Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Kyriakos]

Israel wouldn't ever install other (non-jewish) people in Gaza when it went to all that trouble to remove palestinians
As for the Eu, despite the rhetoric, they are not willing to take in so many millions of Ukrainians. They will mumble that they already took in enough.

[Ludicus]

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is an American foreign policy think tank. It has a network of more than 150 "experts who have served in nearly every administration since the endowment’s founding.” (sic).
Btw, they hate Trump Will Trump Govern as a Strongman?

Will he actually lead America down an authoritarian path? Or is his rhetoric (wink, wink) a calculated attempt to troll his opponents for the entertainment of his supporters?

When it comes to Ukraine, what do they think about the war in Ukraine? Here's what "more than 150 experts who have served in almost every administration since the endowment’s founding" propose as a way of perpetuating the destruction of Ukraine and impoverishing Europe, with appreciable benefits for the American military industry? Ukraine aid benefits arms industry, not US economy

The proposal is- there is no military support without payment. It's a kind of mercenary support. Europe Does Not Have the Luxury

Europe will take over all financial support for Ukraine if the United States maintains its military support, which Europeans are not able to provide themselves. Europeans have a tendency to feel morally superior to the United States, especially with Trump at the helm. However, this time, Europeans will have to get their hands dirty.

Time to pay up, filthy parasite!

[Alastor]

Time to pay up, filthy parasite!

A good question to ask here would be... with what money?

If Europe is to finally kick its transatlantic addiction it needs a policy of rapprochement with Russia and to move on from this invented Russian threat. Not to keep throwing good money after bad in an attempt to show Trump we are somehow more American than thou. Of course for any of that we need leaders and Europe hasn't had real leadership in at least 20 years so... it's not looking promising.

[Legio_Italica]

A good question to ask here would be... with what money?

If Europe is to finally kick its transatlantic addiction it needs a policy of rapprochement with Russia and to move on from this invented Russian threat. Not to keep throwing good money after bad in an attempt to show Trump we are somehow more American than thou. Of course for any of that we need leaders and Europe hasn't had real leadership in at least 20 years so... it's not looking promising.

There are a few asterisks to note here. The first is that Eurocentric plans for reorientation away from the US do not include the UK. It is a continental concept. The second is that Europe does not have the economic breathing room to undertake ambitious new projects without substantial American support, as you seem to mention. The EU is already discussing ways to dissuade Trump from his rhetorical tariff threats by buying more American exports, and he isn’t even in office yet.

The third is that fear mongering over Trump’s long prophesied abandonment or shakedown of the Europeans never materialized during his first term and is unlikely to do so now. NATO military spending as a percentage of GDP has barely budged since 2014 and the only members bothering to meet even their baseline 2% commitment last year (aside from US/UK) were in Eastern Europe. European countries will have to spend far more than they have in decades on defense if they want to go it alone, never mind a measly 2%.

Fourth is that Trump is already pressuring Ukraine to come to the negotiating table and abandon dreams of recapturing all lost territory since 2014. If this is what a Eurocentric foreign policy would look like anyway, I don’t see how a second Trump term marks any kind of turning point in the transatlantic relationship. The most I could foresee is a slight easing of the obscenely one sided restrictions the EU puts on US trade, and a more Anglocentric approach to US relations with Europe.

[StarDreamer]

Eh, we'll see if Trump is a surrender monkey or if he can manage a even halfway decent peace. There really isn't a need for a repeat of the Munich agreement.
It will only lead to more war.

[Alastor]

@Legio_Italica
1. When I say Europe I most definitely don't include the UK in that grouping.
2. Indeed, but reorienting the EU may open avenues that could re-energise growth. Getting access to Russia's raw resources again for instance.
3. Yes, but a)Trump is talking even louder about tariffs now b)if the EU is to spend more on defense (and if we do go our own way we'll have to) it might as well be on local industries instead of US ones
4. In the issue of Ukraine, Trump's policies are, or at least appear to be, beneficial to the EU and detrimental to the atlanticist order. Unfortunately, the EU is led by atlanticist toadies and that's where many of our problems seem to originate from.

--------------------------
Speaking of Trump, apparently he had a phone call with Putin: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-call-ukraine/

During the call, which Trump took from his resort in Florida, he advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe, said a person familiar with the call, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

I'm pretty sure Putin doesn't for a moment forget about Washington's "sizable military presence" in Europe, considering the key reason behind the war in Ukraine, aka NATO expansion. But I suppose threatening Putin is an improvement over Biden's approach of simply not talking to him at all... probably...

[Kyriakos]

So Trump's plan is to back a peace treaty where the front is frozen where it would be then. Russia consequently will speed up retaking the Kursk areas still controlled by Ukraine, and race in other places (most notably Donbass).
It could have been worse, but it could have been better. Certainly it is fine for Russia, as it couldn't ask for more territory than it controlled.

[sumskilz]

So Trump's plan is to back a peace treaty where the front is frozen where it would be then.

What makes you think that?

[Legio_Italica]

Eh, we'll see if Trump is a surrender monkey or if he can manage a even halfway decent peace. There really isn't a need for a repeat of the Munich agreement.
It will only lead to more war.

Ukraine arguably has less leverage now than at any point since the invasion began, but I won’t pretend to have detailed knowledge of the situation on the ground. Trump was accused of being a Russian agent during his first term, but ultimately did little to change the status quo in terms of sanctions or military aid, and even bragged about doing more for Ukraine than any other US administration.

This time it could be different since Trump will be better prepared to staff his administration with people who support his agenda, and of course the full scale war Ukraine is losing bit by bit makes the status quo unsustainable anyway. The US has had the opportunity to fully back Ukraine and avoid the current malaise by helping Kiev achieve her war aims, or facilitate a ceasefire and peace negotiations to cool down the situation. The Biden Admin did neither, so alot of what happens next is likely outside the scope of US influence anyway.

Indeed, but reorienting the EU may open avenues that could re-energise growth. Getting access to Russia's raw resources again for instance.

The US and China left the EU behind during the Merkel era when mutual dependence on Russian energy was the status quo. The biggest barrier to European growth and innovation is its arcane domestic regulatory environment and terminal population decline in most countries. These factors will require intense and sustained reform from committed and united leadership, independent of anything the US, China or Russia does.

[Kyriakos]

What makes you think that?

Some article shared in another forum where we have this discussion:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...s-buffer-zone/

[Alastor]

The US and China left the EU behind during the Merkel era when mutual dependence on Russian energy was the status quo. The biggest barrier to European growth and innovation is its arcane domestic regulatory environment and terminal population decline in most countries. These factors will require intense and sustained reform from committed and united leadership, independent of anything the US, China or Russia does.

Yes, the Merkel era. But I blame her ridiculous aversion to actually doing anything other than act as a caretaker more so than bureaucracy. You need to spend money to make money. Either way, while I disagree on the specifics I agree that the EU needs good leadership and I already said I am not optimistic.

------

On other news the Kremlin is now claiming the previously mentioned call between Putin and Trump as reported by Washington Post is... fake news... because why not, we do live in the era of fake news...

[StarDreamer]

Yes, the Merkel era. But I blame her ridiculous aversion to actually doing anything other than act as a caretaker more so than bureaucracy. You need to spend money to make money. Either way, while I disagree on the specifics I agree that the EU needs good leadership and I already said I am not optimistic.

------

On other news the Kremlin is now claiming the previously mentioned call between Putin and Trump as reported by Washington Post is... fake news... because why not, we do live in the era of fake news...

Ah yes, the Kremlin a bastion of truth you can always rely on the "truthiness" of their statements.

[mishkin]

I agree that the EU needs good leadership and I already said I am not optimistic.

Do you also agree with Legio that Europe has to be independent of anything Russia does?

Do you have any example of a current European politician or European political party that should lead us? Or some ideas to follow? Economic protectionism, favouring immigration to repopulate Europe, increasing national military spending, a single European military command...?

[Alastor]

Do you also agree with Legio that Europe has to be independent of anything Russia does?

I'm not sure what you mean "independent". My hope is that the EU will become its own independent centre of power, able to make its own decisions to safeguard its interests and the interest of its peoples. If that's what you mean then yes. If you mean that the EU won't be affected by what Russia does then that's just not possible. Due to geography. As long as Russia exists, it will be important to Europe.

Do you have any example of a current European politician or European political party that should lead us? Or some ideas to follow? Economic protectionism, favouring immigration to repopulate Europe, increasing national military spending, a single European military command...?

If I had an example of a politician or party I wouldn't be this pessimistic. Unfortunately, I have to go back 20 or 30 years to find politicians that genuinely believed in European integration. What we have now is either a la carte free trading atlanticists or worse a rising wave of ethnonationalist exceptionalists. Both of these forces are forces of fragmentation and weakness. Even so called champions of the EU like Macron, or Tusk have proven themselves to be first and foremost concerned with the narrow interests of their own state. They talked big when Britain was leaving about the unity of the market and solidarity, yet now they want to pick and choose. I do support all the ideas you listed, with caveats. For example I am a proponent of LEGAL immigration, not immigration in general. Chiefly I believe that Europe needs to reform its institutions and assert itself over national governments. I can't think of even underground movements of any significance that agree with all that.

[mishkin]

me, I agree with what you say.

(Regarding immigration, of course what is legal and illegal is not written in stone. But let's not screw it up now with this topic).

[Ludicus]

A good question to ask here would be... with what money?

Exactly.As Germany is second to the US in financial support for Ukraine, the onus may fall on Berlin to increase its help.

Germany's normally stable government has collapsed.

Scholz said he fired Lindner for blocking his economic plans.The chancellor told reporters Wednesday night that Lindners’ "egoism is totally incomprehensible."

FDP's Lindner: Scholz denied crucial Ukraine military support

---
On a side note, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the ...

The Carnegie Endowment was not a pressure group in the normal pluralistic sense of the word; rather it was an elite group with power and access seeking to strengthen governmental resolve and promote a particular set of foreign policies.

[NorseThing]

Pressure is on all sides.

For example: Russia

(The TsMAKP think tank of economists, which advises Russia's government, said the interest payment burden on companies had reached a five-year high in June, when rates were at 16%.The bad news for Russian Railways, which is the country's largest employer with 685,200 people on the payroll as of the end of 2023, is that interest rates are expected to rise further before dropping, with the central bank forecasting its average rate range in 2025 at 17-20%.) https://www.reuters.com/markets/euro...25-2024-11-14/

There will be a breaking point. West or Russia first. Russia has business operating on a bit like 1920 USA in 2024 with the focus on railroad employment. It may not matter if both break. Good luck Ukraine.

[Ludicus]

Biden’s revenge. Ready to unleash the chaos, before Trump takes over the White House.
Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia With Long-Range U.S. Missiles-New York Times

[PointOfViewGun]

Biden’s revenge. Ready to unleash the chaos, before Trump takes over the White House.
Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia With Long-Range U.S. Missiles-New York Times

They finally lifted a nonsensical limitation. Ukraine already has been successfully targeting Russian military targets deep within Russia. Now that they can use other tools to continue doing so unleashes chaos? Only to Russian targets.

[Ludicus]

PointOfViewGun, it is a surprising decision, because for months and months, Zelensky had requested authorization to use American missiles on Russian territory, and Biden repeatedly refused. He now accepts it, even though a new president has already been elected. While it is legally legitimate, it is entirely illegitimate from a political standpoint, unless it was previously coordinated with Trump, which is highly unlikely.