13 Feb
12:38pm, 13 Feb 2025
26,631 posts
|
larkim
ISTR the "Gaza as a tourist resort" was rolled out by his son in law in spring last year. It can't just be Europe / trump opponents that see his Putin call as being anything other than handing Putin everything he wants, surely? Maybe the absence of trump threatening to nuke Russia is a "good thing" compared to where some of trump's broad approaches might have led, but Putin won't be coerced by trump into doing anything that he doesn't already want to do, which can only be bad for Ukraine (and the world more generally,). |
13 Feb
1:05pm, 13 Feb 2025
320 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
I think the Ukraine position for the US is a lot more nuanced. US has sunk Euro75 billion into support for Ukraine between Jan 22 and June 2024 of which Euro 51billion is military. EU institutions have put in Euro39billion - practically all finanical. UK and GErmany the net highest contributors of Euro13billion and Euro14billion respectively. US taxpayers may reasonably want to demand some break from the stalemate, especially as they carry the vast burden of paying for this support. That does not seem an unreasonble challenge to me. US being awarded mineral licence rights for support is what China has been doing in Africa for years and the UK did during empire (except we took it for nothing). In context UK increasing miliary aid to Ukraine by Euro 2billion is about the saving from the winter fuel allowance. Euro25billion is the estimated cost to UK industry for the emploeyNIC tax rise increase put on by Labour. What level of UK tax rises on UK public (and US tax rises for US public) is reasonable for continuing to doing the right thing in Ukraine for another couple of years? Listening to Pete Hesgeth yesterday, I actually did not find what he had to say was unreasonable from an American perspective. |
13 Feb
1:45pm, 13 Feb 2025
31,690 posts
|
richmac
The reward they get from continued support for Ukraine is Russian ICBM's a further thousand miles away from them. Time & technology has moved on but its still a very real benefit |
|
13 Feb
1:55pm, 13 Feb 2025
26,633 posts
|
larkim
I think Belarus is arguably more of an issue with US / Russian missile proximity, surely? Clearly Russia doesn't control Belarus but it might as well do for the wafer thin divide between their two leaders.
|
13 Feb
4:43pm, 13 Feb 2025
10,055 posts
|
simbil
Post WWII, it used to be a clear international red line that an aggressor does not get to keep territory. If Putin gets to keep parts of Ukraine and have the remainder not in NATO, it will not discourage Xi's designs on Taiwan. That one in particular would be very bad in itself of course and potentially very bad for the world economy. larkim wrote: ISTR the "Gaza as a tourist resort" was rolled out by his son in law in spring last year. Good to know - a bit of a dynasty plan then I guess. |
|
13 Feb
5:06pm, 13 Feb 2025
26,636 posts
|
larkim
RFK in charge of health confirmed. Trump clearly can get any idiot he fancies confirmed.
|
13 Feb
5:40pm, 13 Feb 2025
18,474 posts
|
jda
Constitution working as intended.
|
13 Feb
5:53pm, 13 Feb 2025
27,216 posts
|
Dave W
When you have a totally cowed and cowardly GOP they’ll just play along with anything Trump demands. With a bit of luck it’ll bite them in the arse in due course. |
13 Feb
6:29pm, 13 Feb 2025
47,056 posts
|
SPR
simbil wrote: If Putin gets to keep parts of Ukraine and have the remainder not in NATO... This seems so obvious but I've not heard anyone say it. If Russia keeps any part of Ukraine, the rest has to be in NATO. Talk of them keeping parts seems mad anyway. |
|
13 Feb
6:46pm, 13 Feb 2025
47,057 posts
|
SPR
Bowen: Zelensky forced to face tough new reality after Trump-Putin phone call bbc.co.uk "Biden offered Ukraine enough not to lose, because he took Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons if Nato intervened seriously. Trump must be aware of nuclear danger, but he also believes backing Ukraine indefinitely is a bad deal for the US, and he can do better." Should the West have given Ukraine enough to win before Trump? Would the consequence really have been nuclear war? What are the alternatives that wouldn't lead to an endless war? |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jan 2025
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018