Ukraine Conflict - In the grim darkness of the near future, there is only war!

[Elerond]

10 minutes ago, majestic said:

 

 

Have to disagree here, Professor Michaels. Even so much as printing any sensitive material on a public printer in a hotel is a breach of security. We have tighter security checks at work. 

I am not sure if they take security seriously, as they are handling classified documents in public wifi,which we know because in order to use public printer in hotel they need to connect in hotel's public wifi.

I am pretty sure that they can't make that wifi secure even with secure vpn, but instead all the communication has been quite easy to access by any spy that has seen little effort

[uuuhhii]

remember when usa fired people oversee their nuclear arsenal

that happened this year 

[Zoraptor]

It's all Elon's fault, one of his cost cutting measures via DOGE was getting rid of all and any secure portable printers.

Mind you, the subscription to HP was doubling the budget deficit.

10 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Did Vladimir say "thank you" even once?

Heh. Five times more than that ingrate Volodomyr.

via the transcript:

"I would like to thank once again my American counterpart, for the proposal to travel out here to Alaska."

"We're thankful to the citizens and the government of the U.S. for carefully taking care of their memory."

"I would like to thank President Trump for our joint work, for the well wishing and trustworthy tone of our conversation."

"Thank you. Thank you."

[BruceVC]

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/crlzey2j406o 

 

What a completely different and positive  meeting with Trump compared to the disaster in February, the EU and Zelensky should be very happy with the outcome which was expected considering the number of prominent EU leaders who attended

Zelensky had clearly been prepped around how to engage with Trump and this included

 

• he was smartly dressed and he received a compliment from a  right-wing journalist
• he thanked Trump and the US on several occasions
• he presented  a personal letter to Trumps wife who cares about the reality of the thousands of kidnapped Ukrainian children. This went down very well with Trump, he likes this personal touch
• Zelensky avoided responding in too much detail around his expectations when asked certain questions

 

Trump was also much more relaxed and complimentary to both Ukraine and the EU leaders who travelled to the US. He joked about several things

But key takeaways which we have to wait and see how these things unfold

 

• the US would be involved in a peace keeping role in Ukraine  in some form with the EU. This  would be part of the peace negotiation agreements around security guarantees for Ukraine 
• Trump wants to arrange a Putin and Zelensky direct meeting
• Trump believes Putin will make compromises
• The US is selling Ukraine an additional $90 billion in weapons

 

I do think we are some distance off to this war ending but this was a very constructive engagement with both Russia and Ukraine and a good step in the right direction

For me it highlights again the global influence  and agency of the US, it really is the only country that can bring the likes of Russia and Ukraine with the EU to the negotiating table in a significant way

[Elerond]

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/crlzey2j406o 

 

What a completely different and positive  meeting with Trump compared to the disaster in February, the EU and Zelensky should be very happy with the outcome which was expected considering the number of prominent EU leaders who attended

Zelensky had clearly been prepped around how to engage with Trump and this included

 

• he was smartly dressed and he received a compliment from a  right-wing journalist
• he thanked Trump and the US on several occasions
• he presented  a personal letter to Trumps wife who cares about the reality of the thousands of kidnapped Ukrainian children. This went down very well with Trump, he likes this personal touch
• Zelensky avoided responding in too much detail around his expectations when asked certain questions

 

Trump was also much more relaxed and complimentary to both Ukraine and the EU leaders who travelled to the US. He joked about several things

But key takeaways which we have to wait and see how these things unfold

 

• the US would be involved in a peace keeping role in Ukraine  in some form with the EU. This  would be part of the peace negotiation agreements around security guarantees for Ukraine 
• Trump wants to arrange a Putin and Zelensky direct meeting
• Trump believes Putin will make compromises
• The US is selling Ukraine an additional $90 billion in weapons

 

I do think we are some distance off to this war ending but this was a very constructive engagement with both Russia and Ukraine and a good step in the right direction

For me it highlights again the global influence  and agency of the US, it really is the only country that can bring the likes of Russia and Ukraine with the EU to the negotiating table in a significant way

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/european-leaders-ukraine-russia-trump

Trump told today that US will not be taken part on peace keeping or even give actual security guarantees for Ukraine, meaning that no US troops will be send in any situation in Ukraine according to him.

[Zoraptor]

That always seemed to be a bit of a deliberate? misinterpretation of the NATO/ Article 5 like statement from Witkoff, given Trump said categorically there would be no NATO membership. A guarantee from the 'coalition of the willing' plus the US would effectively be NATO, plus Japan/ NZ/ AUS/ Palau/ FSM/ Nauru/ El Salvador/ Argentina/ and maybe ROK. And that would not seem likely to be a starter in any way shape or form for the Russians.

 

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Elerond said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/european-leaders-ukraine-russia-trump

Trump told today that US will not be taken part on peace keeping or even give actual security guarantees for Ukraine, meaning that no US troops will be send in any situation in Ukraine according to him.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/what-security-guarantees-might-ukraine-get-in-return-for-a-peace-deal

The US doesnt need to deploy " boots on the ground " to support the EU in security guarantees for Ukraine 

End of the day this is a proposed US\Trump peace plan and we need to see how it unfolds and what is agreed on

"Trump has promised to coordinate a Europe-led peacekeeping operation in Ukraine. “When it comes to security, there’s going to be a lot of help,” he said on Monday, sitting next to Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. The US president made clear European countries would be expected to carry most of the burden. “They are a first line of defence because they’re there. But we’ll help them out,” he said.

Ukraine wants to buy $90bn worth of US weapons and says they could form part of the security guarantee. Overall, however, Trump has been vague about how much the US would contribute. He has ruled out Ukraine’s membership of Nato, which Kyiv believes would be the best deterrent against a future Russian onslaught. There seems no prospect the US would send its own troops to take part in a peace-keeping mission. One more realistic option would be for the Pentagon to provide logistical support to a proposed “sky shield”. The plan envisages an air protection zone in the west and the centre of Ukraine, including over the capital Kyiv, enforced by European fighter jets. "

 

 

 

 

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/what-security-guarantees-might-ukraine-get-in-return-for-a-peace-deal

The US doesnt need to deploy " boots on the ground " to support the EU in security guarantees for Ukraine 

End of the day this is a proposed US\Trump peace plan and we need to see how it unfolds and what is agreed on

"Trump has promised to coordinate a Europe-led peacekeeping operation in Ukraine. “When it comes to security, there’s going to be a lot of help,” he said on Monday, sitting next to Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. The US president made clear European countries would be expected to carry most of the burden. “They are a first line of defence because they’re there. But we’ll help them out,” he said.

Ukraine wants to buy $90bn worth of US weapons and says they could form part of the security guarantee. Overall, however, Trump has been vague about how much the US would contribute. He has ruled out Ukraine’s membership of Nato, which Kyiv believes would be the best deterrent against a future Russian onslaught. There seems no prospect the US would send its own troops to take part in a peace-keeping mission. One more realistic option would be for the Pentagon to provide logistical support to a proposed “sky shield”. The plan envisages an air protection zone in the west and the centre of Ukraine, including over the capital Kyiv, enforced by European fighter jets. "

Security gurantees need willinges to send troops otherwise they aren't security gurantees.

Selling weapons does not work as security gurantee, it is just way to make amrs trade look better. 

Logistical support for European jets could make security gurantees by some European countries easier, but mostly that is empty talk as USA does not have logistical capacity in the area where those jets needs to operate and USA does not have plans to have logistical capacity there.

So USA will not provide any security gurantees for Ukraine in Trumps current pland.

[kanisatha]

Witkoff specifically said "Article 5-like." Emphasis on *like*. He then expanded on this by saying it would be something like Article 5 without NATO. And personally, I think Ukraine would be way better off with exactly that: Article 5 without NATO. Because I don't have much faith at all that NATO would actually fight for a country that is invaded by Russia, and by this I specifically mean NATO members like Germany, France, and Spain. The US, even under Trump, will fight. It's the Europeans I don't trust -- at all. So Ukraine is better off with an Article 5-like bilateral commitment from the US, which does *not* need to include US troops on the ground in Ukraine. It is indeed Europeans who should shoulder all of the burden of putting troops on the ground, precisely so that it ties them to Ukraine's defense. It is European fecklessness and free-riding that has brought us to this point in the first place.

[Malcador]

How are you so sure the US would fight Russia over Ukraine?

[majestic]

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

How are you so sure the US would fight Russia over Ukraine?

I noticed that I've become like the Q continuum and the Q in them, as depicted by the Voyager epsiode Death Wish. Just an endless, dusty road with the same people who read a newspaper and every now and then talk about the same things - because everything's been said already.

 

[rjshae]

We've seen this sort of thing (protection guarantees) before, and it rarely works out well for the protectee. I certainly wouldn't believe any such guarantee coming from DJT, and it's even a bit iffy coming from other European states. Who knows what their motives will be down the road? There's a slightly better chance of success if European troops are actually stationed in Ukraine; even if just anti-air units. There's a much stronger chance of success if Ukraine were to rearm with nukes and delivery systems -- there'd be no chance that Putin would risk an invasion with Moscow less than 2,000 km away.

[uuuhhii]

ukraine can no longer be nato proxy if they have nuke

they will not allow it

[rjshae]

2 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

ukraine can no longer be nato proxy if they have nuke

they will not allow it

Who will not allow it? Britain and France?

[uuuhhii]

even turkey would not want it

too many nuclear neighbor make everything more complicated

[pmp10]

6 hours ago, rjshae said:

 There's a slightly better chance of success if European troops are actually stationed in Ukraine; even if just anti-air units. 

On the eve on invasion there were already some European troops in Ukraine handling training.
Unsurprisingly they were evacuated with priority.

I doubt Ukraine will trust any guarantees that don't include a trip-wire force, or at least enough foreign troops that could be tied-up in every strategic target that Russia is about to hit.

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, rjshae said:

We've seen this sort of thing (protection guarantees) before, and it rarely works out well for the protectee. I certainly wouldn't believe any such guarantee coming from DJT, and it's even a bit iffy coming from other European states. Who knows what their motives will be down the road? There's a slightly better chance of success if European troops are actually stationed in Ukraine; even if just anti-air units. There's a much stronger chance of success if Ukraine were to rearm with nukes and delivery systems -- there'd be no chance that Putin would risk an invasion with Moscow less than 2,000 km away.

I agree but the nuke idea as a security guarantee  is over

If Ukraine hadn't abandoned its nukes you right, Russia would never had invaded

But thats not realistic anymore. I dont support any new country getting nukes and that includes Iran or Ukraine 

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

ukraine can no longer be nato proxy if they have nuke

they will not allow it

What do you mean NATO proxy? What is the difference between a NATO member like Sweden and a NATO proxy?

 

 

[Zoraptor]

There has been a certain amount of revisionism about Ukraine 'giving up her nukes'. It- and the offer to Belarus and Khazakstan too- was not really an offer. One way or another they were not going to have them. And that was policy not just of Russia but of everyone else too. People tend to forget the very real fears about nukes disappearing post soviet break up because it didn't end up happening, and one of the main reasons it didn't was them being consolidated.

[kanisatha]

20 hours ago, Malcador said:

How are you so sure the US would fight Russia over Ukraine?

If the US committed itself to fight, it will. If it did not, then probably no.

OTOH, with the Europeans, even if they give a commitment to fight, I would not consider it credible or trustworthy.

Btw, this is why I believe very strongly that Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states should enter into bilateral security guarantees with the US and possibly UK. Trusting that (European) NATO will defend them is folly which they will surely come to regret.

Edited 4 hours ago by kanisatha

[kanisatha]

13 hours ago, rjshae said:

We've seen this sort of thing (protection guarantees) before, and it rarely works out well for the protectee. I certainly wouldn't believe any such guarantee coming from DJT, and it's even a bit iffy coming from other European states. Who knows what their motives will be down the road? There's a slightly better chance of success if European troops are actually stationed in Ukraine; even if just anti-air units. There's a much stronger chance of success if Ukraine were to rearm with nukes and delivery systems -- there'd be no chance that Putin would risk an invasion with Moscow less than 2,000 km away.

Any Ukrainian move towards acquiring nukes would immediately trigger a full-on Russian assault to overthrow its government and take over the country--at whatever cost including using tac nukes if necessary. Any government in Washington would do the same if Mexico were to ever pursue nukes (or an alliance with Russia/China).

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

Any Ukrainian move towards acquiring nukes would immediately trigger a full-on Russian assault to overthrow its government and take over the country--at whatever cost including using tac nukes if necessary. Any government in Washington would do the same if Mexico were to ever pursue nukes (or an alliance with Russia/China).

So you understand why Israel wont let Iran get nukes  and they will resort to military actions to prevent this 

Its the same principle for the US and Russia?

 

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Any Ukrainian move towards acquiring nukes would immediately trigger a full-on Russian assault to overthrow its government and take over the country--at whatever cost including using tac nukes if necessary. Any government in Washington would do the same if Mexico were to ever pursue nukes (or an alliance with Russia/China).

Hence why would (obviously) need to be done in secret. It wouldn't surprise me to learn it has already been planned. The time frame for Ukraine to build dirty bombs is months.

Zelensky's doomsday nuke option