'We stand with Ukraine for as long as it may take' – Keir Starmer tells Zelensky
bbc.com
bbc.com
If we would actually do defense at the EU level, we could use that money a lot more efficiently through economies of scale and 2-4% of GDP would probably be enough to defeat russia.
But if we move some of those "services of the society" to the EU level, we could more efficiently run them (against, through economies of scale) and make them better at the same expanse.
It’s hard to see where you stand here. You seem unconcerned about Russia taking Ukraine and then the Baltic states, as if that would be a positive outcome.
Is the full surrender and merging of Ukraine into Russia something you desire?
I don't want Russia to win either but we also have to operate in reality.
Furthermore, with your logic there is nothing stopping Russia from keep chipping away at Europe because everyone is afraid that Russia will use nuclear weapons.
With that rational, you might as well annex the entirety of Europe and call it Russia because Europe wants peace.
After Ukraine runs out of fodder for the meat-grinder (already on the verge of this now) who's children get sent to Ukraine? If we are not going to give Ukraine sufficient support to win the war, only prolong it, what is the timeline and the actual endgame?
To be clear, I'm not supporting Russia, I'm asking in clear terms, what exactly should the response be?
"What happens if Ukraine is given sufficient support to start winning and Putin decides to go nuclear? I don't want Russia to win either but we also have to operate in reality."
Russia is not going to use nuclear weapons.
That is a possibility. But there is a large cost associated with going nuclear. And that is why he hasn't done it, even after losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
Also, if you give Putin what he wants, because he might go nuclear, then the race to develop nukes will really heat up by all non-nuclear nations.
US signed Budapest memorandum. We promised to help defend Ukraine, if it gave up its nukes. Now we are trying to shake them down like a mafia. And also asking them to give in to Putin's demands, without asking Putin to give up anything.
We have fallen very far.
So after a couple more years of the meat-grinder, Ukraine no longer has enough young men to maintain a viable force.
What happens then?
If you're the PM of Estonia, the only thing keeping you safe is either an "agreement" that you'll be protected or nukes. [edit] And agreements, at least signed by the U.S.A. appear to be bankrupt.
So, on what earth do you live on that we're safer now?
Making sure every country on earth has nukes is way more likely to cause nukes to be used than beating the russian army out of Ukraine.
First -- Do his nukes even work? Or have they been replaced with cardboard "Nuke Go Here" boxes?
Also -- What's Putin going to nuke? He can try some battlefield nuke, and then have his army march through it? That's assuming that his troops have more than a week of training for "marching through a place we just nuked" Or maybe he'll nuke Kiev? I don't think that'd make much difference in letting russia gain ground. Or maybe Putin is planning on nuking Rotterdam because of the F-16s?
Nukes may make china and india stop supporting him, they may provoke more retaliation from the west. But nukes certainly won't change much unless the plan is to just glass the whole of Ukraine, in which case I'm pretty sure that France or England may accidentally glass Moscow even if the USA doesn't.
Currently, it seems the US would rather glass London and Paris if that happened.
And anything _less_ than glassing Ukraine is unlikely to change Ukraine's behavior or materially affect the special military operation's progress.
Hypothetically, if Ukraine has a breakthrough after a massive collapse of the russian army, nukes will prevent Ukraine from going all the way to Lubyanka Square. But there's no way to use nukes to help the russian invasion any more than a shotgun will help with colon cancer.
And Europe will suffer greatly if a resurgent USSR is allowed to grow unchecked next to it. (Not even speaking of the millions of people who will suffer under its authoritarian rule.)
If there is one thing that this war has shown us, it is that a country's security is in its own hands and a Nuclear Weapon is the difference between being invaded and conquered (ex: North Korea and soon to be Iran).
No one can control what will happen, but the simple reality is that allowing Russia to push a war of aggression out of fear of a nuclear attack endorses the idea that anyone with Nuclear capability can do what they want. China, India, etc can annex or invade and no one will stop them because it might trigger escalation. That reinforces the need for less powerful nations to pursue nuclear capability. Those smaller, less stable nations will be more likely to lose control of a nuclear weapon.
It's a catch 22 so we might as well try to err on the side of stopping wars of aggression. The other path is open for the cowards who would rather bend the knee or look the other way until aggression knocks on their front door.
I don't see why they would do that, seeing how they want to annex this land. Kyiv holds significance cultural importance to Russia.
Ukraine made a foothold in Kursk, but it's looking like Russia will be able to take it back over time.
> What happens then?
Doesn't it look likely that at the very least Russia will annex parts of Ukraine?
As a follow up, how much do you estimate it would cost? The UK has just announced another £2.26 billion pledge, and we have yet to hear from the EU.
quote: from "Yes Prime Minister"
Ukraine has always been a bit of political theatre for the west, and all Trump is doing is forcing the show to end -- which is one of the real shocks to the system. What is most bitterly disliked by both the public and elite in europe is that they might actually have to do something on behalf of ukraine that risks their own security and, of course, they never will and never would. Europe humiliated as a paper tiger will give Trump no great headlines in european newspapers: this is the real psychological shock.
Trump actually means to end the war, and if that fails, withdraw US support. What a predicament for everyone who wants the war to continue -- they'd actually have to risk something. And hence, this will all be over very quickly.
It's well known the russian elite contain a large pro-western contingent, though the public in russia is not and much more pro-war than the elite. Putin is looking at a way of returning the economic situation to a pre-war state without angering the public -- without it "all being for nothing" and so on. So the deal Trump will offer will be accepted there, and if it isnt accepted in the EU he'll withdraw US support.
There has not been, to my knowledge, a single proposal by the pro-war axis to achieve any other outcome. And of course not, the pro-war sentiment in the west, is a paper-tiger charade to boost their own credibility and punish russia for informing them that the 2000s are over and the USA is not the lone superpower in the system. That Russia (, and china of course) intend to act like the US in their own spheres of influence, and use their militaries to achive political ends. This was only supposed to be a US privilige.
The world is now a game between US, Russia and China -- and the leaders of these nations are looking to rapidly normalize and stablizle relations -- because they are each their significant threats -- everything else is a distraction. Especially the EU, which will do nothing to change that -- indeed: why bother? Sit back and get rich whilst the bullies waste their money in fights.
What he really wants is for Ukraine to surrender its lands to Russia. And he is also unwilling to ask Russia to give any concessions.
We did sign the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees from the US. Shame on us for not honoring it.
Also, Ukraine and Europe is not pro-war. They want Russians to go back to their own country. You are calling people who are defending their country from an invader, and their supporters, pro-war axis.
I am not against Europe sending in an army if it wishes. I am not against your pro-war position which seeks, via military means, to retake land in Russia's control. I am more pointing out that you're not actually willing to do anything about it. You're not willing to take any risk to your own security.
You can have whatever position you want, but a political slogan isnt a policy -- its not an argument, or a position. It's just some theatrical ploy to make yourself feel better: what is the policy you have (or anyone) to retake the land under russian control? How do you intend to end the war? Ask the school teacher to put Russia in detention?
Trump is withdrawing from Ukraine, there is nothing anyone can do about that. If Europe wishes Ukraine to retain all of its land, and far fewer of its lives, it will have to risk its own security. It will not, nor will you: this is the source of the hatred for trump, it requires people of your mind to act -- and that was never on the table
I'd imagine the US actions might well violate Budapest, but that was extremely watered down at the time from "gaurentees" to "assurances" so its a very weak position to start with. But in any case the world which now exists has three great powers: US, China, Russia. All three are now "pivoting to each other", and away from non-rivaling activity.
If europe doesnt like this, or you don't -- I have no issue with that: go on, do something.
The US is not pivoting back to the EU now, under no administration. Just as Biden retained Trump's pivot against China, the next admin (dem or rep) will retain his piovt from the EU -- since both have been the desire of every president over the last 20+ years.
A great (or "world") power is one which can leave its region militarily and could withstand an attack from the biggest power in the system (ie., the US).
All world powers see non-world-powers as their instruments: the EU was the US's instrument -- by bribery, threat, and protection racket it would get its own way, enrich itself, etc.
From the pov of these powers only they are soverign: hence vitnam, iraq, afganistan, cuba, etc. Hence the US engaging in a proxy war in ukraine in the first place.
India has pakistan and china to deal with, and its very unclear it can actually leave its area of the world. Hence the US doesnt have to treat it seriously. The only threats (to the US) are the powers that can withstand the US and "go on expiditions" with their militaries in regions that undermine US interests, and so on.
Here the US, mostly quite correctly, believes it can establish a detent with Russia -- but cannot with China. Russia is well-integrated into the western system, and only seeks to dominate a region the US has no interest in. The riskto it from china is far greater. It is very easy to imagine China in the western hemisphere, with a navy in a south american country -- it's nearly impossible to imagine this from India (and its highly unlikely from Russia).
India poses zero risk, nor is it clear it could ever. So regardless of what criteria you use, it will not factor into the thinking of the world powers.
The US in the 90s wanted poland (et al.) to be within its sphere of influence in the EU -- it's own instrument. It got its way. It over-reached trying to bring georgia and ukraine into the system, thinking Russia too weak to do anything about it. Well Russia isnt too weak, it has rebuilt its global status. So the US is running away and trying to reformulate a less ambitious foreign policy which its actually capable of executing
Narrow in the sense that Russia "has rebuilt its global status" while sacrificing many of their global position: security guarantor at Caucasus collapsed with Armenia and Azerbaijan war (something western media was oddly quiet about. Maybe due to the Turkish gass pipeline project), Losing ground in Syria and even report that the their influence in Africa through Wagner etc is not as great as it used to be.
Short sighted in that the take on India is true now, but would've equally applied to China around the time of Deng and it's opening up. It was also that same short sightedness that led US (with Kissinger) to side with Pakistan which is part of the reason you can't really call India aligned to US interest in any meaningful sense.
Sensible analysis, but only based on narrow fact, and ignoring historical context and the fact that those "insignificant parameters(non global power)" stil act on their own interests and more or less have some effect. ignoring that can often blow up in your face.
That's probably why the realists, which I'm assuming you're part of from the way you put things out, while sounding good on paper don't really have a great track record (mainly Kissinger, again.) of successful decision making.
Nothing was learned in the Vietnam failure, and it was repeated in Afghanistan by that line of thoughts.
* Putin will use any pause in fighting that doesn't come with credible security guarantees to rearm and continue (he basically always breaks ceasefires he agrees)
Short-termist because:
* a resurgent Russia and weakened (and alienated) EU will only strengthen China and strategically weaken the US
The USA is powerful but that doesn't mean it can be indifferent to global affairs.
The only plausible rationale for Trump's behaviour is that he doesn't care about liberal democracy, either around the world or at home. If you are a US citizen who doesn't care about their own democracy perhaps that's fine, but if you do believe in the constitution, his behaviour should worry you.
As for liberal democracy, only two us presidents in history cared about that for a a brief moment (george bush the latest, woodrow willson the earliest), and that ended in catastrophe.
The US certainly didnt care about democracy in Ukraine when the state department was deciding who should replace the democratically elected leader of ukranine in 2013 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957 -- you can go find the recording and listen, the media reports are propaganda). Nor did biden care about democracy in UA when he withheld aid in order to have a prosecutor fired (go watch the video of biden, the reporting is propaganda). Nor has the US ever cared about democracy: it does exactly the same across the world -- deposing, blackmailing, threatening democracies all over the world. It even armed al q. in syria just to depose Assad -- the very people who dragged it back into middle eastern wars. Every state which cannot oppose the US is not soverign in the eyes of the US: it must do what it says. Well, now China and Russia are strong enough to do the same.
The US has its sphere of influence: the western hemisphere, europe. And threatens, blackmails, bribes and deposes all of the world to advance its interests. This is the behaviour of a great power -- and Russia has returned to this status.
Unless another great power is willing to contain Russia, there is nothing to be done. Since Russia is not a threat to China or the US at the moment, neither are willing to contain it. And so it goes.
This has very little to do with Trump's personality -- exactly his actions are stated in words by Obama, and every president since Bush: detent with russia, withdrawl from europe, retiring nato, containing china. Trump is just the first to do it. Trump wants peace with rival powers at all costs, hence his "WW3" comments -- the world is now far too risky for the US to impose its will has it had done from 1992 til 2022.
Unfortunately many have grown up in this era and still think an american "deciding" that the world-should-be-some-way is sufficient for it to be that way -- that the US military will be their to impose the will of the western mind. That era is over. It no longer matters what we think -- there's more than one bully in the system.
Unfortunately there are no easy solutions to these questions (apart from Trump's "solution" to just give Putin everything he wants). Not having anything better, Europe will just continue what it has been doing - sending more munitions, fighter jets, tanks, javelins and whatever is needed as long as Ukraine needs it, hoping that after Putin dies the next leader of Russia will be less bloodthirsty.
He will try to impose a peace, as the best outcome for everyone -- if he cannot do that, he will choose the best outcome for america and let europe manage the mess.
I keep seeing this on HN and it is just plain wrong. Someone should actually bother to read this thing. [0]
> Under the agreement the Russian Federation provided security assurances to Ukraine in the form of promising neither to attack nor to threaten to attack them. The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.
> The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".
> China and France gave security assurances for Ukraine in separate documents. China's governmental statement of 4 December 1994 did not call for mandatory consultations if questions arose but only for "fair consultations". France's declaration of 5 December 1994 did not mention consultations.
Interesting that China actually signed similar security assurances with Ukraine and is now actively providing military support to Russia without anyone on HN criticizing them.. [1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum [1]: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-russia-ukrain...
It would be nice if it was true. Someone else might argue that Putin just wants to extend its empire westwards as much as he is allowed to.
£7.8 billion in military support
£5 billion in non-military supportAs the situation develops, one thing must be understood above all others... People of Gotham, we have not abandoned you.
BLAKE
What does that mean?
GORDON
It means we're on our own.
It's sweet that you've had enough of the wars, like you might have had enough of a Netflix series.
The peace on the table is no such thing. It's a temporary appeasement of a murderous dictator who is against everything the US used to stand for. Shameful.
Abandoning control in the European theater while doubling down on the Levant is like if the USSR announced they forfeit the Cold War to focus on Afghanistan. It is a bloody warpath, dictated by nonsense. Trading one proxy war for another isn't going to save the American economy, or improve American security.
There will never be another Minsk agreement though, with or without the US at the table. It's pathetic that any credible military leader would attempt to push that a second time.
Russia's got a long history of mulching their subjects, I'm pretty sure "peace" is the peace of the grave, for many souls currently living in Ukraine.
So they're not really heavily incentivized toward peace under the "please dig your own grave" terms on offer.
Mass graves, torture chambers, and the lowest freedom in the whole world.
1. There is no security guarantees. 2. There is no future help if Russia breaks the cease-fire and tries taking Ukraine again. 3. The cease-fire will simply give Russia time to regroup and launch another offensive later. 4. Trump thinks Zelensky is a dictator 5. Zelensky has already offered to step down as president if Trump gave security guarantees.
Surrender to an oppressor is never peace.
You have any bright ideas on how to achieve peace that does not involve asking Ukraine to surrender to an invading Russian military and give up the land Russia stole?
Also, would you sing the same tune if somebody invades your country?
There is no “right” for any country to join nato. And Ukraine is not a nato ally.
The way it is currently, this is a forever war on low boil that will continue for ever. All the current situation accomplishes is sale of arms to Ukraine.
The Europeans manufacture good armaments as well. They are more than accomplished to provide whatever aid Ukraine needs.
We support other free nations…. so that we don’t have to fight directly (and alone).
This is the peace that is being aksed for Ukraine to accept.
As are we.
If we start to see tariffs take off internationally, like we did back with the Smoot Hawley tariffs 100 years ago, we are literally recreating the environment that created WWII, this time with Ukraine playing the part of Manchuria.
Regardless, I don’t think they’ve been given a choice. And if nobody helps out anyone, you get everyone “militarizing”.
So, Zelenskyy is supposed to just lay down and give up everything for a lopsided deal that will just hurt them more? The US is just going to take advantage of the entire situation. That’s what we have in power now, opportunists.
Norwegian fuel supplier refuses U.S. warships over Ukraine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43223872
> Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.
The german model was the european model: spend almost nothing on defense, let the US provide the nukes, sit back and get rich.
One reason this model may fail is the UK and France -- both are expeditionary forces (the UK where-ever the US is, and france in africa) trying to play at being a great power. This only ever worked because the US was prepared to bail them out whenever anything bad happened (cf. Libya). Without the US, both nations may try to drive towards EU military unification and hence genuine great power status.
Good luck balancing the Chinese, Russia and US defense budgets. Europe's spending will be crippled, just as the US's is -- without global currency status to prop it up.
Another reason is a bi-polar American president that can withdraw from NATO tomorrow effectively leaving Europe on its own. Europe has no other choice, they need to spend more on defense if they want to keep the war at bay.
Not being able to defend yourself is strictly worse for security than being able to defend yourself. I don't know how you can think otherwise.
With Trump back in the White House there is an additional motivation for EU countries to up their military spending; at best the US is now viewed as a less reliable ally (that may or may not help in the face of conflict), at worst the US will align itself with autocratic regimes to divide up the world in their respective spheres of influence and actively undermine the EU.
So if you accept the premise that democracy (and the liberal, rule-based world order) is worthwhile defending, increased military spending of EU countries is in fact a "good thing" (as in, better than the alternative of submitting to imperialistic authoritarian neighbors).
Also it's a pretty daft take to think that this sudden armament of Europe is going to help the "contain China" cause. Why would anyone in East/South East Asia now trust USA when they see economics as zero-sum game with military intimidation towards allies as a valid strategy for getting their way. China is doing the latter without the former, and most Asian nations has more to lose economically siding with US to begin with.
Pivot to China have been the long running goal since Obama but why it took long time is because of dynamics like this. Just to on a whim in less than 2 month destroying all that. I can't imagine how this can be spun as a win, even with outlined goals of yours.
Yeah good luck containing China when all their neighbors are now not sure about American commitment anymore. If I'm a Asian politician I'd probably just start nuke development and declare neutrality and ride this one out.
Global free trade, which have benefitted all of Asia (including China) is not something US is supporting anymore anyway