"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (16 Viewers)

[GTX]

Consider the implications of this:

Russia celebrates US foreign policy that now ‘coincides’ with Moscow’s worldview

Moscow hopes to take advantage of a growing rift between the U.S. and Ukraine, and Europe more broadly.

www.politico.eu

 

[SaparotRob]

Consider the implications of this:

Russia celebrates US foreign policy that now ‘coincides’ with Moscow’s worldview

Moscow hopes to take advantage of a growing rift between the U.S. and Ukraine, and Europe more broadly.

www.politico.eu

The implications for me are extreme nausea.

 

[GTX]

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.

Adding to this, there is also the fact that in 1991, Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons. However in December 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also known as the Budapest Memorandum) to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its giving up nuclear weapons. Importantly this included (my bolding and commentary of key points):

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. Note fail 1 for Russia

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Fail 2 for Russia

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. Fail 3 for Russia and arguably a fail for the new US regime too.

 

[GTX]

Europe commits to re-arm and turn Ukraine into a 'steel porcupine'

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the UK, France and Ukraine will devise a peace plan to end the conflict, as European nations vow to join a "coalition of the willing" to help Ukraine.

www.abc.net.au

 

[buffnut453]

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.

A counter view is that Zelensky was simply trying to understand what Vance meant by diplomacy. As the president of the invaded nation, it has to be tough for Zelensky to watch Washington and Moscow meeting in isolation. It doesn't bode well for a lasting peace...indeed, it would be foolish for anyone in Washington to presume that Zelensky will simply toe the line and accept what he's handed by the US and Russia. Even if he did, it's likely a large proportion of the Ukrainian populace won't simply sit idly by and let Russia occupy territory. Absent an equitable peace deal, which involves all sides in the discussion, I can fully imagine a guerilla war kicking off against Russian occupiers.

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.

That's because the US IS the primary power deterrence against Russia. The whole purpose of NATO was to be defensive bloc against the USSR and Warsaw Pact but the US was always the primary source of deterrence.

While I haven't closely followed EU tariffs on the US, at least some of them were sanctioned by the WTO because the US was illegally subsidizing Boeing and other big companies. There are 2 sides to every story and, unfortunately, many aren't willing to listen to the other side of any argument.

Almost all NATO nations have increased defence expenditure in recent years, with most now contributing more than 2% of GDP. This chart from the Atlantic Council indicates that most NATO nations have increased defence spending, some quite markedly, while the the US (plus Italy, Croatia and Greece) has actually decreased spending:

Who’s at 2 percent? Look how NATO allies have increased their defense spending since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

As the NATO Summit gets underway in Washington, 23 of 32 allies now meet the defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

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?

That's because most of the democratic world, particularly "the West", were on the same page - support Ukraine economically and militarily while imposing costs on Russia through sanctions and, where possible, other actions. We'd tried to negotiate with Russia before the war but Moscow broke multiple agreements, and refused to engage with multiple diplomatic approaches by multiple western nations. Against that background, why would anyone think that Russia will act differently even if we can agree a peace deal?

By engaging with Putin, Washington took a major "left turn at Albuquerque" without consulting its Allies. Expecting the EU to provide security guarantees for Ukraine while initiating unilateral negotiations with Moscow doesn't seem like a workable plan for the US. Excluding Ukraine from the conversation almost certainly dooms any peace deal to failure. While America is the 600lb gorilla, working with Allies (rather than against them) would likely increase the potential for success in any strategic direction changes, whether related to peace or upping the military ante.

As noted above, peace at any cost isn't really peace...and it certainly won't last.

 

[Glider]

I am dreading the next logical step (From Trumps perspective) which would be either
a) the reduction of sanctions on Russia as they were not in his eyes, the aggressor, so sanctions are therefore unfair.
b) looking at trade deals in Russia if you don't have a conscience there must be considerable business opportunities in Russia as its broke .

 

[GTX]

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.

And yet looking at the transcript it seems quite obvious that he is the one attacked by the VP

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.

Err...read the transcript. That's not what happened.

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.

There are a lot just falling in line politically

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.

Zelensky has said numerous times that he was not asking for US troops on the ground. He is saying however that they need security guarantees otherwise any ceasefire or the like will be meaningless. In fact, one might even say that all that is required is for the Budapest commitments to be honoured.

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

Yes Europe and NATO recognise that more needs to be spent on Defence and it is. It is worth noting though that NATO is not some club where membership dues are to be paid and there is certainly no firm rules re payments. Even the 2% number is a guideline (see here). One would also argue that the underpinning element of NATO is that it is a collective institution and that all benefit by all being involved, not that there are membership levels. One also needs to remember that the US spends more (than the rest of the world) in Defence so of course they will be seen as the biggest contributor. That doesn't belittle the others contributions though.

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

Extending To Extremes argument...nice.

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?

As has been said many times, Russia has always had the ability to stop this war and end the suffering on all sides...by stopping their attacks. They are the aggressor here despite the delusions of some.

 

[GTX]

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?

So you are saying that no-one should trust the US regime at their word?

Trump warned you 8 years ago that he expected all to contribute and quit taking US for granted.

No-one was taking the US for granted. Enough with the victim mentality. It's pathetic.

You will also remember that Trump was sending real arms to Ukraine

In return for political favours.

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?

Errr...others such as the Europeans want to but they were kept out of recent discussions, as was Ukraine.

 

[GTX]

View: https://youtu.be/tZqGAxuuSF8?si=IJtjb_3gfQaXA6-0

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A counter view is that Zelensky was simply trying to understand what Vance meant by diplomacy. As the president of the invaded nation, it has to be tough for Zelensky to watch Washington and Moscow meeting in isolation. It doesn't bode well for a lasting peace...indeed, it would be foolish for anyone in Washington to presume that Zelensky will simply toe the line and accept what he's handed by the US and Russia. Even if he did, it's likely a large proportion of the Ukrainian populace won't simply sit idly by and let Russia occupy territory. Absent an equitable peace deal, which involves all sides in the discussion, I can fully imagine a guerilla war kicking off against Russian occupiers.





That's because the US IS the primary power deterrence against Russia. The whole purpose of NATO was to be defensive bloc against the USSR and Warsaw Pact but the US was always the primary source of deterrence.

While I haven't closely followed EU tariffs on the US, at least some of them were sanctioned by the WTO because the US was illegally subsidizing Boeing and other big companies. There are 2 sides to every story and, unfortunately, many aren't willing to listen to the other side of any argument.

Almost all NATO nations have increased defence expenditure in recent years, with most now contributing more than 2% of GDP. This chart from the Atlantic Council indicates that most NATO nations have increased defence spending, some quite markedly, while the the US (plus Italy, Croatia and Greece) has actually decreased spending:

Who’s at 2 percent? Look how NATO allies have increased their defense spending since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

As the NATO Summit gets underway in Washington, 23 of 32 allies now meet the defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

That's because most of the democratic world, particularly "the West", were on the same page - support Ukraine economically and militarily while imposing costs on Russia through sanctions and, where possible, other actions. We'd tried to negotiate with Russia before the war but Moscow broke multiple agreements, and refused to engage with multiple diplomatic approaches by multiple western nations. Against that background, why would anyone think that Russia will act differently even if we can agree a peace deal?

By engaging with Putin, Washington took a major "left turn at Albuquerque" without consulting its Allies. Expecting the EU to provide security guarantees for Ukraine while initiating unilateral negotiations with Moscow doesn't seem like a workable plan for the US. Excluding Ukraine from the conversation almost certainly dooms any peace deal to failure. While America is the 600lb gorilla, working with Allies (rather than against them) would likely increase the potential for success in any strategic direction changes, whether related to peace or upping the military ante.

As noted above, peace at any cost isn't really peace...and it certainly won't last.

I'm reminded of Churchill's words after Munich: "You chose dishonor over war, and now you will have war."

 

[hawkeye2an]

View: https://x.com/deaidua/status/1895848260507746780?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1895848260507746780%7Ctwgr%5E987ed7b7cf7824cfc39ac66aeea48683ed8d5aed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.news.com.au%2Fworld%2Flive-updates-grim-fallout-from-donald-trump-and-jd-vances-confrontation-with-volodymyr-zelensky-in-the-oval-office%2Flive-coverage%2F42af5dce29c5c6a2d8a1fda834a7f8a6

It is all happening right on Europe's doorstep, this European coalition should have happened as soon as Russia invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

The one thing that we all tend to forget about when considering Europe's and indeed the world's reliance on the United States is because the United States deliberately positioned itself in that role. It had its own interests in doing so, but propping up European and other country's economies during the Cold War acted as a bulwark against communism - essentially the nations the current White House is aligned with. Post WW2 the USA was the only country with the money and armed forces to act in the way it did - offering security guarantees, weapons, strategic alliances etc. To lay the blame at Europe or any other country for wishing to maintain a strategic alliance with the USA is facile to say the least, particularly when that is precisely what the United States wanted for the better part of the last 80 years.

The strategic situation has changed, by a US government that is deliberately throwing Allies and alliances forged in good faith, with the United States' blessing, I should add, out the window. Let's not forget that. This is a sign that the USA cannot be trusted on the world stage as its agenda is no longer aligned with countries that used to be its closest allies. Europe has to learn this and it is. How this current White House affects the world is rapidly being realised, but let's be clear, once the current White House is no longer in power - and it will not be forever, the damage done by the US to relations with its Allies around the world will be severe.

As for the question why Trump is the only one reaching out to both Putin and Zelenskyy, let's not be so naïve about this, please, drondog, you are better than this. Trump supports Putin's line that Ukraine started the war, even though that is a lie, and Trump wants minerals from Ukraine - his interest in Ukrainian security and peace is zero, and being in that position makes him look good, so that is why he has positioned himself where he is. Don't disguise this as an attempt at creating peace; this is a vanity project where the USA gets resources and Trump an ally in Putin. That's it.

The reason why the rest of the world won't negotiate with Putin is because Putin is the aggressor and will not negotiate with anyone that does not agree with his agenda. He started the war because his attempt to get a Moscow shill into the Kiev government, Yanukovich, failed during the Maidan Revolution, which sent him scurrying back to Moscow with his tail between his legs. Putin has been doing this with former Soviet countries for years. It worked in Chechnya and Georgia. He even used the same tactics to attack Kiev as he did when attacking Grozny during the second Chechen War, only in Kiev, the Russians failed to secure Hostomel Airfield and the Russian transport aircraft enroute carrying the invasion force for taking Kiev had to turn back to Belarus.

Please don't try and tell us that the USA is acting in peace because at present it simply is not. We, the rest of the world are not as gullible as people in your country who believe this.

 

[GTX]

The one thing that we all tend to forget about when considering Europe's and indeed the world's reliance on the United States is because the United States deliberately positioned itself in that role. It had its own interests in doing so, but propping up European and other country's economies during the Cold War acted as a bulwark against communism - essentially the nations the current White House is aligned with. Post WW2 the USA was the only country with the money and armed forces to act in the way it did - offering security guarantees, weapons, strategic alliances etc. To lay the blame at Europe or any other country for wishing to maintain a strategic alliance with the USA is facile to say the least, particularly when that is precisely what the United States wanted for the better part of the last 80 years.

The strategic situation has changed, by a US government that is deliberately throwing Allies and alliances forged in good faith, with the United States' blessing, I should add, out the window. Let's not forget that. This is a sign that the USA cannot be trusted on the world stage as its agenda is no longer aligned with countries that used to be its closest allies. Europe has to learn this and it is. How this current White House affects the world is rapidly being realised, but let's be clear, once the current White House is no longer in power - and it will not be forever, the damage done by the US to relations with its Allies around the world will be severe.

As for the question why Trump is the only one reaching out to both Putin and Zelenskyy, let's not be so naïve about this, please, drondog, you are better than this. Trump supports Putin's line that Ukraine started the war, even though that is a lie, and Trump wants minerals from Ukraine - his interest in Ukrainian security and peace is zero, and being in that position makes him look good, so that is why he has positioned himself where he is. Don't disguise this as an attempt at creating peace; this is a vanity project where the USA gets resources and Trump an ally in Putin. That's it.

The reason why the rest of the world won't negotiate with Putin is because Putin is the aggressor and will not negotiate with anyone that does not agree with his agenda. He started the war because his attempt to get a Moscow shill into the Kiev government, Yanukovich, failed during the Maidan Revolution, which sent him scurrying back to Moscow with his tail between his legs. Putin has been doing this with former Soviet countries for years. It worked in Chechnya and Georgia. He even used the same tactics to attack Kiev as he did when attacking Grozny during the second Chechen War, only in Kiev, the Russians failed to secure Hostomel Airfield and the Russian transport aircraft enroute carrying the invasion force for taking Kiev had to turn back to Belarus.

Please don't try and tell us that the USA is acting in peace because at present it simply is not. We, the rest of the world are not as gullible as people in your country who believe this.

Well written.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The one thing that we all tend to forget about when considering Europe's and indeed the world's reliance on the United States is because the United States deliberately positioned itself in that role. It had its own interests in doing so, but propping up European and other country's economies during the Cold War acted as a bulwark against communism - essentially the nations the current White House is aligned with. Post WW2 the USA was the only country with the money and armed forces to act in the way it did - offering security guarantees, weapons, strategic alliances etc. To lay the blame at Europe or any other country for wishing to maintain a strategic alliance with the USA is facile to say the least, particularly when that is precisely what the United States wanted for the better part of the last 80 years.

The strategic situation has changed, by a US government that is deliberately throwing Allies and alliances forged in good faith, with the United States' blessing, I should add, out the window. Let's not forget that. This is a sign that the USA cannot be trusted on the world stage as its agenda is no longer aligned with countries that used to be its closest allies. Europe has to learn this and it is. How this current White House affects the world is rapidly being realised, but let's be clear, once the current White House is no longer in power - and it will not be forever, the damage done by the US to relations with its Allies around the world will be severe.

As for the question why Trump is the only one reaching out to both Putin and Zelenskyy, let's not be so naïve about this, please, drondog, you are better than this. Trump supports Putin's line that Ukraine started the war, even though that is a lie, and Trump wants minerals from Ukraine - his interest in Ukrainian security and peace is zero, and being in that position makes him look good, so that is why he has positioned himself where he is. Don't disguise this as an attempt at creating peace; this is a vanity project where the USA gets resources and Trump an ally in Putin. That's it.

The reason why the rest of the world won't negotiate with Putin is because Putin is the aggressor and will not negotiate with anyone that does not agree with his agenda. He started the war because his attempt to get a Moscow shill into the Kiev government, Yanukovich, failed during the Maidan Revolution, which sent him scurrying back to Moscow with his tail between his legs. Putin has been doing this with former Soviet countries for years. It worked in Chechnya and Georgia. He even used the same tactics to attack Kiev as he did when attacking Grozny during the second Chechen War, only in Kiev, the Russians failed to secure Hostomel Airfield and the Russian transport aircraft enroute carrying the invasion force for taking Kiev had to turn back to Belarus.

Please don't try and tell us that the USA is acting in peace because at present it simply is not. We, the rest of the world are not as gullible as people in your country who believe this.

This is not American peacemaking. This is an American abdication. We've spent 80 years convincing people to entrust their defense to us, and now this administration has thrown that history out the window.

This is the American administration playing Chamberlain's role of locking the country in question out of negotiations, and then harrying Benes -- er, Zelenskyy -- to accept a deal that was made without Ukraine's participation. Not only is it underhanded, it's also a fool's quest, as it relies upon the cooperation of the hostage to make it work.

At least Z refused to play his assigned role and stood up for his country. Hopefully Europe's vocal support will translate in real effect on the battlefield.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let's assume Britain, France, Germany and the other pro-Ukraine Europeans take the gloves off and go full on unlimited support to Zelenskyy. What more can they give between now and say Nov 2025 when the Rasputitsa begins? More artillery, rockets and guided bombs? How many are left to spare? Leopard, Challenger and LeClerc tanks?

 

[nuuumannn]

Let's assume Britain, France, Germany and the other pro-Ukraine Europeans take the gloves off and go full on unlimited support to Zelenskyy. What more can they give between now and say Nov 2025 when the Rasputitsa begins? More artillery, rockets and guided bombs? How many are left to spare? Leopard, Challenger and LeClerc tanks?

I bet that during WW2 no one could have predicted just how enormous the British and US manufacturing capacity would become; you cannot predict how each European country or indeed the rest of the world might rise to the occasion when pressed. Whatever is done, it has to be done without the USA because that door has been shut. The world starts with negotiation, discussion, alignment, discourse, agreement, then it acts.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's assume Britain, France, Germany and the other pro-Ukraine Europeans take the gloves off and go full on unlimited support to Zelenskyy. What more can they give between now and say Nov 2025 when the Rasputitsa begins? More artillery, rockets and guided bombs? How many are left to spare? Leopard, Challenger and LeClerc tanks?

All very good questions. I don't think I have the info to answer them, but they are very pertinent points and hopefully the Europeans follow up their summit with concrete discussion complete with numbers. My guess would be that they can fill in for ammunition but have problems with heavy equipment not already under build.

They could ramp up production of tanks/planes/arty, but that will take a couple of years would be my guess, between building factories, training workforces, assembling materials, and so on. Bear in mind America had to do this as well in 2022-23.

 

[PlasticHero]

There are Americans and there are MAGA politicians. They are not the same. Slava Ukraine.

 

[MiTasol]

View: https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1896212521050148910

Yep

Two weeks ago I said that there was a real possibility that America would go from being world leader to world also-ran.

I hate to say it but the first signs are here already. Not just GTX's post but many like this one.

MSN

The US made the UK and France totally irrelevant as world powers.

It appears that the US is now intent on making itself totally irrelevant politically by giving great political gifts to Russia and China and the EU.

The only questions now are

Will the third block be the EU as a block or one of its members.

Which of the three will be top dog? Unfortunately my guess is China followed by EU followed by Russia.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

China is licking its chops. America has abdicated any major role, and Russia is weakened enough to be China's satellite.

Chinese money, Russian resources (especially oil), and an American happy to take the back foot.