Why would Russia's powerful and rich friends and allies be prepared to stand back and watch Russia be humiliated? Not gonna happen like that.
Who specifically have you got in mind as Russia's 'powerful and rich friends and allies'?
Moreover, whilst I do not necessarily disagree with your assessment, that does not in anyway change my analysis of the current strategic situation.
Trump is potentially handing Russia everything they want at this point that they have not been able to achieve themselves. At least that seems to be what he is trying to do. My perception is that he is foolish enough not to understand how he's being played by Putin here.
Can I raise a question about biases? Because the Institute for the Study of War is generally fairly (some might say 'ultra') hawkish, and is funded primarily by the arms industry and PMCs. The author is someone who was interning in 2022 so hasn't got much track record by which we can judge potential accuracy, but the ISW has rarely pushed a report that called for less immediate use of force.
Currently the USA has provided about 46% of military support that Ukraine has received and Europe collectively the other 54%. What happens if this aid stops is an important question but Russia cannot sustain the current level of operations beyond this year.
How realistic is it for Europe to continue to provide 54% of aid given that much of the aid so far has come via shipping existing stockpiles (or in some cases equipment of currently active units) directly to Ukraine ?
Okay, but the report basically says the Russian military is broken for offensive purposes at the end of the year, which does raise questions about the tactics being proposed to re-arm Europe.
Can I raise a question about biases? Because the Institute for the Study of War is generally fairly (some might say 'ultra') hawkish, and is funded primarily by the arms industry and PMCs. The author is someone who was interning in 2022 so hasn't got much track record by which we can judge potential accuracy, but the ISW has rarely pushed a report that called for less immediate use of force.
Currently the USA has provided about 46% of military support that Ukraine has received and Europe collectively the other 54%. What happens if this aid stops is an important question but Russia cannot sustain the current level of operations beyond this year.
How realistic is it for Europe to continue to provide 54% of aid given that much of the aid so far has come via shipping existing stockpiles (or in some cases equipment of currently active units) directly to Ukraine ?
Okay, but the report basically says the Russian military is broken for offensive purposes at the end of the year, which does raise questions about the tactics being proposed to re-arm Europe.
On your last bit, not really. Europe is getting ready for ‘peace’ as brokered by Trump.
During that ‘peace’ what is Russia going to be doing re their military being ‘broken’?
Can I raise a question about biases? Because the Institute for the Study of War is generally fairly (some might say 'ultra') hawkish, and is funded primarily by the arms industry and PMCs. The author is someone who was interning in 2022 so hasn't got much track record by which we can judge potential accuracy, but the ISW has rarely pushed a report that called for less immediate use of force.
Currently the USA has provided about 46% of military support that Ukraine has received and Europe collectively the other 54%. What happens if this aid stops is an important question but Russia cannot sustain the current level of operations beyond this year.
How realistic is it for Europe to continue to provide 54% of aid given that much of the aid so far has come via shipping existing stockpiles (or in some cases equipment of currently active units) directly to Ukraine ?
Okay, but the report basically says the Russian military is broken for offensive purposes at the end of the year, which does raise questions about the tactics being proposed to re-arm Europe.
On your last bit, not really. Europe is getting ready for ‘peace’ as brokered by Trump.
During that ‘peace’ what is Russia going to be doing re their military being ‘broken’?
They'd re-arm of course, but it's not like they'd be the immediate position to re-invade - there's space - albeit a limited amount - to make proper plans not just the current one of robbing Peter to pay Paul (Peter in the case of the UK being Ukranian refugees currently in the country).
Can I raise a question about biases? Because the Institute for the Study of War is generally fairly (some might say 'ultra') hawkish, and is funded primarily by the arms industry and PMCs. The author is someone who was interning in 2022 so hasn't got much track record by which we can judge potential accuracy, but the ISW has rarely pushed a report that called for less immediate use of force.
It's a fair question. It usually is.
Unavoidably, expertise on military situations usually involves people with experience in the military-industrial complex. Hence a hawkish bias exists.
However, I don't read the report as calling for anything. I read it as analysing the situation and describing where we are. I would not consider the report the work of a single author but of the institution which has a lot of expertise.
YMMV of course.
I am not convinced that Trump's 'deal' is going anywhere fast. Ultimately a ceasefire can only occur if and when Russisa AND Ukraine both stop firing. In the short term, Trump cannot force Ukraine to stop fighting. Quite apart from any moral arguments, Ukraine has sufficient ammunition for a few months yet. Especially if non-USA countries up their support.
The removal of US support is unconscionable and stupid but Ukraine aren't stopping yet.
From snippets I picked up on BBC Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze', Trump's supporters are claiming that the Western Europeans are in danger of kicking off WW3 and a nuclear holocaust if they send troops to help Ukraine.
Consequently, Trump is trying to avert that and is the real peace-maker here.
That's how they are spinning it.
I don't think either the Ukraine or Russia are finished yet, although Trump's handing Putin a victory of sorts on a plate.
We'll either see a war of attrition continuing for some time yet or else a pause whilst Moscow takes stock and builds back its capacity for Round Two.
What happens if this aid stops is an important question but Russia cannot sustain the current level of operations beyond this year.
This is true to a point; as the report states:
"Russia likely cannot sustain continued efforts along these lines indefinitely without a major mobilization effort that Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far refused to order. "
Trump has just shown that he, and probably no one in his administration, is fit to mediate peace in Ukraine. It's time for the world to simply ignore him, and for someone else to step forward to try to get Putin at the negotiating table with Zelensky, to help them reach a deal that is at least half way acceptable to all.
I guess Putin will not (at this stage at least) negotiate with anyone other than Trump. That’s working too well for him. And I agree with you about how long it would take for Europe to develop an effective defence support for Ukraine without US help.
Doesn’t that mean that in the short term, the European leaders are not wrong to try and keep Trump on board?They are probably giving Zelenskyy some diplomatic advice on how to get the best out of Trump, given current realities. Trump is, of course, an absolute shit, and unpredictable to boot.
So this is neither easy nor certain of outcome, even with the optimum negotiating strategy.
Probably the biggest barrier to peace in Ukraine isn't Trump anyway, he's rather irrelevant (and, probably hates being considered irrelevant).
The biggest barrier is whether Putin wants peace. Which isn't a given. What Putin really wants is victory, a negotiated peace that gives him a big enough slice of Ukraine to claim victory is second best - especially if that doesn't preclude a third land grab. At present, with ongoing US and European support, Ukraine is denying him victory. Putin would be very happy to see that support falter, and make his victory easier. The danger to peace is a reduction in support for Ukraine, it seems to me that if Putin sees that as a chance to push for victory he's probably less likely to want a ceasefire and instead keep the fighting going and push further into Ukraine.
I just read that of Ukraine's massive resources of lithium, graphite etc etc 50% are in the areas Russia has already annexed or occupying. So it would suit Putin very well to exploit what they've got and keep pushing pushing back the Ukrainians at a slow pace until they've got the rest.
Putin believes Ukraine rightfully and historically belongs to Russia. He doesn't want peace except through conquest. Trump is his admirer and stooge. Talk of 'peace' is just a figleaf for the benefit of various 'useful idiots' and the befuddling of the unwary.
Trump has "paused" all military aid to Ukraine. The fucker is engaging in a global scale protection racket but is too cheap to even offer actual protection.
Vance re-iterates that the mineral deal is the only one going (which means an indirect guarantee at best) and takes the opportunity to insult France and the UK.
Trump has "paused" all military aid to Ukraine. The fucker is engaging in a global scale protection racket but is too cheap to even offer actual protection.
For those with short memories, withholding Congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine in an effort to extort compliance from Zelenskyy is pretty much exactly what caused Trump's first impeachment. My guess is that a much more supine and Republican-controlled Congress won't be as aggressive this time around.
With the aid being paused, Zelenskyy will have to choose between asking Trump to help him with a ceasefire deal or persuading the rest of the world to make up the difference.
With the aid being paused, Zelenskyy will have to choose between asking Trump to help him with a ceasefire deal or persuading the rest of the world to make up the difference.
Will he? We've kind of had a dry run for this situation already. Due to Biden administration dithering about types of weapons and whether they could be used for attacks inside Russia there was virtually no transfer of U.S. arms to Ukraine in the first half of 2024. You can make the case that this will eventually cause problems for the Ukrainian military, but the effect won't be sudden.
With the aid being paused, Zelenskyy will have to choose between asking Trump to help him with a ceasefire deal or persuading the rest of the world to make up the difference.
Will he? We've kind of had a dry run for this situation already. Due to Biden administration dithering about types of weapons and whether they could be used for attacks inside Russia there was virtually no transfer of U.S. arms to Ukraine in the first half of 2024. You can make the case that this will eventually cause problems for the Ukrainian military, but the effect won't be sudden.
Let's hope not. I have always wished the Ukrainians well.
The war needs to stop but for Puttin to call a halt, I think he needs some sort of win so not to lose face
I'm not sure many Ukrainians would consider blaming Ukraine's supposed intransigence towards Russia's obviously bad faith negotiations or hoping for a Putin "win" falls within the realm of "wish[ing] the Ukrainians well".
The most logical way for peace, without Putin losing too much face would be a UN controlled referendum in the Donbass, with both sides promising to abide by the result. I'm not suggesting it would be easy to achieve
Apparently the one you've wished well most consistently is Vladimir Putin's face.
Yup, it's illegal and unconstitutional, according to Heather Cox Richardson, but Republicans in Congress don't care.
Or are too scared to care? Just as they were in the first impeachment. Separation of powers only works if those who have the power actually use it.
Currently, Trump is, to all intents and purposes, uncorrectable in the House, the Senate and (very probably) the SCOTUS. Unswerving or self-interested loyalty is neutering the Constitutional controls.
With the aid being paused, Zelenskyy will have to choose between asking Trump to help him with a ceasefire deal or persuading the rest of the world to make up the difference.
Will he? We've kind of had a dry run for this situation already. Due to Biden administration dithering about types of weapons and whether they could be used for attacks inside Russia there was virtually no transfer of U.S. arms to Ukraine in the first half of 2024. You can make the case that this will eventually cause problems for the Ukrainian military, but the effect won't be sudden.
Let's hope not. I have always wished the Ukrainians well.
With the aid being paused, Zelenskyy will have to choose between asking Trump to help him with a ceasefire deal or persuading the rest of the world to make up the difference.
Will he? We've kind of had a dry run for this situation already. Due to Biden administration dithering about types of weapons and whether they could be used for attacks inside Russia there was virtually no transfer of U.S. arms to Ukraine in the first half of 2024. You can make the case that this will eventually cause problems for the Ukrainian military, but the effect won't be sudden.
Let's hope not. I have always wished the Ukrainians well.
In the James 2:16 manner, one suspects.
Peace is a good outcome and well worth trying to achieve
Yes, but peace is only going to be the outcome of a small sample of potential futures. And, any of those futures where Putin wins isn't one of the options which is peace - except in the very narrow sense of two military forces shooting at each other. At present the strongest advocates for real peace are still fighting to defend their freedom, they know that peace with Russia needs what Putin would recognise as strength. Cutting support for Ukraine risks WWIII, as does appeasing Putin. If we forget 1938 we're doomed to repeat it. Giving a few billion more in aid to Ukraine, tightening sanctions against Russia and making it clear that we're willing to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to defend Ukraine if Russia doesn't deal fairly is cheap compared to the alternative of fighting Russian forces in Poland and bringing all of NATO into the fight.
Trying to achieve peace takes hard work, and Trump isn't the sort of person who seems to be a hard worker - he seems to be much more likely to take the easy route, even when that means cheating, lying and not living up to commitments. That certainly seems to be how he's behaved in his business dealings - when he needs a bank loan he just inflates the value of his assets, when he needs something done he gets someone in but then doesn't pay them. What Ukraine needs is someone who is willing put in the hard work over the next few years to mediate a real peace deal, someone who doesn't throw a hissy fit when he gets told it's not going to happen in a couple of days or spends more time playing golf than working.
Not only has Trump pulsed the bullets and missiles, but he now has also discontinued the sharing of intelligence which is necessary used for defense and for targeting basically leaving the Ukrainians blind. The EU may make up some of the material support, but there are no alternatives for intelligence support that I am aware of. Does the EU have anything available?
I assume a lot of the intelligence involves satellite surveillance that I don't think many other countries can match. It's also inevitable that there will be human intelligence sources that are handled by the CIA who are now effectively muzzled (or worse - we have to consider the possibility that by accident or design Trump and/or Musk have exposed assets within Russia).
Like most Western military resources, intelligence has developed with the expectation of sharing between allies since the 1950s. That is more cost effective, so if the US puts up large numbers of spy satellites the UK and France etc don't need to replicate that. It's also more effective not having lots of human assets who are probably ignorant of who else is operating in a particular area tripping over each other.
Given the nature of intelligence gathering, we'll probably never know exactly how things work. But, reports last night suggested that a lot of the raw data is collected by a range of national agencies (it's been said that the UK has a lot of human assets within Russia and radio interception at CGHQ, for example) with the US intelligence services also acting to collate that data, along with their own considerable amount of data gathering, and passing the information on to Ukrainian intelligence services. It will take time to replace the role of data collation, but a lot of the intelligence gathered by the US services will be irreplaceable on any reasonable timescale.
There would already be concerns over the safety of human assets given the events of the last Trump term. Leaks of intelligence that has been gathered put those people in greater risk of exposure. In 2016-20 the failures of securing secret information put US operatives at risk, if poorly secured information includes intelligence from other nations then that increases the risk of exposure for people working for those agencies as well.
With Trump in charge do we think we will see the end of the five eyes intelligence agreement (the bit of the special relationship that is in fact special).
There is a lot of nonsense talked about the so-called 'special relationship' between the UK and the US. Mostly it is a tool of flattery used by the US to tickle the tummy of the UK. Wise observers in the UK know this. However it is not a total myth.
The UK and US intelligent services are incredibly interconnected. MI5 was hugely important in the setting up of the CIA and similarly GCHQ was instrumental in the set up of the NSA. It has always been a two-way street with cooperation at every level.
How the UK handles things now with Trump's insane decision is up for debate but I can't see the UK withdrawing intelligent support. However, how much is possible when anything that comes from the US has been blocked, I do not know. I can imagine the UK government ignoring the US and carrying on as normal. Similarly I can imagine the UK not sharing information that 'belongs' to the US. I don't know how this will work and I do not expect the Prime Minister to make any public statement about it.
The cutting off of access to satellite based intelligence is a big and unconscionable blow to Ukraine.
It will be challenging for other Western agencies to work out how to navigate this.
I think it would be too much to expect any UK PM of whatever political party to exert that much influence on US policy - Trump or no Trump.
Pearl Harbor brought the US into WW2 - and Germany and Italy declared war on the US not the other way around.
That said, the US had been supporting the UK war effort before it joined the hostilities.
That doesn't mean that the UK or any other European country doesn't have a role to play.
But it would be unrealistic to expect Trump to do a U-turn on Starmer's say so. By all accounts, though, he does listen to arguments if they are presented in the right kind of way. That is in the kind of sales negotiation way he understands.
You've got to use reverse psychology with Trump. Make him think that everything is his idea.
Thing is, though, this current US administration is so mercurial and unpredictable. Witness the tariffs thing. He's quickly rowed back on that one. For now.
It appears that after Trump stopped intelligence sharing Russia hit Ukraine again. As has been mentioned it is not wise to trust Putin. He may claim peace but still send the bombs.
Yes. He figures that the more civilian targets are hit the more Zelenskyy will want to come to the negotiating table and do a deal.
'Look what happens when we withdraw intelligence support. Not such a tough guy now, eh?'
There are those who say that Zelenskyy should have negotiated deal with Russia a few weeks into the war and that it was only Boris Johnson and other Western leaders who persuaded him to fight on with offers of support.
Churchill stood his ground in 1940 in the expectation that the 'New World' with all its power and resources would 'come to the aid of the old'.
Whatever the case, Trump has backed everyone except Putin into an awkward position. Presumably he still shares intelligence with the UK. Should the UK then share that with Ukraine?
What a moral dilemma to put an ally in! If we don't share intelligence with Ukraine then we put lives at risk. If we do, then we risk upsetting Trump.
I know which option I'd go for. The first. But it'd put Starmer in a very difficult position.
The US politician Kellogg said that stopping intelligence sharing with Ukraine was like hitting a mule on the nose with a piece of 2 by 4; it gets their attention!
Trump has the attention of Zelenskyy. The Oval Office meeting has assured that. Let’s be clear here. Trump is to blame for the recent Russian bombing of Ukraine. Not sharing intelligence has left the door open for Putin. Trump is willing to watch Ukrainian people die to get minerals. He sees goods as more important than lives. There are no words strong enough to describe him.
The US politician Kellogg said that stopping intelligence sharing with Ukraine was like hitting a mule on the nose with a piece of 2 by 4; it gets their attention!
But, it's also pointlessly cruel if the mule already has your attention.
Not that Zelenskyy is a mule, except possibly for the characteristic of being stubbornly resistant to anything that's not good for his people. It's clear to everyone (except, perhaps, Trump) that Zelenskyy doesn't want the war to continue, ideally he'd have preferred that the war didn't start in the first place but that was a decision he had no control over. But, it's also clear that any peace that's negotiated can't leave his people and nation in a worse position than continuing to fight against Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine is going to be unacceptable. Zelenskyy and the vast majority of the international community will not willingly let Putin gain from his aggression, though probably some level of gain for Russia may be reluctantly accepted as the least worse option.
Zelenskyy has been bullied by Trump into accepting a ceasefire. As a reward he gets the intelligence back and the USA support. The ball has been put into Putin's court.
Zelenskyy has been bullied by Trump into accepting a ceasefire. As a reward he gets the intelligence back and the USA support. The ball has been put into Putin's court.
This was an easy concession for Zelenskyy to make since the likelihood of Putin accepting a ceasefire is approximately zero. In this case the toothless Duma spells this out for us.
The Russian State Duma stated that Russia will not agree to a 30-day ceasefire, "since it will only allow Ukraine to regroup and rearm."
Deputy Viktor Sobolev emphasized that a temporary ceasefire is unacceptable and only plays into Ukraine's hands.
Zelenskyy has been bullied by Trump into accepting a ceasefire. As a reward he gets the intelligence back and the USA support. The ball has been put into Putin's court.
This was an easy concession for Zelenskyy to make since the likelihood of Putin accepting a ceasefire is approximately zero. In this case the toothless Duma spells this out for us.
The Russian State Duma stated that Russia will not agree to a 30-day ceasefire, "since it will only allow Ukraine to regroup and rearm."
Deputy Viktor Sobolev emphasized that a temporary ceasefire is unacceptable and only plays into Ukraine's hands.
Zelenskyy has been calling for a ceasefire for a long time, he has no desire to continue fighting if there's an alternative to protecting the people of Ukraine from Russian occupation. It's not being "bullied" to accept something you've been asking for for a long time. It looks more like being able to play Trump, let Trump have the chance to claim he's a great deal maker even though he's got nothing for all his bluster that wasn't always going to be given. Certainly no evidence of Zelenskyy doing anything other than standing up to a bully.
If he wants a ceasefire he has a funny way of showing it. I can't imagine the Russians entertaining the notion after yesterday's drone attack. They don't have to and I'm betting they won't. I guess we'll find out today or tomorrow.
There's a difference between a mutually agreed ceasefire and rolling over. Until Russia agrees to a ceasefire, and actually stops fighting, it would be a stupid person who decides to just stop fighting back. Zelenskyy is not a stupid person.
If he wants a ceasefire he has a funny way of showing it. I can't imagine the Russians entertaining the notion after yesterday's drone attack.
I'm sorry? How do you think Ukraine should show they want a ceasefire? You can't declare a ceasefire unilaterally and then ask the other side politely to follow suit.
Besides, there have been more Russian drone attacks recently than Ukrainian drone attacks; why do Ukraine drone attacks stop the other side from accepting a ceasefire if Russian drone attacks don't?
If he wants a ceasefire he has a funny way of showing it. I can't imagine the Russians entertaining the notion after yesterday's drone attack.
I'm sorry? How do you think Ukraine should show they want a ceasefire? You can't declare a ceasefire unilaterally and then ask the other side politely to follow suit.
Besides, there have been more Russian drone attacks recently than Ukrainian drone attacks; why do Ukraine drone attacks stop the other side from accepting a ceasefire if Russian drone attacks don't?
They don't on either side, which is why I don't think there will be one. Right now it's all words. Just because Zelensky agreed to one doesn't mean he actually wants it. He knows the Russian position. I'm pretty certain the Russians will stick by their emphatically and repeatedly stated position - no ceasefire. But we might be surprised. We shall see presently.
Comments
Who specifically have you got in mind as Russia's 'powerful and rich friends and allies'?
Moreover, whilst I do not necessarily disagree with your assessment, that does not in anyway change my analysis of the current strategic situation.
Trump is potentially handing Russia everything they want at this point that they have not been able to achieve themselves. At least that seems to be what he is trying to do. My perception is that he is foolish enough not to understand how he's being played by Putin here.
AFZ
Can I raise a question about biases? Because the Institute for the Study of War is generally fairly (some might say 'ultra') hawkish, and is funded primarily by the arms industry and PMCs. The author is someone who was interning in 2022 so hasn't got much track record by which we can judge potential accuracy, but the ISW has rarely pushed a report that called for less immediate use of force.
How realistic is it for Europe to continue to provide 54% of aid given that much of the aid so far has come via shipping existing stockpiles (or in some cases equipment of currently active units) directly to Ukraine ?
Okay, but the report basically says the Russian military is broken for offensive purposes at the end of the year, which does raise questions about the tactics being proposed to re-arm Europe.
On your last bit, not really. Europe is getting ready for ‘peace’ as brokered by Trump.
During that ‘peace’ what is Russia going to be doing re their military being ‘broken’?
They'd re-arm of course, but it's not like they'd be the immediate position to re-invade - there's space - albeit a limited amount - to make proper plans not just the current one of robbing Peter to pay Paul (Peter in the case of the UK being Ukranian refugees currently in the country).
It's a fair question. It usually is.
Unavoidably, expertise on military situations usually involves people with experience in the military-industrial complex. Hence a hawkish bias exists.
However, I don't read the report as calling for anything. I read it as analysing the situation and describing where we are. I would not consider the report the work of a single author but of the institution which has a lot of expertise.
YMMV of course.
I am not convinced that Trump's 'deal' is going anywhere fast. Ultimately a ceasefire can only occur if and when Russisa AND Ukraine both stop firing. In the short term, Trump cannot force Ukraine to stop fighting. Quite apart from any moral arguments, Ukraine has sufficient ammunition for a few months yet. Especially if non-USA countries up their support.
The removal of US support is unconscionable and stupid but Ukraine aren't stopping yet.
AFZ
Consequently, Trump is trying to avert that and is the real peace-maker here.
That's how they are spinning it.
I don't think either the Ukraine or Russia are finished yet, although Trump's handing Putin a victory of sorts on a plate.
We'll either see a war of attrition continuing for some time yet or else a pause whilst Moscow takes stock and builds back its capacity for Round Two.
It's fairly clearly calling for one more push, or if you prefer staying the current course for a bit longer?
This is true to a point; as the report states:
"Russia likely cannot sustain continued efforts along these lines indefinitely without a major mobilization effort that Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far refused to order. "
I guess Putin will not (at this stage at least) negotiate with anyone other than Trump. That’s working too well for him. And I agree with you about how long it would take for Europe to develop an effective defence support for Ukraine without US help.
Doesn’t that mean that in the short term, the European leaders are not wrong to try and keep Trump on board?They are probably giving Zelenskyy some diplomatic advice on how to get the best out of Trump, given current realities. Trump is, of course, an absolute shit, and unpredictable to boot.
So this is neither easy nor certain of outcome, even with the optimum negotiating strategy.
The biggest barrier is whether Putin wants peace. Which isn't a given. What Putin really wants is victory, a negotiated peace that gives him a big enough slice of Ukraine to claim victory is second best - especially if that doesn't preclude a third land grab. At present, with ongoing US and European support, Ukraine is denying him victory. Putin would be very happy to see that support falter, and make his victory easier. The danger to peace is a reduction in support for Ukraine, it seems to me that if Putin sees that as a chance to push for victory he's probably less likely to want a ceasefire and instead keep the fighting going and push further into Ukraine.
Vance re-iterates that the mineral deal is the only one going (which means an indirect guarantee at best) and takes the opportunity to insult France and the UK.
For those with short memories, withholding Congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine in an effort to extort compliance from Zelenskyy is pretty much exactly what caused Trump's first impeachment. My guess is that a much more supine and Republican-controlled Congress won't be as aggressive this time around.
Will he? We've kind of had a dry run for this situation already. Due to Biden administration dithering about types of weapons and whether they could be used for attacks inside Russia there was virtually no transfer of U.S. arms to Ukraine in the first half of 2024. You can make the case that this will eventually cause problems for the Ukrainian military, but the effect won't be sudden.
Always?
I'm not sure many Ukrainians would consider blaming Ukraine's supposed intransigence towards Russia's obviously bad faith negotiations or hoping for a Putin "win" falls within the realm of "wish[ing] the Ukrainians well".
Apparently the one you've wished well most consistently is Vladimir Putin's face.
Or are too scared to care? Just as they were in the first impeachment. Separation of powers only works if those who have the power actually use it.
Currently, Trump is, to all intents and purposes, uncorrectable in the House, the Senate and (very probably) the SCOTUS. Unswerving or self-interested loyalty is neutering the Constitutional controls.
A honeymoon period? Wouldn’t have thought so.
You are too fond to jump to conclusions that are not justified. My last reply to you in this thread.
In the James 2:16 manner, one suspects.
Trying to achieve peace takes hard work, and Trump isn't the sort of person who seems to be a hard worker - he seems to be much more likely to take the easy route, even when that means cheating, lying and not living up to commitments. That certainly seems to be how he's behaved in his business dealings - when he needs a bank loan he just inflates the value of his assets, when he needs something done he gets someone in but then doesn't pay them. What Ukraine needs is someone who is willing put in the hard work over the next few years to mediate a real peace deal, someone who doesn't throw a hissy fit when he gets told it's not going to happen in a couple of days or spends more time playing golf than working.
I assume a lot of the intelligence involves satellite surveillance that I don't think many other countries can match. It's also inevitable that there will be human intelligence sources that are handled by the CIA who are now effectively muzzled (or worse - we have to consider the possibility that by accident or design Trump and/or Musk have exposed assets within Russia).
Given the nature of intelligence gathering, we'll probably never know exactly how things work. But, reports last night suggested that a lot of the raw data is collected by a range of national agencies (it's been said that the UK has a lot of human assets within Russia and radio interception at CGHQ, for example) with the US intelligence services also acting to collate that data, along with their own considerable amount of data gathering, and passing the information on to Ukrainian intelligence services. It will take time to replace the role of data collation, but a lot of the intelligence gathered by the US services will be irreplaceable on any reasonable timescale.
There would already be concerns over the safety of human assets given the events of the last Trump term. Leaks of intelligence that has been gathered put those people in greater risk of exposure. In 2016-20 the failures of securing secret information put US operatives at risk, if poorly secured information includes intelligence from other nations then that increases the risk of exposure for people working for those agencies as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
There is a lot of nonsense talked about the so-called 'special relationship' between the UK and the US. Mostly it is a tool of flattery used by the US to tickle the tummy of the UK. Wise observers in the UK know this. However it is not a total myth.
The UK and US intelligent services are incredibly interconnected. MI5 was hugely important in the setting up of the CIA and similarly GCHQ was instrumental in the set up of the NSA. It has always been a two-way street with cooperation at every level.
How the UK handles things now with Trump's insane decision is up for debate but I can't see the UK withdrawing intelligent support. However, how much is possible when anything that comes from the US has been blocked, I do not know. I can imagine the UK government ignoring the US and carrying on as normal. Similarly I can imagine the UK not sharing information that 'belongs' to the US. I don't know how this will work and I do not expect the Prime Minister to make any public statement about it.
The cutting off of access to satellite based intelligence is a big and unconscionable blow to Ukraine.
It will be challenging for other Western agencies to work out how to navigate this.
AFZ
Pearl Harbor brought the US into WW2 - and Germany and Italy declared war on the US not the other way around.
That said, the US had been supporting the UK war effort before it joined the hostilities.
That doesn't mean that the UK or any other European country doesn't have a role to play.
But it would be unrealistic to expect Trump to do a U-turn on Starmer's say so. By all accounts, though, he does listen to arguments if they are presented in the right kind of way. That is in the kind of sales negotiation way he understands.
You've got to use reverse psychology with Trump. Make him think that everything is his idea.
Thing is, though, this current US administration is so mercurial and unpredictable. Witness the tariffs thing. He's quickly rowed back on that one. For now.
'Look what happens when we withdraw intelligence support. Not such a tough guy now, eh?'
There are those who say that Zelenskyy should have negotiated deal with Russia a few weeks into the war and that it was only Boris Johnson and other Western leaders who persuaded him to fight on with offers of support.
Churchill stood his ground in 1940 in the expectation that the 'New World' with all its power and resources would 'come to the aid of the old'.
Whatever the case, Trump has backed everyone except Putin into an awkward position. Presumably he still shares intelligence with the UK. Should the UK then share that with Ukraine?
What a moral dilemma to put an ally in! If we don't share intelligence with Ukraine then we put lives at risk. If we do, then we risk upsetting Trump.
I know which option I'd go for. The first. But it'd put Starmer in a very difficult position.
Not that Zelenskyy is a mule, except possibly for the characteristic of being stubbornly resistant to anything that's not good for his people. It's clear to everyone (except, perhaps, Trump) that Zelenskyy doesn't want the war to continue, ideally he'd have preferred that the war didn't start in the first place but that was a decision he had no control over. But, it's also clear that any peace that's negotiated can't leave his people and nation in a worse position than continuing to fight against Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine is going to be unacceptable. Zelenskyy and the vast majority of the international community will not willingly let Putin gain from his aggression, though probably some level of gain for Russia may be reluctantly accepted as the least worse option.
This was an easy concession for Zelenskyy to make since the likelihood of Putin accepting a ceasefire is approximately zero. In this case the toothless Duma spells this out for us.
We shall see. I remain hopeful.
AFF
Besides, there have been more Russian drone attacks recently than Ukrainian drone attacks; why do Ukraine drone attacks stop the other side from accepting a ceasefire if Russian drone attacks don't?
They don't on either side, which is why I don't think there will be one. Right now it's all words. Just because Zelensky agreed to one doesn't mean he actually wants it. He knows the Russian position. I'm pretty certain the Russians will stick by their emphatically and repeatedly stated position - no ceasefire. But we might be surprised. We shall see presently.
AFF