Ukraine

[french frank]

And while we're on the subject of Canada: Mark Carney to succeed Justin Trudeau - since it's the economy, stupid?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7eyz3yn5do

[Dave2002]

A byproduct of the chaos - reported here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-canada-trump-tarriffs-b2710351.html

[french frank]

While we're on the subject ... an article in the FT in Dec 2016 - on the Wayback Machine so available to read in full. And by the way, the forum is getting regular failed registrations from Moscow in recent months :

https://web.archive.org/web/20180223191023/https://ig.ft.com/sites/trumps-russian-connections/

[kernelbogey]

A piece in the Observer by Simon Tisdall contained a link to this piece in The Hill: Was 40-year old Trump recruited by the KGB?

I've known of stories of Russian 'Kompromaat' on Trump for some time, but this piece takes it to another level.

[Dave2002]

“I am not signing something that 10 generations of Ukrainians will have to repay,” Mr Zelensky had said.'[/URL]

It did sound a bit like: 'Pay up or Putin wins'; so it's as well that Trump backed down on that demand ... :-/

A point was made I think on last night's Americast that the US did make significant contributions during WWI and WWII to wars which started in Europe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p07h19zz

We can argue about how much of a contribution the US made, and whether it was timely - as others have done - but the US did make very major contributions and we should be thankful that it did.

In WWII until Pearl Harbor the US had not been attacked, so was only indirectly involved in the war up to that time. In WWI the US stayed out - taking a neutral stance until 1917.

Without supporting Trump's position directly, there is a point that European countries and the UK should contribute more to their own defence, and not rely on NATO to drag the US into yet another war.

Would the European NATO countries be able to assist the USA if that country were attacked? Possibly, but it might be very difficult.

[kernelbogey]

....It did sound a bit like: 'Pay up or Putin wins'; so it's as well that Trump backed down on that demand ... :-/

Instead he's given his mate Putin what we used to call 'a bunk up' by switching off access to the surveillance....

[french frank]

Trump says Russia is easier to deal with than Ukraine because Putin really does want an end to the war. Of course he wants it to end - with a win for Russia. If the victim of the aggression wants the leader of the free world to help, they must pay for it with valuable mineral and other resources.

'The US reportedly dropped Donald Trump’s initial demand for $500 billion in potential revenue from Ukrainian resources, a condition which was rejected out of hand by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

“I am not signing something that 10 generations of Ukrainians will have to repay,” Mr Zelensky had said.'

It did sound a bit like: 'Pay up or Putin wins'; so it's as well that Trump backed down on that demand ... :-/

[Dave2002]

... but circumstances alter cases - and, sadly, principles.

An interesting comment - which doesn't only apply to the immediate situations.

Bring on the Moral Maze and Trolley problems.

[eighthobstruction]

....I would say it will last exactly as long until the boards and share holders of Lockheed Martin/ Halliburton/ nortrop Grummam/ Heritage/ Boeing/ Sig Sauer/ Smith & Wesson find that their stocks have gone down...

[french frank]

If the US is no longer seen as a reliable partner, it would be reasonable to expect that European countries (and others) will want to reduce their dependence on supplies of weapons and equipment that might be cut off at short notice at the whim of the current incumbent, or a like-minded successor.

A current topic of discussion among the Europeans, of course. The Economist has an article about how Trump's policies will backfire on the American economy.

Perhaps Trump will be single-handedly responsible for the biggest boost in the European arms industry in 80 years

Not something in a vacuum to rejoice over, but circumstances alter cases - and, sadly, principles.

[Retune]

I don't know enough about Sachs to have a view - never seen anything about or by him before.

This might be salient though ""Europe should have its own foreign policy and its own military security, its own. I would disband NATO and may be Trump will do it anyway," said American economist and Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs on February 19, 2025. "May be Trump will invade Greenland and then we will know what NATO is," he added. "Trump is an arms salesman. He is selling American technology. The increase in spending is for United States and not for you," he said."

Taken from the comment under the YT video linked to in msg 2079.

I wonder what Trump's policies will do to US arms exports in the long term? If the US is no longer seen as a reliable partner, it would be reasonable to expect that European countries (and others) will want to reduce their dependence on supplies of weapons and equipment that might be cut off at short notice at the whim of the current incumbent, or a like-minded successor. Perhaps Trump will be single-handedly responsible for the biggest boost in the European arms industry in 80 years, and US companies will eventually find themselves fighting for a reduced share of a tougher global market. But then I don't suppose Trump gives much thought to the long term consequences of anything.

[Dave2002]

Sachs seems to be the go-to apologist for dictators worldwide, with plenty of opinions useful to Putin, Xi and (until recently) Assad. He's basically just an elevated conspiracy theorist at this point. When the editor of The Lancet unwisely put Sachs in charge of their 'COVID-19 Commission', the whole thing descended into farce after he latched on to the wildest fringes of the 'lab leak hypothesis'. The virus, according to Sachs's biologically ludicrous pet theory, was engineered using a genetic sequence designed to mimic a segment of a human gene at the instigation of researchers in North Carolina, so the whole pandemic was really the fault of the US.

I don't know enough about Sachs to have a view - never seen anything about or by him before.

This might be salient though ""Europe should have its own foreign policy and its own military security, its own. I would disband NATO and may be Trump will do it anyway," said American economist and Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs on February 19, 2025. "May be Trump will invade Greenland and then we will know what NATO is," he added. "Trump is an arms salesman. He is selling American technology. The increase in spending is for United States and not for you," he said."

Taken from the comment under the YT video linked to in msg 2079.

[eighthobstruction]

....Yes you are right ....sorry I haven't time to engage)....Sach's certainly has a high opinion of himself. Putin did not need to target Hospitals/Civilans/ Schools, Shelter/the Old.

[Retune]

....anyone been listening to/watching Jeffery Sachs views on cause (USA caused it, "it was started as a proxy war") But the war will be over soon and Russia will not invade Europe - Stop Russiaphobia , the expansion of EU led to a deadly expansion of NATO (NATO not needed), but EU should have it's own separate security structure and foreign policy (introduction about 10 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXGYZsA-cCA

Sachs seems to be the go-to apologist for dictators worldwide, with plenty of opinions useful to Putin, Xi and (until recently) Assad. He's basically just an elevated conspiracy theorist at this point. When the editor of The Lancet unwisely put Sachs in charge of their 'COVID-19 Commission', the whole thing descended into farce after he latched on to the wildest fringes of the 'lab leak hypothesis'. The virus, according to Sachs's biologically ludicrous pet theory, was engineered using a genetic sequence designed to mimic a segment of a human gene at the instigation of researchers in North Carolina, so the whole pandemic was really the fault of the US.

[Frances_iom]

... all of that is true. But if Russia 'wins' - viz claims all the Ukrainian territory it can - I do not think a subjugated Ukrainian population will passively submit. I can see an endless resistance movement, sabotaging what it can, to be termed a 'terrorist insurrection' by those of a Russian view. It's all going to be horrible, and I anticipate will go on for the rest of my life.

remember Stalin removed the Tatar population from Crimea - there's plenty of land in Siberia to accommodate unwanted Ukranians