"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (23 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Denniss said:
Any politician is a potential liar, many of them are liars. Some more some less. We all know who's the king of liars.
Click to expand...
I was once working on an IT project for the Government. One part of the process needed a senior civil servant to sign off on the requirements and objectives, as I wanted someone to sign for it as I didn't agree with it and it was against my recommendation. This was done but the inevitable happened and it got difficult, he started backing out fast. When the lets find out who to blame game started, my cover was the document he signed which clearly stated that this was being done against my recommendations.

In front of the investigators he happily admitted that this was irrelevant as his signature meant nothing. Whilst no action was taken against me, neither was it against him as he had political cover. It was kicked into the long grass and as far as I know, never came out.
 
Marcel said:
It's pretty clear this was a set up. The Americans were doing, what we call in football, a one-two. It's tactics done by kids at primary in order to bully a weaker kid. Make sure you're the majority , two against one, and start bullying. The American's reaction later was that he let it proceed in order to "show what is going on". That also points at a pre planned attack.

That's the kind of rubbish we'll have to deal with the next 4 years unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is not clear at all. What seems to be clear is that the weaker kid agreed to the minerals deal behind closed doors, including no security guarantees in this first agreement, and agreed the next step - a public announcement that the deal was made, and that questions would follow - but limited to the investment by US with US companies on the ground in Ukraine. Period.

It also seems clear that Zelensky had argued for security guarantees (that included either admission to NATO, or US boots on the Ground) in the closed door meeting, was told that the minerals deal was a first step in securing American interests in order to establish America as a middle man between Russia and Ukraine. The latter IMO is essential to establish the US as an unaligned broker to encourage Russia to negotiate. That said, the US in that role is seeking common ground between the parties, not as an ally of Ukraine against Russia.

It seems equally clear that Zelensky was defensive at the start of the public meeting. After reviewing the blow up repeatedly, I drew the conclusion that Zelensky was indeed attempting to litigate security guarantees despite agreeing to not do so in the private meeting.

You can make your own judgment regarding Zelensky inserting the discussion of 'security guarantees' as a mandate once again. That was the point that Vance intercepted his comment and pointed out that Zelensky was being disrespectful.

As a matter of fact, he lost support from his most ardent Republican supporters - which is a DISASTER for Zelensky. I can't imagine how badly he failed to 'read the room' of his audience.

It has been very clear to me that Trump is firm on Zero commitment to any form of Security guarantee that pits US against Russia on the ground in Ukraine. It is also clear to me that Zelensky desperately want the US to do just that, particularly the statement that the only reason that WWIII had not come for US were the oceans that protected us.

Now, to the question of EU/NATO nations. In Trump's last term he demanded that NATO nations pay the agreed 'fair share' of GDP toward defense - which caused most to raise a single digit salute, impose tariffs on US products, close Nord to Russia (with which Trump had an agreement with Germany, promptly abandoned and re-opened by Biden), etc., etc. -but NATO continued to lean on US as the primary power deterrence vs Russia - The rest is history.

Now Zelensky is circling back to EU/NATO for larger commitments, while pondering how to patch up US support after the public blow up.

So, what is Your recommendation? Attack Russia in the belief that Trump/US will follow suit? Other approach?

I sure don't have a different solution for opening Peace negotiations different from Trump's, betting you don't either. The One thing that is clear for the last three years is that NOBODY attempted to open a dialogue that could lead to a solution to stop the carnage. Did you believe Russia would drain out before Ukraine?

I am of the opinion however, that before NATO and US troops suit up for deployment, that the leaders of each country also suit up and pencil themselves in to be the point to demonstrate their commitment of millions of lives as 'the right thing'. For America, I include Congress as necessary volunteers for the assault team. Just like the days of old, when Kings led.
 
drgondog said:
Unfortunately, that is not clear at all. What seems to be clear is that the weaker kid agreed to the minerals deal behind closed doors, including no security guarantees in this first agreement, and agreed the next step - a public announcement that the deal was made, and that questions would follow - but limited to the investment by US with US companies on the ground in Ukraine. Period.

It also seems clear that Zelensky had argued for security guarantees (that included either admission to NATO, or US boots on the Ground) in the closed door meeting, was told that the minerals deal was a first step in securing American interests in order to establish America as a middle man between Russia and Ukraine. The latter IMO is essential to establish the US as an unaligned broker to encourage Russia to negotiate. That said, the US in that role is seeking common ground between the parties, not as an ally of Ukraine against Russia.

It seems equally clear that Zelensky was defensive at the start of the public meeting. After reviewing the blow up repeatedly, I drew the conclusion that Zelensky was indeed attempting to litigate security guarantees despite agreeing to not do so in the private meeting.

You can make your own judgment regarding Zelensky inserting the discussion of 'security guarantees' as a mandate once again. That was the point that Vance intercepted his comment and pointed out that Zelensky was being disrespectful.

As a matter of fact, he lost support from his most ardent Republican supporters - which is a DISASTER for Zelensky. I can't imagine how badly he failed to 'read the room' of his audience.

It has been very clear to me that Trump is firm on Zero commitment to any form of Security guarantee that pits US against Russia on the ground in Ukraine. It is also clear to me that Zelensky desperately want the US to do just that, particularly the statement that the only reason that WWIII had not come for US were the oceans that protected us.

Now, to the question of EU/NATO nations. In Trump's last term he demanded that NATO nations pay the agreed 'fair share' of GDP toward defense - which caused most to raise a single digit salute, impose tariffs on US products, close Nord to Russia (with which Trump had an agreement with Germany, promptly abandoned and re-opened by Biden), etc., etc. -but NATO continued to lean on US as the primary power deterrence vs Russia - The rest is history.

Now Zelensky is circling back to EU/NATO for larger commitments, while pondering how to patch up US support after the public blow up.

So, what is Your recommendation? Attack Russia in the belief that Trump/US will follow suit? Other approach?

I sure don't have a different solution for opening Peace negotiations different from Trump's, betting you don't either. The One thing that is clear for the last three years is that NOBODY attempted to open a dialogue that could lead to a solution to stop the carnage. Did you believe Russia would drain out before Ukraine?

I am of the opinion however, that before NATO and US troops suit up for deployment, that the leaders of each country also suit up and pencil themselves in to be the point to demonstrate their commitment of millions of lives as 'the right thing'. For America, I include Congress as necessary volunteers for the assault team. Just like the days of old, when Kings led.
Click to expand...
We remember Munchen and Neville Chamberlain. Do you? "Peace for our time"? It would be better if we all learned from the past.

If Trump want a lasting peace, he has a strange way of trying to get there. He seems to be adamant to be friends with Putin. I only have to refer to his lies about the start of the war and his remarks about Zelenski last week. Of course Zelenski wants guarantees, wouldn't you? He rightfully pointed out that they have tried to talk to Russia the last decade, but Russia still attacked. He knows any peace without guarantees will end up in another attempt by Russia. Apparently your guy in the White House doesn't understand that.
So yes, the only way to get an end to the war is indeed to be more forceful, so not complying with every Russian wish, like your guy seems to do.

The thing I agree on is that Europe is not a big help. We've been depending on the US for way too long. We bought US military equipment instead of buying our own. We relied on the US to protect us. It's now painfully clear that we brought ourself in a bad position, now the US has proven to turn into an unreliable partner at best. It has been a very bad mistake and I fear we won't have enough time to finally remedy that.
 
drgondog said:
It seems equally clear that Zelensky was defensive at the start of the public meeting. After reviewing the blow up repeatedly, I drew the conclusion that Zelensky was indeed attempting to litigate security guarantees despite agreeing to not do so in the private meeting.

You can make your own judgment regarding Zelensky inserting the discussion of 'security guarantees' as a mandate once again. That was the point that Vance intercepted his comment and pointed out that Zelensky was being disrespectful.

As a matter of fact, he lost support from his most ardent Republican supporters - which is a DISASTER for Zelensky. I can't imagine how badly he failed to 'read the room' of his audience.
Click to expand...
An answer to that may lie in the meeting President Zelensky attended an hour or so before heading to his meeting with Trump.
Zelensky was invited by a group of Democrat and Republican senators and spent around an hour with them.

Zelensky thoughts on the meeting include ;

"An important visit to the United States. In Washington, I met with a bipartisan delegation from the U.S. Senate.

Our discussions focused on the continued military assistance for Ukraine, relevant legislative initiatives, my meeting with President Trump, efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace, our vision for ending the war, and the importance of robust security guarantees."

Continued military assistance ? Robust security guarantees ? On whose authority ?

Some of the same senators who attended the meeting then publicly denounced Zelensky after his meeting with Trump.
A set up maybe. But by whom ?

An agreement to mine rare earth minerals would be a security guarantee in itself as US with possibly some EU involvement would mean
foreign nationals setting up in Ukraine. This would include people of other nations as well. Not a great idea for a would be aggressor to
start anything under those circumstances.

Strategically, this mining would give the US and EU access to metals which are essential for permanent magnet electric motors and
other electronic equipment. Being able to compete in these areas is essential in the modern world. At the moment one country controls close to all of these products
and getting them is not always easy. Nobody wants to be dependant on one country for these so it would be two birds with one stone so to speak.
 
drgondog said:
The One thing that is clear for the last three years is that NOBODY attempted to open a dialogue that could lead to a solution to stop the carnage. Did you believe Russia would drain out before Ukraine?
Click to expand...
There were many attempts to stop the carnage in 2014-2021.
Moscow negotiated, promised, confirmed - only to break one agreement after another, again and again. One of many forgotten/ignored facts: Minsk-2 was violated by the Kremlin just hours if not minutes after the signing. Russian troops and separatists resumed the assault and took the piece of Ukrainian territory that was agreed to remain under Ukraine's control.

There were numerous attempts to prevent the carnage in 2021-2022, meetings, phone calls to Moscow. There were Zelensky's public requests to Putin to talk in February 2022, etc.

There were attempts to resume a dialogue in 2022 in Minsk and Istanbul. Moscow sent delegations, demanded Ukraine's surrender and continued to destroy the cities. FAB-3000 against Mariupol.

There were negotiations through the moderators (Turkey, UAE) regarding such matters as the shipping in the Black Sea and energy infrastructure. Moscow continued to attack civilian ships and ports and Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

About the dialogue... Dialogue with whom and about what?
Lavrov in 2022. His exact words. No deep fake, no room for interpretation.
"We did not attack Ukraine". March 2022

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcUyRF86B28
"We did not invade Ukraine". June 2022

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAzF_1GdqWs

Who drains first - history will tell.
 
Marcel said:
We remember Munchen and Neville Chamberlain. Do you? "Peace for our time"? It would be better if we all learned from the past.

If Trump want a lasting peace, he has a strange way of trying to get there. He seems to be adamant to be friends with Putin. I only have to refer to his lies about the start of the war and his remarks about Zelenski last week. Of course Zelenski wants guarantees, wouldn't you? He rightfully pointed out that they have tried to talk to Russia the last decade, but Russia still attacked. He knows any peace without guarantees will end up in another attempt by Russia. Apparently your guy in the White House doesn't understand that.
So yes, the only way to get an end to the war is indeed to be more forceful, so not complying with every Russian wish, like your guy seems to do.

The thing I agree on is that Europe is not a big help. We've been depending on the US for way too long. We bought US military equipment instead of buying our own. We relied on the US to protect us. It's now painfully clear that we brought ourself in a bad position, now the US has proven to turn into an unreliable partner at best. It has been a very bad mistake and I fear we won't have enough time to finally remedy that.
Click to expand...
Not to be argumentative, S.Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran (Shah times) also relied on US for protection. Don't you think European leaders not smart enough to understand that? But cutting their commitments to sustain a self defense capability was all so attractive, knowing that US would be there... Trump warned you 8 years ago that he expected all to contribute and quit taking US for granted. You will also remember that Trump was sending real arms to Ukraine while previous administration sent blankets and condoms to appease Russia.

S.Korea only remains standing because they developed their own military capability. And there still exists only a 'cease fire' to this day.

IMO the above examples are explicitly related to the previous (all prior to Trump) Presidents exercising power to deploy troops without consent (Constitutionally Req'd) of Congress, and not asking for a declaration of War to maintain armed and kinetic state of war. In other words, we weren't There for sound reasons other than 'the other guy was there'. Iraq was sold on basis of nuclear capability, but Iran is left untouched. Why?

Of Course I would want 'guarantees' but he was told explicitly multiple times that such would not be forthcoming at the beginning of the process. He also stated that he would sign the deal at Munich a couple of weeks ago. The meeting at White House was 'do this deal' or we're through trying to craft a basis of negotiation in which US perceived as an honest broker by both Ukraine and Russia.

If Zelensky didn't perceive that US lives and corporate interests - unarmed- were indeed a low level but sound buffer from Russia, enough to jump start serious discussions, then he had no business in that meeting.

BTW why is Trump the only one engaged with Putin and Zelensky?

I have no bone to pick with you or anyone else that does not share my viewpoints - peace upon you.
 
Marcel said:
The thing I agree on is that Europe is not a big help. We've been depending on the US for way too long. We bought US military equipment instead of buying our own.
Click to expand...
Britain is the worst example of this, going from having a vast military industrial complex of its own in the 1950s, to relying on the US for so much today. It's still going on today, for example the BAe Nimrod being replaced by Lockheed P-8 Poseidon.
 
Last edited:
defence-blog.com

Czech fundraiser buys Black Hawk helicopter for Ukraine

A Czech fundraising initiative has successfully raised 70 million Czech koruna ($3 million) to purchase a Black Hawk helicopter for Ukraine, reaching its target with contributions from more than 20,400 donors. The initiative, known as "Dárek pro Putina" (A Gift for Putin), confirmed that it had...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com

655639.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 24 (members: 1, guests: 23)

Similar threads

M
Horizon Continues Development of Hybrid VTOL
Replies
0
Views
170
MIflyer
M
N
JF-17 are they worth it and can they hold their own?
Replies
4
Views
1K
RogerdeLluria
R
A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
17K
swampyankee
swampyankee
syscom3
Bust The Dragons Jaw! An interesting read on the development and use of the first laser guided bombs in Vietnam.
Replies
7
Views
2K
syscom3
syscom3
T
Asking help in determining year of Chinese military video
Replies
4
Views
1K
Weizenbrot
W
Back