War, what is it good for?

[CaptainFritz28]

The contention between them, is that Trump wants the Ukraine to make peace without giving them any security-guarantees (others are not able/ willing to give security-guarantees also). This does not work, so the Ukraine refuses it. Now he also wants money, by gaining rights to the minerals in the Ukraine, but again: without giving the Ukraine anything in return. And again, the Ukraine refuses, because this would be straight up robbery/ stupid.

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Octavious]

Trump is not in any way able to stop US funding, or at least the bulk of it, because it was already approved by congress (at least for the next year). It is a well established legal fact, that the president can not stop spending approved by congress.

We're splitting hairs to some extent. He can stop funding just not immediately. Certainly well within the timescale of the war if it were allowed to continue to play out, which is the crucial detail. Whether or not it's diplomatically healthy for the previous President to have tried to tie down the current President like this we shall leave for another discussion.

Naturally, funding may dry up in a year, but this gives Europe enough time to FINALLY step in. Germany will now have a new government, and with a little bit of luck, a very new wind will blow, such that the Ukraine does not depend on US-funding: Trump has not a monopoly on resource deals, after all.

You have more faith in Europe than I do. Public support for Ukraine has been declining steadily since the start of the war. The big gains in the election in Germany were made by Die Linke and the AfD, both of whom are far less inclined to back Ukraine. There is a growing belief that Ukraine is unable to win and only a little over half EU citizens support giving Ukraine military aid (with some nations being very much against).

The ability of EU nations to put a large peacekeeping force in Ukraine is minimal. The UK barely has the manpower to cover its current commitments, let alone contribute to a new force that will make Russia think twice. European armies are geared towards fighting a defencive war at home, or supporting the Yanks. I don't think Europe has attempted a major military venture since Suez.

Still, you never know. Life is full of surprises. But my instincts are that we need American involvement. The deal that Ukraine doesn't want to sign will put billions of dollars of American investment as well as thousands of American civilians in key locations. I'd rather have that American stake as my guarantee of security that a European rapid reaction force with its rules of engagement formed by a multinational committee

[Jamiet99uk]

The contention between them, is that Trump wants the Ukraine to make peace without giving them any security-guarantees (others are not able/ willing to give security-guarantees also). This does not work, so the Ukraine refuses it.

The trouble is that it's kinda the default option. If Trump just walks away and ends all US funding (which no one can stop him from doing) then Ukraine doesn't have any security guarantees and has no choice but to negotiate peace from a greatly weakened position. Ukraine is perfectly entitled to not like it, but if that is what Trump decides to do there is literally nothing they can do to refuse it.

If Trump isn't offering any security guarantees, what, actually, is he offering?

What is the US offer? What is America putting on the table? What does Ukraine get in exchange for its minerals, if not security?

A gift card for Wal-Mart?

[Octavious]

Its minerals, for a start. We're not talking hills stuffed with gold here. A lot of these minerals are unproven deposits based on Soviet era guesstimates. Extracting won't be an easy or cheap process, nor are profits guaranteed. American industry has enough clout to take on the risks and make robust progress if it turns out to be as rich as people hope it might be.

And it gives the US a massive stake in Ukraine's future and puts lots of American bodies in key locations. This gives them a pressing reason to take action if Russia looked like it wanted to attack again.

[Klaus klauts]

So you are basically saying that the US is doing a the Ukraine a favour, but at the same time has to force the Ukraine to do it?

[Octavious]

So you are basically saying that the US is doing a the Ukraine a favour, but at the same time has to force the Ukraine to do it?

No. I am saying that the US genuinely believes that their deal has value. Ukraine, possibly influenced by how the piss poor Budapest Memorandum functioned in practice, is more skeptical

[Octavious]

Oh, here's a fun little quote from the weekend

We need a very radical reset and it has to consist of the United States and Ukraine getting back on the same page and President Zelenskyy giving his unequivocal backing to the initiative that President Trump is taking to end the war and to bring a just and lasting peace to Ukraine. And the Europeans too, they need to back the calls for a ceasefire; and by the way I think that Ukraine should be the first to commit to a ceasefire and defy the Russians to follow.

---Lord Mandelson: British Ambassador to the USA

It seems that our glorious government is in the business of giving different messages to different audiences again.

[Klaus klauts]

To me, that seems more like British politicians, trying to save their "special relationship with the US".

Every time I hear a British politician talk about this "special relationship", I have to chuckle a little bit. Self-delusion at its peak, lol.

[Octavious]

Not really. The 5 Eyes alliance is relatively special and long-lasting as far as international relationships go. But beyond that it's all pretty standard, yes. A bit more conventional military cooperation than most, but otherwise very typical

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Not really. The 5 Eyes alliance is relatively special and long-lasting as far as international relationships go. But beyond that it's all pretty standard, yes. A bit more conventional military cooperation than most, but otherwise very typical

I wouldn't hang your hat on 5E being special or long-lasting.

The Trump administration is threatening to expel Canada from 5E as part of tthe broader trade dispute. Trump recently clarified that this move is intended as punishment for Canada’s unforgivable crime—being the source of less than 1% of the fentanyl that crosses into the U.S. Ironically, more fentanyl flows north into Canada than south into the U.S.

If Starmer fails to fellate Trump thoroughly enough at any point in the next four years then you can expect any and all aspects of the "special relationship" can be ripped up in a tantrum.

[Jamiet99uk]

Today JD Vance continued to demonstrate that he is the lowest-IQ Vice President in US political history (an impressive feat; remember, he's up against Dan Quayle for that achievement).

How did JD couch-fucker demonstrate his ignorance today?

Well, he appeared to describe Britain and France as "some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years".

He later backed down and said he didn't mean the UK or France, but, when asked, could not name the country he apparently did have in mind. Presumably because he can't remember the names of any other countries in Europe and he didn't want to guess "Vermont" in case it was wrong.

[Octavious]

He clearly didn't mean Britain or France (we'd really struggle to deploy 20,000 men for a start), but really he should have. The reality is that Russia and Ukraine have reinvented modern infantry tactics over the last few years. Whilst British and French troops would likely have outclassed most Russian or Ukrainian infantry units 3 years ago, that is no longer the case. They have mastered the art of infantry fighting with close drone support, and are now veteran units with superior tactics that we haven't learnt how to counter. It'd be like the British Expeditionary Force vs Blitzkrieg all over again. We don't have anywhere near enough tanks and artillery. The only thing we have that resembles a significant advantage is the RAF.

Let's not pretend that a force of 50,000 Europeans (most of whom will indeed have been nowhere near a war) would make the Russians think twice from a military might perspective. They'd essentially be human shields, as killing them would come with a considerable political cost.

[Octavious]

More importantly, however...

HAPPY PANCAKE DAY

[Octavious]

Trump is not in any way able to stop US funding, or at least the bulk of it, because it was already approved by congress (at least for the next year). It is a well established legal fact, that the president can not stop spending approved by congress.

You might now hold against this, that Trump might push congress to end funding, but this is unlikely to happen, because there are even now quite a few Ukraine-supporters in the Republican Party, so that Trump might fail with pushing congress in that direction, which would weaken his power severely. So he will probably not risk it, because he will suffer personally.

Naturally, funding may dry up in a year, but this gives Europe enough time to FINALLY step in. Germany will now have a new government, and with a little bit of luck, a very new wind will blow, such that the Ukraine does not depend on US-funding: Trump has not a monopoly on resource deals, after all.

It would appear that we were mistaken regarding Trump's ability to withdraw support. Have we missed a crucial detail?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydq82e7r1o

[Klaus klauts]

I have not missed it -- but the government in Germany is forming, and it is quite unclear what they will do. Merz has announced a very huge change in regard to defence and the Ukraine, so yes, not all hope is gone.

But it is of course entirely possible, even likely, that these were just empty promises, or that the Russian-circle in the SPD will do their best to make the change as small as possible.

One can just not say for sure at the moment, which is why I do not want to commentate the situation any further, because we have already talked about the known, and the unknown will reveal itself in a few weeks.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Trump is not in any way able to stop US funding, or at least the bulk of it, because it was already approved by congress (at least for the next year). It is a well established legal fact, that the president can not stop spending approved by congress.

You might now hold against this, that Trump might push congress to end funding, but this is unlikely to happen, because there are even now quite a few Ukraine-supporters in the Republican Party, so that Trump might fail with pushing congress in that direction, which would weaken his power severely. So he will probably not risk it, because he will suffer personally.

Naturally, funding may dry up in a year, but this gives Europe enough time to FINALLY step in. Germany will now have a new government, and with a little bit of luck, a very new wind will blow, such that the Ukraine does not depend on US-funding: Trump has not a monopoly on resource deals, after all.

It would appear that we were mistaken regarding Trump's ability to withdraw support. Have we missed a crucial detail?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydq82e7r1o

It's an open question whether this decision will survive legal scrutiny. The Impoundment Control Act is supposed to restrict the executive branch's ability to withhold or delay funds appropriated by Congress. Congress may yet challenge the decision.

Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled against unilateral executive impoundment of funds. But recently they were relatively soft on Trump's recent decision to pause USAID funding - so far the SC has temporarily allowed Trump to end $1.5 billion in Congress-approved USAID funding while they take more time to decide whether his actions are legal.

Both these executive actions (de-funding USAID and Ukraine) could still be reversed. But Trump seems to own the court (much as progressives did in decades past) and a sustained pause, even if it's reversed at some later date, might effectively give the executive most of what it wants anyhow.

Congresspeople and ordinary Americans should probably care about this a lot more than they seem to. It would be a huge shift in the balance of power if the President can more-or-less ignore Congress anytime they declare a fake emergency. Anyone who like giving this power for Trump will certainly not like it when there is a Democrat in the White House.

[Klaus klauts]

The way I was told the fact, Trump is indeed legally allowed to dismantle USAID, because it was founded (this is the wrong word) by a president, and therefore can be dissolved by one. This is different with the Ukraine-support, because it was directly approved by congress. I have to admit, though, that it is quite possible that my source in unreliable, and I have not looked into it too much myself, since I do not care about US law except for this special case. If anybody knows more about this, please share your knowledge!

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I get the impression that even legal scholars aren't much help at this juncture.

The Trump admin is testing a lot of boundaries for which there is only somewhat relevant precedent. Congress is unusually cowed. The Supreme Court is absolutely stacked in favour of Trump at this point.

Whether the courts swoop in to enforce some other outcome is anyone's guess at this point. A concerned American public could probably put pressure on Congress to pursue this more aggressively, but Trump supporters don't give a shit and those opposed seems to lack the discipline and tools to push back effectively.

These are not even the most outrageous instances of executive overreach at this point. Just today Trump threatened to defund campuses that allow protests and to imprison anyone who protests. Of course Oct and Fritz are happy to pretend that's not a bad thing for democracy, or that Harris would have been worse because of DEI or something lol, but there is a firehose of outrageous presidential action going on that at any other point in my lifetime would have been considered extremely scandalous and would have been pursued by the courts as legal — something is very broken in the US at the moment.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

*illegal

[Jamiet99uk]

He clearly didn't mean Britain or France (we'd really struggle to deploy 20,000 men for a start), but really he should have. The reality is that Russia and Ukraine have reinvented modern infantry tactics over the last few years. Whilst British and French troops would likely have outclassed most Russian or Ukrainian infantry units 3 years ago, that is no longer the case. They have mastered the art of infantry fighting with close drone support, and are now veteran units with superior tactics that we haven't learnt how to counter. It'd be like the British Expeditionary Force vs Blitzkrieg all over again. We don't have anywhere near enough tanks and artillery. The only thing we have that resembles a significant advantage is the RAF.

Let's not pretend that a force of 50,000 Europeans (most of whom will indeed have been nowhere near a war) would make the Russians think twice from a military might perspective. They'd essentially be human shields, as killing them would come with a considerable political cost.

Oh look here's Octavious defending and acting as the spokesperson for JD Vance what a fucking surprise.

Later he will tell us he doesn't support JD Vance.

If you don't support Trump and Vance you can just stop being their mouthpiece on this forum any time you like, Oct, btw. Otherwise, every time you speak up on their side, I'll draw the conclusion that you support them. OK?