"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (10 Viewers)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I will actually put a positive spin on the Trump-Putin meeting. As I often say at work, no deal is better than a bad deal.

As much as I appreciate positivity, the odds of any deal happening without Zelenskyy present were virtually nil, especially when Putin himself doesn't want a deal. He wants an abject surrender. A diktat is not a deal.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's a pity that the USA seems to be determined to do their version of Chamberlain's "peace for our time". It's a shame that nobody learns from mistakes in the past.

Let's give Chamberlain his fair respect. When he became PM in May 1937, Chamberlain inherited a military neglected by PMs Stanley Baldwin (1923-29 & 1935-37) and Ramsey MacDonald (1924, 1929-35). He was no fool when he signed the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938, as he knew Britain was not ready. But Chamberlain set to work, leading one of the largest rearmament campaigns of all time (Putin will have a equally massive postwar task rearming Russia), launching or laying down seven fleet carriers (Ark Royal, 6xIllustrious/Implacable class) and all five KGV class battleships. Chamberlain's government expedited the Spitfire, Hurricane and chain home radar programs that made Churchill's victory in the BoB possible. I've always thought that Chamberlain is unfairly tarred by us armchair historians. Chamberlain is no Trump.

 

[Frog]

Let's give Chamberlain his fair respect. When he became PM in May 1937, Chamberlain inherited a military neglected by PMs Stanley Baldwin (1923-29 & 1935-37) and Ramsey MacDonald (1924, 1929-35). He was no fool when he signed the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938, as he knew Britain was not ready. But Chamberlain set to work, leading one of the largest rearmament campaigns of all time (Putin will have a equally massive postwar task rearming Russia), launching or laying down seven fleet carriers (Ark Royal, 6xIllustrious/Implacable class) and all five KGV class battleships. Chamberlain's government expedited the Spitfire, Hurricane and chain home radar programs that made Churchill's victory in the BoB possible. I've always thought that Chamberlain is unfairly tarred by us armchair historians. Had be not died at age 71 in Nov 1940, but lived to see the end of the war it would have been interesting to read his take on events.

More prosaically, the reaction of Edouard Daladier, French President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister), upon seeing the crowd cheer him on the Munich return by plane was to say : " les cons " (the jerks).

 

[MiTasol]

Russia gloats over Putin-Trump summit

The Alaska meeting provided a propaganda triumph for Russia and its leader, including Trump applauding the Kremlin chief and giving him a ride in his presidential limousine.

www.politico.eu

and I wonder how many electronic bugs Putin left in that limo.

 

[GTX]

Zelenskyy outlines peace terms amid reports of Putin's territory demand

The Ukrainian president outlines his terms for a peace deal ahead of next week's meeting with Donald Trump amid reports Vladimir Putin told the US president he would freeze front lines in exchange for Ukrainian territory.

www.abc.net.au

 

[GTX]

As much as I appreciate positivity, the odds of any deal happening without Zelenskyy present were virtually nil, especially when Putin himself doesn't want a deal. He wants an abject surrender. A diktat is not a deal.

I agree. My point was more that any so-called "deal" would not have been a real deal since Zelenskyy was not part of the discussions. The risk though was that Trump would claim it was a deal and then Zelenskyy would be 'wedged between Trump and Putin, and when they don't accept it would be claimed that they weren't interested in peace. Hence my comment that "no deal was better than a bad deal".

 

[GTX]

Let's give Chamberlain his fair respect. When he became PM in May 1937, Chamberlain inherited a military neglected by PMs Stanley Baldwin (1923-29 & 1935-37) and Ramsey MacDonald (1924, 1929-35). He was no fool when he signed the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938, as he knew Britain was not ready. But Chamberlain set to work, leading one of the largest rearmament campaigns of all time (Putin will have a equally massive postwar task rearming Russia), launching or laying down seven fleet carriers (Ark Royal, 6xIllustrious/Implacable class) and all five KGV class battleships. Chamberlain's government expedited the Spitfire, Hurricane and chain home radar programs that made Churchill's victory in the BoB possible. I've always thought that Chamberlain is unfairly tarred by us armchair historians. Chamberlain is no Trump.

I agree. Chamberlain was both buying time for rearming and was also of the generation that had gone through the devastation of WW1 only 20 odd years earlier. thus would have wanted to avoid that.

Having said that, the references to Chamberlain "peace in our time" is more an allusion to doing a deal that is not a good deal and only delays somethign worse.

 

[GTX]

View: https://youtu.be/r3SeYt2kIXU?si=2sbBj2-ffgO-cYCF

 

[Admiral Beez]

View: https://youtu.be/r3SeYt2kIXU?si=2sbBj2-ffgO-cYCF

Ukraine needs to fight on for at least another four years in the hope that the mood and vision at the White House changes to its benefit. That is Ukraine's only hope. Ideally Ukraine's ever growing fleet of advanced drones will reduce its own casualties, as Ukraine cannot bleed its population for ever.

 

[Glider]

At the end of the day Russia got everything that it wanted. It didn't want a peace deal as they are advancing and time for economic and demographic reasons isn't on their side. It didn't want sanctions from the USA because of the economic strain they are under. They seem to have turned Trump to their way of thinking where an agreement has to be reached before a ceasefire, a key change.
Ukraine got nothing

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree. My point was more that any so-called "deal" would not have been a real deal since Zelenskyy was not part of the discussions. The risk though was that Trump would claim it was a deal and then Zelenskyy would be 'wedged between Trump and Putin, and when they don't accept it would be claimed that they weren't interested in peace. Hence my comment that "no deal was better than a bad deal".

I think the Western world, including the majority of the American polity for what that's worth, would have seen any "deal" as no deal anyway, because 99.999 ... 99% of everyone understands the dynamic you're laying out. No one would believe it, and Z wouldn't be wedged because most people really aren't that stupid.

I'm leaving a close group of ten or twenty people in Washington out of that majority view. Trump was already backing away from demands before the meeting, telegraphing his intentions. Only his sycophants believed a deal was possible at all, given that Putin already got what he wanted, which was American recognition of his position without Zelenskyy present to offer any countervailing view. Trump got nothing in return. Z got nothing in return. Most importantly, the people of Ukraine, under assault for years, got nothing in return.

It's a shitshow, PR pabulum, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating -- empty calories providing nothing to anyone ... except ole Vlad, who gets a refresh on the international stage.

Here's hoping the Europeans hang tough and continue their support. Trump and Putin have kissed and made up.

As I said, disgusting.

 

[Warspite63]

Let's give Chamberlain his fair respect. When he became PM in May 1937, Chamberlain inherited a military neglected by PMs Stanley Baldwin (1923-29 & 1935-37) and Ramsey MacDonald (1924, 1929-35). He was no fool when he signed the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938, as he knew Britain was not ready. But Chamberlain set to work, leading one of the largest rearmament campaigns of all time (Putin will have a equally massive postwar task rearming Russia), launching or laying down seven fleet carriers (Ark Royal, 6xIllustrious/Implacable class) and all five KGV class battleships. Chamberlain's government expedited the Spitfire, Hurricane and chain home radar programs that made Churchill's victory in the BoB possible. I've always thought that Chamberlain is unfairly tarred by us armchair historians. Chamberlain is no Trump.

Well said. I have often thought that Chamberlain has been treated generally unfairly. Did he boldly launch a principled assault on Nazi Germany? Well, no. But he did do a LOT to ensure that Britain had a lot of the tools needed to win the war, when it finally did kick off.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well said. I have often thought that Chamberlain has been treated generally unfairly. Did he boldly launch a principled assault on Nazi Germany? Well, no. But he did do a LOT to ensure that Britain had a lot of the tools needed to win the war, when it finally did kick off.

The thing is, the comparison between Trump and Chamberlain is inapt precisely, as you and A Admiral Beez point out, Chamberlain was operating from the back foot and trying to catch up to a Germany already well into the swing of not only rearming, but bullying. Not only that, the disparity between the economic presence of Russia v America on the world stage is much, much larger in our favor than even the Brits held over Nazi Germany -- which was itself substantial.

In contrast, Trump is sitting in a position of strength. Even without the war in Ukraine, all branches of the US military sit in a better position both in terms of materiel and quality of troop. The US economy, while not great, is head-and-shoulders above a nominally-smaller Russian economy that is already suffering the strains of war. Trump also doesn't have to fight Treasury to rapidly rearm ... but still he caves.

We can disagree about Chamberlain (and I suspect we do, big deal), but Trump caved from a much stronger position, so far as I see it.

To reiterate, this is only my opinion and I welcome disagreement and differing views. I hope the brain-trust here can and will pick apart the significance of this. I suspect it has more importance than just a photo-op flyover, myself. I think a historical moment happened, and not good.

 

[Warspite63]

The thing is, the comparison between Trump and Chamberlain is inapt precisely, as you and A Admiral Beez point out, Chamberlain was operating from the back foot and trying to catch up to a Germany already well into the swing of not only rearming, but bullying. Not only that, the disparity between the economic presence of Russia v America on the world stage is much, much larger in our favor than even the Brits held over Nazi Germany -- which was itself substantial.

In contrast, Trump is sitting in a position of strength. Even without the war in Ukraine, all branches of the US military sit in a better position both in terms of materiel and quality of troop. The US economy, while not great, is head-and-shoulders above a nominally-smaller Russian economy that is already suffering the strains of war. Trump also doesn't have to fight Treasury to rapidly rearm ... but still he caves.

We can disagree about Chamberlain (and I suspect we do, big deal), but Trump caved from a much stronger position, so far as I see it.

To reiterate, this is only my opinion and I welcome disagreement and differing views. I hope the brain-trust here can and will pick apart the significance of this. I suspect it has more importance than just a photo-op flyover, myself. I think a historical moment happened, and not good.

Yes, Chamberlain was desperately trying to buy time, as you mentioned. The current USA faces no such pressures

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, Chamberlain was desperately trying to buy time, as you mentioned. The current USA faces no such pressures

We should have stood up, but I don't think anyone here is under such illusions, myself included.

Meanwhile, the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues. Ukrainians are still being killed. And nothing else happened. Ending this war in a way that doesn't reward the aggressor must be the goal, to my mind. Aside from Ukrainian soldiers fighting and dying, I honestly don't have an answer.

 

[buffnut453]

I'm still baffled by the lack of any action on the "ceasefire in 10-12 days" threat from a couple of weeks ago. No secondary sanctions on countries that are importing Russian oil. No tightening of existing sanctions on Russia itself, or its suppliers. No releasing frozen Russian assets to contribute to Ukraine's defence.

The US administration has failed to secure a single concession from Russia and yet it's pressuring Ukraine to accept a permanent peace "deal", hitting allies with tariffs, and lambasting European nations for, allegedly, having worse human rights than Ecuador. And that's before we dig into the red carpet treatment provided to the worst war criminal of our age.

My flabber is beyond gasted!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm still baffled by the lack of any action on the "ceasefire in 10-12 days" threat from a couple of weeks ago.

I'm not. I will explain through PMs if my point isn't understood, but I think it's clear enough that I needn't flout our rules. Trump telegraphed backing off his talking points long before his plane took off.

Why the inaction? Because inaction.

 

[Marcel]

Let's give Chamberlain his fair respect. When he became PM in May 1937, Chamberlain inherited a military neglected by PMs Stanley Baldwin (1923-29 & 1935-37) and Ramsey MacDonald (1924, 1929-35). He was no fool when he signed the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938, as he knew Britain was not ready. But Chamberlain set to work, leading one of the largest rearmament campaigns of all time (Putin will have a equally massive postwar task rearming Russia), launching or laying down seven fleet carriers (Ark Royal, 6xIllustrious/Implacable class) and all five KGV class battleships. Chamberlain's government expedited the Spitfire, Hurricane and chain home radar programs that made Churchill's victory in the BoB possible. I've always thought that Chamberlain is unfairly tarred by us armchair historians. Chamberlain is no Trump.

Let's not start a discussion about Chamberlain and his intentions here, we can do that somewhere else on the forum if necessary.

My point here is that like Chamberlain, the USA is very eager to trade someone else 's land for a fake peace. Regardless of Chamberlain's real intentions, we all know the result of that then. It encouraged Hitler in his stride to grab more land and accelerate the start of WW2.
So giving away Ukraine's land will only encourage Putin as well. He will get a reward for his unforgivable aggression and who knows what he's going to do next.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's not start a discussion about Chamberlain and his intentions here, we can do that somewhere else on the forum if necessary.

Right, I've already taken part in one and no wish to derail this.

My point here is thee the at like Chamberlain, the USA is very eager to trade someone else 's land for a fake peace. Regardless of Chamberlain's real intentions, we all know the result of that then. It encouraged Hitler in his stride to grab more land and accelerate the start of WW2.
So giving away Ukraine's land will only encourage Putin as well. He will get a reward for his unforgivable aggression and who knows what he's going to do next.

As GTX has pointed out, no deal at all was made. Given that Putin didn't get that reward, he still got the reward of America's imprimatur, which is bad enough as it is.

Some people see the flyover of a B-2 and four F-35s as trolling, others might see it as a salute. But no land was given away. What was given away was political recognition. We think of war on three levels, tactical, operational, and strategic, but Clausewitz reminds us that, because war is an extension of politics, by necessity politics is also a theater of war. It's just the theater where no one actually dies ... until people do.

Politics: This is what I want, no one has to die. Just do the math.
Strategic: If people have to die, these are the goals they should die for.
Operational: What approaches best serve the goals? Do we have enough guys to fill gaps in the ranks?
Tactical: How should we fight for best odds?

America's failure here is in not understanding the political level. We aren't fighting Russia, but if we don't pull our thumbs out our asses, we might well be -- or China, a much more worrisome prospect. Misunderstanding the political level has always been a weakness of ours.

 

[GrauGeist]

Let's stop for a moment and look back to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.

Where the hell was the U.S. or UK when artical #1 and #2 were violated in 2014 and again in 2022?

I don't like the current U.S. administration, HOWEVER, the West failed Ukraine twice prior to January 2025 by failing to act on artical #4.

This shitshow could have been stopped dead in it's tracks by getting up in Putin's face at the start, but that would have disturbed the west's comfort zone.

So let's take it easy on pointing fingers ten or three years (take your pick) after the fact.