This is the current state of affairs in U.S. foreign policy - the U.S. and whatever side we blindly support negotiate exactly how the spoils will be split, and the actual other party to the conflict is left in the dark with “WTF?” looks on their faces …

We don’t support the “right side” in global conflicts. We interfere, we dictate who wins and who loses, and everyone else is left to suffer the geopolitical consequences.

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the EU has very little in the way of O&G, Lithium, or Uranium. Oh and the US/Musk controls 2/3rds of the satellites used for communications.


How will the EU take on Russia and the US without fuel, power, or communication?

Ukraine has lithium, one of the biggest deposits in Europe. EU is also developing/has developed an alternative to Starlink.

Unfortunately the EU has very little in the way of O&G, Lithium, or Uranium. Oh and the US/Musk controls 2/3rds of the satellites used for communications.


How will the EU take on Russia and the US without fuel, power, or communication?

Because both russian and american government leaders have a mob mentality. Wait till the UK rejoins the EU. EU economy will be ginormous. And US military sales will plummet. Good job, Trump.

So let’s say the Ukrainians sign this really bad agreement with Trump for their minerals rights. If the Dems get back in this agreement will be ripped up.

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump looks at the world like it's a few mafia families discussing their spheres of influence. There's the Xi Crime Syndicate in Beijing and they rule Asia. There's the Putin Crime Syndicate in Moscow and they rule Europe and most of Africa. And then there's the Trump Crime Syndicate in Washington and they control the Western Hemisphere, including Greenland, Canada, and Panama.

I'm not joking. I believe that is the Republican world view today.

Why would a “mafia crime syndicate” give a weak lame duck like Russia a sphere of influence? China is 10 x the strength of Russia, Europe is 12 x the strength and the US is 15 x. Let’s remember the European have been doing this for over 2,500 years. They will not lay down to Russia. Europe will easy kick Russia’s a$$. Also what about the Turks?



Why does everyone believe the Russians are a great power? They are the second strongest military in the Ukraine not the world. People have to stop with this fantasy.

Russia has lost a whole army in this war and are half way through their second one. They can’t build tanks or aircraft. They have lost somewhere between 350-850k killed. In Afghanistan over 10 years they lost 15k. We lost 50k in Vietnam.

I think Trump looks at the world like it's a few mafia families discussing their spheres of influence. There's the Xi Crime Syndicate in Beijing and they rule Asia. There's the Putin Crime Syndicate in Moscow and they rule Europe and most of Africa. And then there's the Trump Crime Syndicate in Washington and they control the Western Hemisphere, including Greenland, Canada, and Panama.

I'm not joking. I believe that is the Republican world view today.

Anonymous wrote:If a country wants to negotiate its war, then it can pay for its own war.

We paid for Israel’s war and Ukraine’s war. Both countries were attacked. Israel isn’t being asked to pay back money. Ukraine is asked to be paying back some of what we spent.

Hamas was the aggressor, no arguments over that. Russia was the aggressor. The US is objecting to calling Russia the aggressor. Trump is changing facts by claiming Ukraine was the aggressor.

WTF is wrong here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry don’t have patience to scroll back to where anyone is actually on topic.

I think if US and Russia come to a peace agreement on Ukraine, Zelensky has little choice but to accept even it requires that he be exiled to one of his many estates outside of Ukraine.


This is news to me. Do you have citations to back up your statement?

This PP never came back to give back-up citations to Zelensky allegations. I guess PP was just another inflammatory making-it-up-as-they-go Political Forum wack job. There seem to be plenty on here, both Rep and Dems.

I waiting for PP to come back as well. The reality is that a lot of MAGAs don't bother to fact check. They accept everything at face value when issued inside their propaganda silos. I draw my news from a wide range of sources and have gotten into the habit of checking most things presented as facts. In the current information in environment, we should all do that whenever we can. I want to see receipts.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry don’t have patience to scroll back to where anyone is actually on topic.

I think if US and Russia come to a peace agreement on Ukraine, Zelensky has little choice but to accept even it requires that he be exiled to one of his many estates outside of Ukraine.


This is news to me. Do you have citations to back up your statement?

This PP never came back to give back-up citations to Zelensky allegations. I guess PP was just another inflammatory making-it-up-as-they-go Political Forum wack job. There seem to be plenty on here, both Rep and Dems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because Ukraine is about more than Ukraine. It’s about a larger strategy/outcome. You would think that should include the EU, but Trump doesn’t currently see them as his equal. However, France is trying to coordinate an EU perspective. Trump, Putin, and Xi want to carve up the world into power blocs. So, if Trump acquiesces to Russia on Ukraine, what will Russia help the US get? Maybe Greenland.

This is the answer.

But why cut Russia in on that? Russia is not a world power. Why would Russia have any say over Greenland? The closest Russian territory to Greenland is farther away than New York is from Los Angeles.

Greenland will be covered in ice for 500 years. The arctic will not be ice free year round for 75-100 years. You would need 50 nuclear powered icebreakers to maintain an open channel during winter. No one has that.

Just because Trump mumbles something about Greenland does not mean it actually makes sense. Just like surrendering to the Russian in Ukraine.

It doesn’t matter if it’s Greenland or Canada or something else. What these guys are agreeing to is the notion that large powers have the “right” to take neighbors. They may do so for national security, natural resources, or whatever. But, each major power gets a regional bloc to themselves that the others agree to not contest. Russia will get back the Soviet Union states. USA takes Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, etc. if you don’t believe me, there’s a new NYT editorial discussion about this.

Russia is not a major power. The EU is a major power. Russia will lose any war with Europe. Europe will also buy and integrate the Turks.

This is a dumb and unrealistic strategy. Maybe The NY Times editorial board should actually look at the facts. If Europe increases spending to 4% of GDP that is a trillion dollars defense budget. That is 1/2 of the GDP of Russia and the Russian can’t even build out fight aircraft. Trump wants to reduce defense spend by 50 billion a year for the next 4 years. That means the US will have 1/2 the defense budget of the EU. The US will have to reduce ships, tanks and planes to meet that budget. The US will not be able to project power without European military bases.

Let’s play your scenario out.

The major powers are US(30 trillion GDP), EU(including UK 23 trillion GDP) and China(19 trillion GDP). Russian(2.1 trillion) is not in the top 10. If we live in a Major Power world why would the EU(and UK) not assert their regional bloc? Russia would lose eastern territories to China and western territories to the EU. So no the New York Times editorial board scenario is not backed up by the facts on the ground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Europeans are not sharing intelligence any more. This should be very scary.

Wow. What great allies. Ask them to contribute more and they take their ball and go home.

The agreement was Europe would help fight US wars if the US guaranteed the defense of Europe. So the Europeans built forces to accomplish that mission and fought US wars for the past 20 years. Lots of support stuff like medical, forward bases, intelligence and logistics. Now the US is saying you Europe are on your own. The US will ally ourselves with your greatness enemy Russia. This is what Vance said and what Trump has done.

Now Europe has to build out forces for a new mission to protect themselves from Russia. This means a 10 year build up and no help from the US. They need satellites, tanks, electronic warfare, drones, aircraft, weapons system, missiles, etc. and can not rely on the US. This will increase the demand for rare earth elements and chip components. The US has told them to go f yourself.

They will develop and sell their own systems to deferred costs to other western nations- Japan, Taiwan, Saudi, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, etc. This will undercut the US arms market. Would you buy from Boeing or Airbus? Remember all these will not be 20-40 year old out of date systems. This is what Trump and you all have done. Hope it makes sense now!

Remember the EU buys 2/3 of its defense equipment from the US. That will be gone. Anyone in Asia or the pacific would be crazy to rely on the US going forward. So that is gone. Good luck containing China..lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because Ukraine is about more than Ukraine. It’s about a larger strategy/outcome. You would think that should include the EU, but Trump doesn’t currently see them as his equal. However, France is trying to coordinate an EU perspective. Trump, Putin, and Xi want to carve up the world into power blocs. So, if Trump acquiesces to Russia on Ukraine, what will Russia help the US get? Maybe Greenland.

This is the answer.

But why cut Russia in on that? Russia is not a world power. Why would Russia have any say over Greenland? The closest Russian territory to Greenland is farther away than New York is from Los Angeles.

Greenland will be covered in ice for 500 years. The arctic will not be ice free year round for 75-100 years. You would need 50 nuclear powered icebreakers to maintain an open channel during winter. No one has that.

Just because Trump mumbles something about Greenland does not mean it actually makes sense. Just like surrendering to the Russian in Ukraine.

It doesn’t matter if it’s Greenland or Canada or something else. What these guys are agreeing to is the notion that large powers have the “right” to take neighbors. They may do so for national security, natural resources, or whatever. But, each major power gets a regional bloc to themselves that the others agree to not contest. Russia will get back the Soviet Union states. USA takes Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, etc. if you don’t believe me, there’s a new NYT editorial discussion about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because Ukraine is about more than Ukraine. It’s about a larger strategy/outcome. You would think that should include the EU, but Trump doesn’t currently see them as his equal. However, France is trying to coordinate an EU perspective. Trump, Putin, and Xi want to carve up the world into power blocs. So, if Trump acquiesces to Russia on Ukraine, what will Russia help the US get? Maybe Greenland.

This is the answer.

But why cut Russia in on that? Russia is not a world power. Why would Russia have any say over Greenland? The closest Russian territory to Greenland is farther away than New York is from Los Angeles.

Greenland will be covered in ice for 500 years. The arctic will not be ice free year round for 75-100 years. You would need 50 nuclear powered icebreakers to maintain an open channel during winter. No one has that.

Just because Trump mumbles something about Greenland does not mean it actually makes sense. Just like surrendering to the Russian in Ukraine.

What happened to the the thread about Putin's victory parade?