Russia has invaded Ukraine

Originally Posted by thenry

Which bridge? The poles and balts along with NATO should move to America. Trumps got a bridge to sell them over there.

Not sure what you mean - the total population of the non-USA NATO states is 640 million (just under twice the population of the USA), so why should they "move to America"?

[thenry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not sure what you mean - the total population of the non-USA NATO states is 640 million (just under twice the population of the USA), so why should they "move to America"?

To be at peace. Trumps knocking on neighbours doors like cadging Karen I'm sure he has a bridge to sell by way of more land.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/n...weimar-2700212

I couldn’t imagine such a statement under Biden/Harris…………..

Originally Posted by Pierre

I couldn’t imagine such a statement under Biden/Harris…………..

December 2024

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/n...690236-2690236

We, Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom as well as the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, have come together with the Foreign Minister of Ukraine today at a watershed moment in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

The goals of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine and durable security for Europe are inseparable. Ukraine must prevail.

This is why after more than 1,000 days of Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine, we remain steadfast in our solidarity. We will continue to support Ukraine in its right of self-defence against Russian aggression.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms Russia’s decision to escalate its war of aggression through brutal and deliberate attacks against Ukraine’s cities and critical civilian infrastructure, by the deployment of DPRK troops and by using intermediate-range ballistic missiles to attack Ukraine.

We will continue to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.

We will continue to support Ukraine on its path towards accession to the European Union.

We reiterate our firm support for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in accordance with international law, including the UN Charter with full respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We will step up military, economic and financial aid to Ukraine, including by mobilizing additional European funding.

November 2024

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/n...685538-2685538

In Warsaw today, the Foreign Ministers of the Weimar Triangle from Germany, France and Poland discussed Europe’s security policy challenges with the Foreign Ministers of Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom as well as the designated High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Read the joint declaration here:

We, the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, have come together today, recognizing that our common security is challenged as never before in our lifetimes.

Russia is systematically attacking European security architecture.

For the last 1,000 days, in its war of aggression against Ukraine, Russia has killed many thousands and repeatedly violated international law.

Russia’s reckless revisionism and constant refusal to stop the aggression and engage in meaningful talks challenges peace, freedom and prosperity on the European continent and in the transatlantic area.

Russia is increasingly reliant on partners such as Iran and North Korea in order to sustain its illegal warfare.

Moscow’s escalating hybrid activities against NATO and EU countries are also unprecedented in their variety and scale, creating significant security risks.

To live up to this historic challenge, we are determined to stand united with our European and transatlantic partners to think and act big on European security. European countries must play a still greater role in assuring our own security, acting alongside our transatlantic and global partners.

Today, we therefore consider it imperative to:

reaffirm the enduring role of a strong and united NATO as a bedrock of European defence and security, based on strong transatlantic bond, and ironclad commitment to defend each other, and fair burden-sharing;

strengthen NATO by stepping up our security and defence expenditure, in line with our previous commitments, while reaffirming that, in many cases, expenditure beyond 2% of GDP will be needed to address rising threats to security and meet the requirements to deter and defend across all domains in the Euro-Atlantic area.

strengthen Europe’s security and defence, using all levers available to us, including the economic and financing power of the European Union and by reinforcing Europe’s industrial base. To this aim, we will build on the work in NATO, the European Union, among groups of Allies and with likeminded countries, discuss innovative financing, and remove obstacles to defence trade and investment;

invest in our critical military capabilities, including air defence, deep precision strikes, drones and integrated logistics, as well as in critical infrastructure and cyber defence, while investing in research and development, and using new technologies;

enhance resilience to cognitive warfare and hybrid threats in Europe, also through the relevant EU mechanisms, and promote the resilience of our societies,

further step up our military, economic and financial support for Ukraine, while welcoming the 50 billion dollar G7 loan to ensure that Ukraine has sufficient resources for the next year;

remain steadfast in our support for a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, based on the UN Charter, reaffirming that peace can only be negotiated with Ukraine, with European, American and G7 partners by its side, and in making sure that the aggressor will bear consequences, also financial ones, of its illegal acts that violate rules set out in the UN Charter,

continue deterring Russia, thwarting Putin’s ability to sustain his war of aggression, and constraining the build-up of Russia’s military capabilities, including through restrictive measures.

[Pierre]

Ukraine give back the bit of territory they took, in return Russia give a little back, but in the main Russia keep what they have taken, with a buffer zone between the new borders of Ukraine and Russia….with assurances that Ukraine will not/ cannot join NATO.

All of which was mooted years ago, but was decried by the Ukraine “total win only” fanatics as “appeasement”.

So I ask those, and you know who you are, should any peace deal that involves ceding territory to Russia be opposed and dismissed, and if not why have you changed your mind?

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:14 ----------

February 2025

12 of February 2025 - Paris

We are ready to enhance our support for Ukraine. We commit to its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia's war of aggression.

We share the goal to keep supporting Ukraine until a just, comprehensive and lasting peace is reached. A peace that guarantees the interest of Ukraine and our own.

We are looking forward to discussing the way ahead together with our American allies. Our shared objectives should be to put Ukraine in a position of strength. Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations. Ukraine should be provided with strong security guarantees. A just and lasting peace in Ukraine is a necessary condition for a strong transatlantic security.

We recall that the security of the European continent is our common responsibility. We are therefore working together to strengthen our collective defense capabilities.

Versus December 2024

We, Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom as well as the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, have come together with the Foreign Minister of Ukraine today at a watershed moment in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

The goals of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine and durable security for Europe are inseparable. Ukraine must prevail.

This is why after more than 1,000 days of Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine, we remain steadfast in our solidarity. We will continue to support Ukraine in its right of self-defence against Russian aggression.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms Russia’s decision to escalate its war of aggression through brutal and deliberate attacks against Ukraine’s cities and critical civilian infrastructure, by the deployment of DPRK troops and by using intermediate-range ballistic missiles to attack Ukraine.

We will continue to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.

We will continue to support Ukraine on its path towards accession to the European Union.

We reiterate our firm support for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in accordance with international law, including the UN Charter with full respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We will step up military, economic and financial aid to Ukraine, including by mobilizing additional European funding.

Write me a paper on the differences between those two statements and what is in the December one and what is missing from the a February one.

Please Hugh, please………

In case you’re not sure……..this bit was omitted……

We will continue to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.

We will continue to support Ukraine on its path towards accession to the European Union.

Originally Posted by Pierre

So I ask those, and you know who you are, should any peace deal that involves ceding territory to Russia be opposed and dismissed, and if not why have you changed your mind?

I think it's always been up to Ukraine and it seems they are starting to look at such an agreement.

The thing is Russia has also been worn down as well, unless they want to go for full total war they're reaching the limits of what they can realistically achieve in Ukraine too.

In the end this should never have been 'worth it' for Russia. They've spent three years, lost hundreds of thousands of men, lost billions and decimated their army for a fraction of what they set-up to achieve. NATO has expanded, not retracted, and Russian oligarchs have lost their Western assets.

Hopefully, that makes them think twice if they want to try again in a few years - which history suggests they might.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ukraine give back the bit of territory they took, in return Russia give a little back, but in the main Russia keep what they have taken, with a buffer zone between the new borders of Ukraine and Russia….with assurances that Ukraine will not/ cannot join NATO.

All of which was mooted years ago, but was decried by the Ukraine “total win only” fanatics as “appeasement”.

So I ask those, and you know who you are, should any peace deal that involves ceding territory to Russia be opposed and dismissed, and if not why have you changed your mind?

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:14 ----------

February 2025



Versus December 2024


Write me a paper on the differences between those two statements and what is in the December one and what is missing from the a February one.

Please Hugh, please………

In case you’re not sure……..this bit was omitted……

Your whole question is based on the (faulty) premises that (1) any of this is in Trump’s gift and (2) Putin will negotiate because he wants a settlement.

On 2, Putin isn’t bothered about Nato. He’s bothered about the EU. That is a far tighter political structure, membership of which would remove Ukraine from greater Rus permanently. For this, he needs to normalise the idea that this dispute is a matter for the Great Powers to decide, much as they did at Yalta after WW2.

On 1, the contradiction at the heart of the Trump admin’s position is that they simultaneously want to pivot away from Europe and the cost of maintaining European security, whilst at the same time moving to settle the issue of European security over the heads of Europeans.

For both these reasons, the EU, and Europe more broadly, ought to see that its interests lie in doubling down on support for Ukraine. Based on the comments coming out of the EU this week, and the statement involving the UK, I suspect they will. The absolute worst case for both Trump and Putin is European boots on the ground in Ukraine, perhaps taking responsibility for tasks in the rear to allow Ukrainians to work at the front.

[ianch99]

Trump has not negotiated with Putin, he has given everything Putin wants right up front. Not unexpected. He will now move to offer more i.e. reduce US troops in Europe. Trumps actions will embolden Putin, if he thinks the US will not intervene and he thinks the EU/UK cannot afford to (meaningfully) intervene, he will start with the Baltics and then maybe more of Ukraine.

Trump following the script: Trump says Russia should be readmitted to G7

U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday said he would love to have Russia return to the Group of Seven nations, saying it was a mistake for Moscow to be expelled.

Trump is an asset ...

[1andrew1]

When does Ukraine get to negotiate the return of California to Mexico?

[pip08456]

Putin is not asting like a man who wants peace. Last night a Russian drone with HE warhead hit and caused damage to the sarcophagos enccasing reactor 4 at Chornobyl (the one that exploded in 1986).

"The shelter at the Chornobyl NPP was damaged by this drone. The fire has been extinguished. As of now, radiation levels have not increased and are being constantly monitored. According to initial assessments, the damage to the shelter is significant."

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Hopefully, that makes them think twice if they want to try again in a few years - which history suggests they might.

With Trump offering a bagful of concessions on behalf of Ukraine before anyone's got to a negotiating table, the lesson to Russia is try again, odds are that you will lose men, be out in the cold temporarily but will gain territory.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Trump has not negotiated with Putin, he has given everything Putin wants right up front. Not unexpected.
Trump is an asset ...

No sadly not unexpected, the art of the deal in action, yet no one ever wonders what Russia and Israel have on him. Tulsi Gabbard isn't needed with him about

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-d...itary-support/

The Trump administration has proposed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that the United States be granted 50 percent ownership of Ukraine's rare earth minerals in exchange for its military support, according to a report by NBC News.

U.S. officials told NBC News that handing over half of its valuable minerals would be a way for Ukraine to reimburse the U.S. for the billions of dollars in weapons and support it has provided to Kyiv since Russian President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion began in February 2022.

The American officials also signaled an openness to deploying U.S. troops to Ukraine to guard these minerals, if there is a deal with Russia to end the war in Ukraine.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-d...itary-support/

Well they’re not a charity, we had to pay for WWII.


We should make sure there is a payment plan for us too, for what we have paid for.

[thenry]

Hand outs for cry more. Spineless negotiation. Just end the war!