Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Valmy]

Nuclear proliferation is a realistic measure that would give Ukraine significant deterrence. European powers have the means to do that. More realistic than large ground forces.

You guys cannot get a million troops with all the supporting drones and other gadgets among yourselves?

And yes you guys should build a nuclear arsenal. Only that will keep Europe secure from Russia and its friends.

[HVC]

Nuclear proliferation is a realistic measure that would give Ukraine significant deterrence. European powers have the means to do that. More realistic than large ground forces.

You guys cannot get a million troops with all the supporting drones and other gadgets among yourselves?

And yes you guys should build a nuclear arsenal. Only that will keep Europe secure from Russia and its friends.

A navy would probably be required to keep American at bay

[Sheilbh]

If Russia allows European troops to be stationed in Ukraine then that is a pretty big win for Ukraine. That is as good as joining NATO.

It's really not - that's why Ukraine has always insisted on NATO (as Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic did in the 90s - broadly over French and German scepticism). There has never been a European solution to the security question.

It's also why European leaders have preferred to talk about their support for Ukraine joining NATO because it's a very helpful way of avoiding a conversation about what other types of security guarantees.

You guys cannot get a million troops with all the supporting drones and other gadgets among yourselves?

Peace dividends everywhere. It is extraordinary - even in 1989 (when the UK could deploy up to four divisions to West Germany) the British Army of the Rhine was 25,000. The British Army now is 75,000. West Germany was a significant military contributor to NATO in the Cold War. Europe was a significant contributor to the Atlantic Alliance during the Cold War (even if not as significant as American Presidents would like) - but losing capabilities is a lot easier than building them up again. Part of why I've been saying Europe can do this but it needs to do it - and really it needed to start building up that industry three years ago.

The idea of Europe as a peace continent (despite one civil war, two genocides ended with American support and Russia taking Crimea - and that's ignoring the wider neighbourhood) was really entrenched.

[Valmy]

Peace dividends everywhere. It is extraordinary - even in 1989 (when the UK could deploy up to four divisions to West Germany) the British Army of the Rhine was 25,000. The British Army now is 75,000. West Germany was a significant military contributor to NATO in the Cold War. Europe was a significant contributor to the Atlantic Alliance during the Cold War (even if not as significant as American Presidents would like) - but losing capabilities is a lot easier than building them up again. Part of why I've been saying Europe can do this but it needs to do it - and really it needed to start building up that industry three years ago.

Obviously the best time to start building up a defense industry is three years ago. But the second best time is right now.

[Valmy]

A navy would probably be required to keep American at bay

Right after the Aztecs hit the beach in their sunset invasion.

But I guess anything is possible these days.

[mongers]

Pivotal to the Russian/Trump strategy on Ukraine is what damage they can do to Germany in the forthcoming elections, if the AfD groundswell aided by the recent 'migrant terrorist attacks' can be boasted by Russian disinformation and a push from Musk's propaganda machine, then Poland and the Baltics will become more isolated when facing up to a Russian move on their territory/sovereignty.

Really good to hear German Green party and it's MEPs pushing for increased defence spending to 3% and above, by exempting it from German's budget limiting legislation.

[Syt]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/17/revealed-trump-confidential-plan-ukraine-stranglehold/

Revealed: Trump's confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold
Panic in Kyiv as US president demands higher share of GDP than Germany's First World War reparations

Donald Trump's demand for a $500bn (£400bn) "payback" from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country's critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country.

The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky's office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv.

The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked "Privileged & Confidential' and dated Feb 7 2025. It states that the US and Ukraine should form a joint investment fund to ensure that "hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine".

The agreement covers the "economic value associated with resources of Ukraine", including "mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)", leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. "This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles," it states.

The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of "all new licences issued to third parties" for the future monetisation of resources. There will be "a lien on such revenues" in favour of the US. "That clause means 'pay us first, and then feed your children'," said one source close to the negotiations.

It states that "for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals". Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine's commodity and resource economy. The fund "shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions" of all future licences and projects. And so forth, in this vein. It seems to have been written by private lawyers, not the US departments of state or commerce.

President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine's rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries.

He calculated that it would lead to US companies setting operations on the ground, creating a political tripwire that would deter Vladimir Putin from attacking again.

Some mineral basins are near the front line in eastern Ukraine, or in Russian-occupied areas. He has played up the dangers of letting strategic reserves of titanium, tungsten, uranium, graphite and rare earths fall into Russian hands. "If we are talking about a deal, then let's do a deal, we are only for it," he said.

He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945. Both countries were ultimately net recipients of funds from the victorious allies.

A new Versailles
If this draft were accepted, Trump's demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely.

Donald Trump told Fox News that Ukraine had "essentially agreed" to hand over $500bn. "They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earths, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things," he said.

He warned that Ukraine would be handed to Putin on a plate if it rejected the terms. "They may make a deal. They may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday. But I want this money back," he said.

Trump said the US had spent $300bn on the war so far, adding that it would be "stupid" to hand over any more. In fact the five packages agreed by Congress total $175bn, of which $70bn was spent in the US on weapons production. Some of it is in the form of humanitarian grants, but much of it is lend-lease money that must be repaid.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suggested at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend that Trump's demand was a clever ploy to bolster declining popular support for the Ukrainian cause. "He can go to the American people and say, 'Ukraine is not a burden, it is a benefit,'" he said.

Sen Graham told the Europeans to root hard for the idea because it locks Washington into defending a future settlement. "If we sign this minerals agreement, Putin is screwed, because Trump will defend the deal," he said.

Ukrainian officials had to tiptoe though this minefield at the Munich forum, trying to smile gamely and talking up hopes of a resource deal while at the same pleading that the current text breaches Ukrainian law and needs redrafting. Well, indeed.

Talk of Ukraine's resource wealth has become surreal. A figure of $26 trillion is being cast around for combined mineral reserves and hydrocarbons reserves. The sums are make-believe.

Ukraine probably has the largest lithium basin in Europe. But lithium prices have crashed by 88pc since the bubble burst in 2022. Large reserves are being discovered all over the world. The McDermitt Caldera in Nevada is thought to be the biggest lithium deposit on the planet with 40m metric tonnes, alone enough to catapult the US ahead of China.

The Thacker Pass project will be operational by next year. The value of lithium is in the processing and the downstream industries. Unprocessed rock deposits sitting in Ukraine are all but useless to the US.

It is a similar story for rare earths. They are not rare. Mining companies in the US abandoned the business in the 1990s because profit margins were then too low. The US government was asleep at the wheel and let this happen, waking up to discover that China has acquired a strategic stranglehold over supplies of critical elements needed for hi-tech and advanced weapons. That problem is being resolved.

Ukraine has cobalt but most EV batteries now use lithium ferrous phosphate and no longer need cobalt. Furthermore, sodium-ion and sulphur-based batteries will limit the future demand growth for lithium. So will recycling. One could go on. The mineral scarcity story is wildly exaggerated.

As for Ukraine's shale gas, a) some of the Yuzivska field lies under Putin control, and b) the western Carpathian reserves are in complex geology with high drilling costs, causing Chevron to pull out, just as it did in Poland. Ukraine has more potential as an exporter of electricity to Europe from renewables and nuclear expansion, but that is not what is on Donald Trump's mind.

The second violation of Ukraine
Ukraine cannot possibly meet his $500bn demand in any meaningful timeframe, leaving aside the larger matter of whether it is honourable to treat a victim nation in this fashion after it has held the battle line for the liberal democracies at enormous sacrifice for three years. Who really has a debt to whom, may one ask?

"My style of dealmaking is quite simple and straightforward," says Trump in his book The Art of the Deal. "I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after."

In genuine commerce the other side can usually walk away. Trump's demand is iron-fist coercion by a neo-imperial power against a weaker nation with its back to the wall, and all for a commodity bonanza that exists chiefly in Trump's head.

"Often-times the best deal you make is the deal you don't make," said Trump, offering another of his pearls.

Zelensky does not have that luxury. He has to pick between the military violation of Ukraine by Putin, and the economic violation of Ukraine by his own ally.

[Syt]

[Tamas]

So the real Munich Conference begins today.

What is baffling, or rather will be baffling if they do sell Ukraine out, is that there's no need for it. Ukraine is bleeding Russia dry using mostly throw-away US equipment. Only reason to do this is to exact personal revenge on Ukraine for not helping destroy Biden politically, and to get personal perks from Russia.

It is, in fact, incredibly offensive from me to liken these traitorous fucks to Chamberlain who was an unmeasurably giant stateman compared to Co-Presidents Musk and Trump.

[Josquius]

Yeah, Chamberlain gets way too bad of a rep.
Even if you take the absolute worst view of him, where he genuinely did believe he had secured peace forever (which many disagree with) he nonetheless didn't see this as a certainty and set about massive rearmament anyway.
It wasn't "Oh if I sell out the Czechs then I can get some personal kickbacks and be able to totally slash the government budget at home!"

[Solmyr]

Nuclear proliferation is a realistic measure that would give Ukraine significant deterrence. European powers have the means to do that. More realistic than large ground forces.

Yep, Nukes for Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and the three Baltic republics. 

No Finland? 

[dist]

I still cannot believe that theses supposed peace negotiations are being held without Ukraine at the table.

I don't know who Trump & co think they are fooling. This is just a sell out of Washington's support to force Ukraine into a bad deal/peace.

The article posted by Syt is mind boggling.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Molotov-ribbentrop is the better comparison. Chamberlain,  for al his faults, was a democrat and did declare on the nazis.

The Russians are still the Russians, and the current us gov wouldn't recognize democracy even if it had its boot so far up their asses that they could taste the sole.

[celedhring]

So the real Munich Conference begins today.

What is baffling, or rather will be baffling if they do sell Ukraine out, is that there's no need for it. Ukraine is bleeding Russia dry using mostly throw-away US equipment. Only reason to do this is to exact personal revenge on Ukraine for not helping destroy Biden politically, and to get personal perks from Russia.

It is, in fact, incredibly offensive from me to liken these traitorous fucks to Chamberlain who was an unmeasurably giant stateman compared to Co-Presidents Musk and Trump.

Yeah, Chamberlain might have been naivé, but he was well-intentioned. These two are morally bankrupt.

[Syt]

Yeah, Chamberlain might have been naivé, but he was well-intentioned. These two are morally bankrupt.

Plus, the memory of a devastating European war was still fresh in memory, so it's understandable that there was a desire to avoid a second conflagration.