Secretary of State, the rationale for supporting Ukraine won't be going away anytime soon. If Zelneskyy continues the charm offensive and Trump's pro-Ukraine cabinet members advocate in private, there may be room for continued support.
^^ You're 4 or 5 scripts behind on Rubio.
“I think Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong in their stand against Russia,” the senator said earlier this month. “But ultimately, what we're financing here is a stalemate, and it needs to be brought to an end. I believe common sense should prevail,” Rubio said. “You don't have to be a fan of Vladimir Putin to want to end the war,” added Rubio.
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/marco-rubio-russia-and-ukraine
“I think Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong in their stand against Russia,” the senator said earlier this month. “But ultimately, what we're financing here is a stalemate, and it needs to be brought to an end. I believe common sense should prevail,” Rubio said. “You don't have to be a fan of Vladimir Putin to want to end the war,” added Rubio.
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/marco-rubio-russia-and-ukraine
That's already been discussed. They're all parroting Trump's script to get appointed to cabinet positions. We know what the likes of Rubio, Waltz, and Hegseth actually believe about the subject.
I see, so your theory is that all these people are openly lying, and in the process signalling to international partners and Ukraine itself that they're about to wind down the war, only to get appointed to the cabinet of a guy who in his first term fired people left right and centre when they went off on their own agenda?
It's not how any of this works, Raoul. It just isn't. You're talking about the United States Secretary of State like he's some chancer applying for a job at Walmart.
It's not how any of this works, Raoul. It just isn't. You're talking about the United States Secretary of State like he's some chancer applying for a job at Walmart.
Yes. There's a clear trend in American politics of Trump haters changing course by saying things to ingratiate themselves to Trump in exchange for his support or so they can work in his cabinet. His VP famously likened him to Hitler in his first term and his Secretary of State nominee publicly called him a con artist. So you can see how this game is played.
Do these people hope to stay in his cabinet, or is the plan to work the gig for a week and then get fired for going rogue?