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.
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.
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.
This is the peace that is being aksed for Ukraine to accept.
Surrender to an oppressor is never peace.
We support other free nations…. so that we don’t have to fight directly (and alone).
As are we.
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.
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”.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
quote: from "Yes Prime Minister"
£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.