Ex-US Cyber Command chief: Europe and 5 Eyes can't fully replicate US intel If the United States stopped sharing cyber-threat intel with Ukraine, its European allies and the rest of the Five Eyes nations wouldn't be able to provide all the info Uncle Sam collects, according to former chief of US Cyber Command and the NSA General Paul Nakasone. Washington's week-long pause on sharing intel with Ukraine …
Yes if I was the UK/EU I would carefully consider what intelligence I am willing to share with the US, and plan for a day when I'm not sharing any intelligence at all. I sure as heck wouldn't trust Trump to share any intelligence freely any longer, it will always come with a "price" and he's probably already ordered withholding anything makes his buddies like Putin or Netanyahu look bad.
Simply flood the US with petabytes of "top secret" information knowing it will be in Moscow before Washington.
It's what I would do.
And if the US finds itself being passed fairy stories ... well, what did they expect with a troll in charge ?
That could have been the situation from day one if the US in 2022 was run by assholes who think letting dictators overrun democracies is a good thing. The US never had any obligation to help fund Ukraine's defense. It chose to do so because weakening Russia is in the national interest of the US and its (then, at least) allies in Europe, and because it was the right thing to do from a moral standpoint.
If nothing else we learned that Russia's military is a paper tiger, vastly incompetent in both equipment and tactics. But they are willing to kill and terrorize civilians to achieve their aims, and have been getting lots of material help from Iran, China and North Korea, and manpower help from a couple of their satellite countries plus North Korea. It is pretty telling that despite Russia's manpower advantage over Ukraine they're the ones who have had to seek additional manpower from elsewhere while Ukraine has fought its war using only its own people.
So even if the war ends soon the goal of weakening Russia (through their own misjudged decisions, it is entirely on them) has been accomplished. Unfortunately the goal of preserving Ukraine's territorial integrity may be beyond hope with the orange dumbfuck fully on Putin's side.
It is pretty telling that despite Russia's manpower advantage over Ukraine they're the ones who have had to seek additional manpower from elsewhere while Ukraine has fought its war using only its own people.
Err.. right. So those 'International Legion' fighters that Ukraine imported from all over the world don't exist? But the cognitative dissonance is stronk. If this conflict has highlighted Russia's weaknesss, how then is it such an existential threat to Europe? I can see why Ursula might want a 1tn Pan-European Defence Organisatiion, but why would that be necessary, if Russia is just a paper tiger?
"If this conflict has highlighted Russia's weaknesss, how then is it such an existential threat to Europe?"
Because Russia still has nuclear weapons. They might or might not work, but we're unwilling to fuck around and find out.
Please do sod off back to the decrepit Volga bridge under which you crawled out from, you imbecile Russian troll.
Because Russia still has nuclear weapons. They might or might not work, but we're unwilling to fuck around and find out.
Nope, still don't get it. Especially given Starmer's lastest publicity tour-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62z1w1y2neo
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is expected to attend on Thursday afternoon after first visiting Barrow, where he is due to lay the keel of one of Britain's next generation of nuclear-armed submarines.
And France also has nuclear weapons. But sadly Starmer does seem very willing to FAFO-
Armed Forces minister Luke Pollard said they want the coalition to be a "credible force" that would allow Ukraine to "enjoy a lasting peace" and "reconstitute and rearm".
So Viki has a bit of an uphill battle creating a 'credible force' given the way previous Labour governments cut defence spending, the size of our armed forces and their capability. Pollard probably hasn't looked closely at a map, and although Ukraine is now currently around 20% smaller than it was in 2014, there's still a lot of territory to patrol. Some of the Baltic states like Lithuania may contribute troops, but even if they send both of them, the tripwire force is going to be spread thin.
Plus there's still that cognitive dissonance. If a sustainable, long term peace deal can be negotiated.. Why would Ukraine need to 'reconstitute and rearm'? Why hasn't Ukraine repealed their law that makes peace negotiations with Russia illegal? Why do our 'leaders' think that their version of 'peace', ie ceasefire and continuing to supply weapons would be taken seriously by Russia when it's the Minsk sham all over again?
Please do sod off back to the decrepit Volga bridge under which you crawled out from, you imbecile Russian troll.
Ah, the voice of diplomacy and reason.. which is why the world's in this mess.
Because Russia still has nuclear weapons. They might or might not work, but we're unwilling to fuck around and find out.Please do sod off back to the decrepit Volga bridge under which you crawled out from, you imbecile Russian troll. .... tamegeek42
Seems to me like it’s imbecilic Wild Wacky Westerners willing to fuck around creating trillions of debt and exploding deficits for more military arms and operations are more than just willing to find out and in so doing also risk homegrown domestic unrest and probably even likely to be violent revolution ...... Ulster type Troubles ...... whenever populations be told there’s no money for problems and difficulties, caused by pathetic administering governments, at home.
There’s always more than enough, and plenty more money for everything and to be told anything less is a damnable lie and renders all to true ..... Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive! ..... https://storyarcadia.com/what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-full-poem/
And the rest of the Sir Walter Scott stanza also rings honestly true too.
"berating the Ukrainian president during an Oval Office shouting match"
You may need to watch the meeting. And be aware Zelenskyy was supposed to sign an agreement already approved in Ukraine but screwed it up. And apparently had been like that for 40 minutes before the cameras had been on.
Note that the loss of US support brought Zelenskyy to the negotiating table and Trump also threatened Putin to behave as well as convincing him to accept a ceasefire. Both things rules out completely under Biden.
These negotiations achieved while the US 'allies' insisted on lobbing missiles into Russia to coincide with the arrival and departure of the negotiators. But no Europe cannot make up for American support and this is a big problem that Trump pointed out in his last administration.
@Charlie Clark
"Going for a record number of downvotes are you, you Quisling?"
As per usual you seem to think this is XFactor or something. Just because some people dont like to hear it doesnt change the facts. If you have anything of value to say feel free to do so. But as your comment shows, thats not a requirement for you to reply.
1. that Zelenskyy was "supposed to sign an agreement but screwed it up". It was obviously from the start that the plan was to ambush him. Why else was it televised and had a representative for Russian's state TV present even though no one in the administration would admit to having approved them. Trump even gave it up at the end with his line about how "it would make great TV". He has no filter, he's like a Bond villain who can't help but admit his evil plan.
2. that Trump "threatened Putin to behave". Complete bs! Trump has never threatened Putin. He has never done ANYTHING against Putin or Russia! I guess at one point he did say something about putting tariffs on Russia if they didn't end the war but that's laughable. Russia sells essentially NOTHING to the US because it is a failed state that has oil and gas and the other things it produces are ransomware criminals and war.
Yes he did force Zelenskyy to the table but he can't force Putin to the table and has zero leverage over him - he's already negotiated away everything Putin wants before any negotiations have started (because as with everything else, his fame as a "dealmaker" is completely in his own mind with zero basis in reality) so Putin will have to think up other things he wants. Trump also has no way to get the EU to go along with whatever conditions he negotiates with them. What's going to do, threaten to pull out of NATO? The EU has already decided to treat the US as if they are pulled out because thanks to Trump the US is no longer a trustworthy partner so long as the orange menace is siding the US with the axis of evil.
3. Then your final bit of bullshit that "allies" are sending missiles into Russia. What sort of bs alternate reality are you living in? Ukraine is "lobbing" those missiles and I hope they keep doing it up until the last minute of a real cease fire. Because Putin sure is - despite promises he made to Trump he's still attacking hospitals and energy infrastructure.
Personally I think Ukraine ought to send a fleet of drones and missiles to attack Putin's palace on the Black Sea. Not to kill him as he's not there of course, but to destroy the place he loves. Turnabout is fair play since Putin recently attacked (again) Zelenskyy's home town.
Trump even gave it up at the end with his line about how "it would make great TV". He has no filter, he's like a Bond villain who can't help but admit his evil plan.
Neither can the Democrats I guess. There were cameras filming the WLB's pre-meet with them. All smiles and hugs. Not much detail about how they briefed him ahead of the Trump meeting. Televising the deal signing was pretty normal, although perceptions might have been biased by Biden being frequently absent in both body and spirit from press events. But pre- and post- election Trump made much about how he'd stop this conflict. Originally within 24hrs, then with all the talks about rare 'earth', which normally means lanthanides, which Ukraine doesn't have. But that deal is why the WLB was summoned to Washington, and then proceeded to try to add conditions, even though the deal was printed and just awaiting signatures. And calling JD Vance a 'whore bitch' probably didn't help his case either.
Trump has never threatened Putin. He has never done ANYTHING against Putin or Russia! I guess at one point he did say something about putting tariffs on Russia if they didn't end the war but that's laughable. Russia sells essentially NOTHING to the US because it is a failed state that has oil and gas and the other things it produces are ransomware criminals and war.
Sure he has-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-threatens-russia-with-sanctions-until-ukraine-peace-agreed-2025-03-07/
"Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely 'pounding' Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large-scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED," Trump said on his social media platform."
But like you say, not much of a threat given Russia's already banned from SWIFT, it's illegal to provide banking and financial services and pretty much all other goods and services have been sanctioned already. Plus as you say, the US had (from memory) <$10bn in trade with Russia prior to the SMO. Plus you probably didn't notice Trump had been boasting about how Biden sent blankets, but Trump had sent Javelins and other assorted weapons during his first term in office.
Trump also has no way to get the EU to go along with whatever conditions he negotiates with them. What's going to do, threaten to pull out of NATO? The EU has already decided to treat the US as if they are pulled out because thanks to Trump the US is no longer a trustworthy partner so long as the orange menace is siding the US with the axis of evil.
The EU (and UK) is doing exactly what Trump wants. Hegseth spoke about the US pivoting towards picking a fight with China, so the EU would have to step up and fill the void left by the US pulling out of funding the proxy war the US started. Europe would have to increase 'NATO' spending to 5% of GDP, cut social services and keep giving money & weapons to Ukraine. And lo, like good little puppies, Europe's leaders started doing just that. Ursula announced a $1tn slush fund, Germany scrapped it's debt ceiling, the UK cut benefits.
But like you say, Trump doesn't have many cards either. He's not serious about any long-term peace deal because he's basically aiming to freeze the conflict and implement Minsk 3.0. Russia knows this, and knows the previous Minsk agreements were simply pretexts to rearm Ukraine. Again it's really quite simple. If there's to be any lasting peace, that needs to accept both Ukraine and Russia's security concerns.
But then failure to do that is exactly why the conflict started. Back when the Soviet Union collapsed, the West gave Russia assurances that NATO wouldn't expand, and of course broke that assurance. It did regime changes in Georgia, Serbia, attempted it in Belorussia, and of course instigated the coup in Ukraine. Georgia was pretty much a dry run for Ukraine. It installed Saakashvili, invited the US in for their 'Train and Equip' program, then started a conflict with Russia over S.Ossetia.. Which Russia quickly crushed. Then it did the same thing in Ukraine, and got pretty much the same result. Red lines were ignored, stomped over and now Ukraine is around 20% smaller in land terms, and probably a third smaller in population terms. Which is again the real problem for Ukraine. No amount of weapons will help it, if it doesn't have the manpower to fight.
Then your final bit of bullshit that "allies" are sending missiles into Russia. What sort of bs alternate reality are you living in? Ukraine is "lobbing" those missiles and I hope they keep doing it up until the last minute of a real cease fire. Because Putin sure is - despite promises he made to Trump he's still attacking hospitals and energy infrastructure.
So is Ukraine. But we sent stuff like Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles, which needed NATO assistance to use. Ukraine demanded long-range missiles, we supplied them, Ukraine fired those into Russia and killed civilians. Ukraine's also yeeted drones in the general direction of Moscow and hit residential buildings. But it's also used a lot of PFM-1 'petal' mines over civilian areas, which it was supposed to have destroyed stocks per Ukraine signing the Ottawa Treaty. But Russia has been attacking energy infrastructure, just as we did in Baghdad and Belgrade. Its recent attack hit rail infrastructure, which is permissable under the terms of the ceasefire. And it hit a hospital in Sumy where Ukrainian troops from their Kursk misadventure were being treated, which is one of those 'awful but lawful' targets.
Personally I think Ukraine ought to send a fleet of drones and missiles to attack Putin's palace on the Black Sea. Not to kill him as he's not there of course, but to destroy the place he loves. Turnabout is fair play since Putin recently attacked (again) Zelenskyy's home town.
Except most of the 'evidence' for it being 'Putin's Palace' (assuming you mean the Sochi one) came from Navalny, complete with his 'artists impression' and CGI about how it would look. Except a couple of bloggers went to investigate and discovered it was a resort under constructiion. As for Krivoy Rog, it might have been the WLB's home town, but it's also a steel producing centre with engineering businesses based around that. Plus it's always been a military staging post, and it's close to the front lines. But Russia could also attack the Marinsky Palace, which they haven't. Then again, the Romanovs built that, just as they did much of Ukraine.
This post has been deleted by its author
@DS999
"It was obviously from the start that the plan was to ambush him"
Watch the video. Apparently Zelenskyy had been behaving that badly for 40 minutes before. The US gov expected him to play to the cameras like that for maybe 10 mins then behave but yet Trump and Vance were incredibly patient with him. Seriously just watch it. And Zelenskyy wanted to sign at the Whitehouse and not with Rubio. Making an agreement with Rubio and saying it needed approval, only a couple of weeks later announcing he personally rejected the deal. Zelenskyy f'ed up. No conspiracy or 4D chess from Trump. Just Zelenskyy screwed up. And I expect it isnt Zelenskyy's fault as he met congress politicians before the meeting who probably told him Trump couldnt stop support. Just watch the video and your entire belief of what happened will be destroyed.
"Complete bs! Trump has never threatened Putin. He has never done ANYTHING against Putin or Russia!"
As Trump pointed out very easily Obama sent blankets and Trump sent Javelins. The invasions happened under Obama and Biden with a break over Trumps first term. Now Zelenskyy who refused to negotiate and Putin who refused a 30 day ceasefire are negotiating and accepting a ceasefire. The fantasy that Trump did nothing for Ukraine does not stand up to reality. But more recently when Trump cut support for Ukraine and Russia started pummelling Ukraine with missiles Trump threatened to apply more economic sanctions on Russia. The US has very few screws left to turn on Russia because they have already been used by Biden to achieve nothing.
"he's already negotiated away everything Putin wants before any negotiations have started"
Negotiated away what? Territory the Russians have and Ukraine wont be able to take back? I dont say that in support of Putin, just I dont believe Ukraine can get its territory back without NATO declaring war on Russia directly and thats been ruled out both in the US and Europe.
"Then your final bit of bullshit that "allies" are sending missiles into Russia. What sort of bs alternate reality are you living in?"
NATO weaponry that requires NATO assets (people and equipment) to operate. Which is why these things were not sent to Ukraine until Trump was campaigning on peace and both Zelenskyy and Russia started to sound like it was a possibility. Then Biden allowed the use of these long range NATO weapons to attack Russia.
"Behaving badly" lol
"We need you to thank us again for the stuff you thanked us for dozens of times because the orange felon is a narcissist who has a bottomless need for worship and wants to take credit for everything that was done to help you under Biden, before he pulls the rug out and takes Vlad's side"
@DS999
"We need you to thank us again for the stuff you thanked us for dozens of times because the orange felon is a narcissist who has a bottomless need for worship and wants to take credit for everything that was done to help you under Biden, before he pulls the rug out and takes Vlad's side"
Guess you missed the conversation up to that point. And the bit where Obama sent blankets and Trump sent military hardware. And if you think Trump is taking Vlads side by trying to end the war do you approve of Obama and Biden justifying and accepting the invasions?
Going for a record number of downvotes are you, you Quisling?
That's my job. Ukraine's WLB was put firmly in his place while the grown-ups tried to negotiate a peace deal. Ukraine still isn't at all interested in peace, given it still hasn't repealed the law that prevents it from negotiating. Its 'trading fund' in Kurks was just closed out at the cost of a lot of lives and equipment, and so it's released Russia forces to work on it elsewhere. So what does Ukraine do? Yesterday, to mark its new willingness to negotiate, it attempted another incursion into Belgorod and wasted more resources it can't afford to spare. Oh, and of course Starmer announced cutting disability payments to UK citizens so he can spend the money creating more disabled Ukrainians instead.
So complaining that a leader of a country at war wasn't wearing a his and hers matching suit is grown up?
Going in suited and booted is generally seen as a sign of respect. But carrying on with his discount Che schtick wasn't his biggest problem, that was attempting to treat the US President as an equal and dictating terms.
BTW, after that fit up, his rating in Ukraine skyrocketed, while the the US dictatorships plummeted
Probably a good time to hold an election then, no? But I think you'll find his rating was based on official polling, so 'Do you think the WLB is the best, or would you like to be sent to the front lines?'. Oh, and maybe he can add this to his merch store-
https://hobbycrash.com/en/little-big-man-military-uniform-figure-p-895.html
You seem to have missed the photograph of Churchill in khaki that hangs with pride in the Whitehouse.
Hmm? This one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#/media/File:WinstonChurchill1916Army.gif
But Churchill was normally suited and booted. Churchill had actually served, dime-store Che was just a 2-bit comedian thrust into the performance of his lifetime. Luckily that also means there are plenty of images from his previous roles that showed he'd spent some time bulking up for the part.
countries rarely do and despots often call a state of emergency to do so.
Indeed. Whilst the WLB keeps the conflict going and maintains martial law, he keeps himsefl in power. But power is fleeting, and the producers may be writing his character out of this sh*tshow. Not being invited to sit at the table with the big-boy peace discussions isn't a good sign, and as the old saying goes, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.
@IGotOut
"So complaining that a leader of a country at war wasn't wearing a his and hers matching suit is grown up?"
I keep reading this but I watched the arrival and the conversation with reporters and Trump didnt make the comment. Trumps comment on Zelenskyy arriving was that he had dressed up and looked smart. During the televised conversation with reporters a reporter commented on Zelenskyy not wearing a suit.
"BTW, after that fit up, his rating in Ukraine skyrocketed, while the the US dictatorships plummeted."
After Zelenskyy's constant misbehaviour and lack of interest in the already agreed deal he was there to sign, Zelenskyy was kicked out. Then he called asking to come back but the answer was not until he was serious about peace.
The last 10 minutes of the reporter conversation entirely misses the 45 minutes of misbehaviour and apparently 40 minutes before that before the cameras were invited.
The comment about not wearing a suit did indeed come from a journalist.
I have seen in multiple sources the claim that the journalist in question is married to Trump Loyalist politician (which claims I acknowledge I have not verified), so the possibility of it being a 'planted' question is at least worth acknowledging.
@EvilDrSmith
"I have seen in multiple sources the claim that the journalist in question is married to Trump Loyalist politician (which claims I acknowledge I have not verified), so the possibility of it being a 'planted' question is at least worth acknowledging."
It is possible but also probably a natural question too. That isnt a statement of legitimacy of the question but there is desperation that it must be blamed on Trump.
Just as everything must be blamed on Trump in an exchange with journalists on camera which anyone can watch and yet somehow some people still want to blame Trump/Vance because of the last 10 minutes. I can understand people thinking it was Trump/Vance off that little clip but how the truth hasnt yet reached those people yet I dont know.
At this point I am wondering if it is that the truth hasnt yet reached them or their absolute devotion to the Trump bad narrative wont let them be honest about that on video discussion.
I have seen in multiple sources the claim that the journalist in question is married to Trump Loyalist politician (which claims I acknowledge I have not verified), so the possibility of it being a 'planted' question is at least worth acknowledging.
It was a reasonable question, especially as Trump had already called him out on it when the WLB arrived at the White House. Plus like codejunky said, you really should watch the whole session because you could see the way Trump was rapidly losing his patience. The WLB had one job. Field a few questions, sign the minerals deal, pose for the cameras and enjoy another free lunch. But he couldn't keep his ego in check and now is in trouble.
"Ukraine still isn't at all interested in peace,"
Possibly true, but then neither is Russia.
"Its 'trading fund' in Kurks {sic} was just closed out at the cost of a lot of lives and equipment, and so it's released Russia forces to work on it elsewhere."
Which appears to be an admission from you that the Ukrainian assault into Kursk Oblast did tie up Russian forces, which is an improvement, since most of Putin's useful idiots insist that it did no such thing.
"Yesterday, to mark its new willingness to negotiate, it attempted another incursion into Belgorod and wasted more resources it can't afford to spare."
Given that I'm not privy to the information from the Ukrainian High Command, I can't comment on whether the Ukrainians can or cannot spare the resources. However, the attack does indicate that most of the lives and equipment sent into Kursk came out in good order, and could safely hold the flank of the new attack, or possibly redeploy to take part in it.
However, what do you imagine the final peace deal might look like?
The most obvious form will be freezing things along the line of conflict, akin to the agreement to stop the Korean War.
Ukraine cannot legally cede treaty to the aggressor Russia without changing their constitution, but recognising that Russia controls certain territory in practice while refusing to recognise that Russia's claim is legal is likely something that the Ukrainian's would be able to accept, subject to them then receiving the necessary security guarantees that convince them that Russia's desire to fully annex their country have been definitively stymied.
Russia - or rather Putin - has something of a bigger problem.
I understand that the Russian constitution is just as clear that Russian territory cannot be ceded as the equivalent clause in the Ukrainian.
When the 3 day Special Military Operation that Putin launched 37 months ago had obviously failed to achieve its aims after about 3 months, Putin did the sensible thing (/sarc) and doubled down, declaring that four Ukrainian oblasts (in addition to Crimea) were actually Russian territory, despite the fact that the Russian army has been unable to actually take all of any of these four oblasts.
A peace along the line of contact means that Putin has to explain how, 38 months ago, no Russian territory was occupied, but now 'Russian' (ie illegally claimed Ukrainian) territory IS now "occupied" - a tricky situation to spin into a claim of victory.
Maybe Trump will pressure Ukraine to give up territory for peace, but as 'master of the deal', he should see that the Ukrainians will need something back in return (side note - I can see the Ukrainians conceding all of Donetsk and Luhansk, since the Russians have much of these oblasts already; I would be very surprised if the Ukrainians concede all of Kherson, since that gives the Russians the bridgehead over the Dnipro that they will need when they - the Russians - restart the war in 2-3 years time; keeping Kherson west of the Dnipro would seem to be a Ukrainian security guarantee Red Line)
If the Ukrainians are able to hold ANY amount of true Russian territory, the situation is likely worse for Putin - that's actual Russian territory that Putin lost because of his folly, at which point Putin needs to consider the nature of the retirement plan that applies to presidents for life.
It seems likely that Putin will pay any cost (in dead Russians and destroyed equipment) to regain all true Russian territory, but in the mean time will need to constantly re-buff Trump's calls for a ceasefire,. How long can he get away with that before Trump takes offense, and decides Putin is not a guy he can do a deal with?
Which appears to be an admission from you that the Ukrainian assault into Kursk Oblast did tie up Russian forces, which is an improvement, since most of Putin's useful idiots insist that it did no such thing.
It's the whole cost/benefit thing. The objective was probably an attempt to capture the Kursk NPP, but got halted well before that could be threatened. Then it became about getting some cards for the 'exchange fund', or the bizarre claim of creating a buffer zone, or pimple. But it devoted a lot of soliders and equipment to that venture, and a lot of that has now been destroyed. Sure, it did tie up some Russian forces, but Russia has a lot more forces at their disposal. Plus it's one of those SMO distinctions, ie Russia was free to use any of their forces because the invasion was on Russia's territory. And it also didn't seem to slow Russia down much because they continued to advance and take territory on other fronts.
However, the attack does indicate that most of the lives and equipment sent into Kursk came out in good order, and could safely hold the flank of the new attack, or possibly redeploy to take part in it.
A rather strange conclusion, unsupported by any evidence. There is imagery of Ukrainian columns getting hit by drones and artillery and that incursion being quickly halted at the cost of more men and materiel. Russia can give the Kursk battalions a few weeks R&R and then they'll be free to redeploy and perhaps push into Sumy, Kharkiv etc.
However, what do you imagine the final peace deal might look like?The most obvious form will be freezing things along the line of conflict, akin to the agreement to stop the Korean War.
I doubt that and Russia is more likely to be based on the Istanbul agreement, only less favorable. Freezing the conflict would basically be Minsk 3 and Russia knows that was just an excuse to rearm Ukraine, and Ukraine is in a far worse situation than it was when Minsk was agreed. I suspect the deal will be ceding the territory Russia has already claimed, creating a DMZ west of the Dnipr and constitutional neutrality. NATO membership is pretty much a non-starter, and Russia's said previously they don't care if Ukraine joins the EU.. Probably because they know it'll just cause problems for both the EU and Ukraine.
Ukraine cannot legally cede treaty to the aggressor Russia without changing their constitution, but recognising that Russia controls certain territory in practice while refusing to recognise that Russia's claim is legal is likely something that the Ukrainian's would be able to accept
Bigger problem is Ukraine still can't legally negotiate any kind of peace with Russia. Until it repeals that law, and stops insisting that peace means pre-2014 borders, the situation will only get worse. Their constitution can be changed, and if it is forced to seek terms, then that territory is lost. Whether it's legal or not isn't really relevant given the amount of map changing we've done over the last few decades.
I understand that the Russian constitution is just as clear that Russian territory cannot be ceded as the equivalent clause in the Ukrainian.
It's the same situation as with Ukraine. Both countrys could agree to redraw their maps, but Ukraine is in a far, far weaker negotiating position.
When the 3 day Special Military Operation that Putin launched 37 months ago had obviously failed to achieve its aims after about 3 months, Putin did the sensible thing (/sarc) and doubled down, declaring that four Ukrainian oblasts (in addition to Crimea) were actually Russian territory, despite the fact that the Russian army has been unable to actually take all of any of these four oblasts.
Of course the '3-day' claim came from Milley, not Putin. Putin just said the SMO would continue until the objectives have been met, which they haven't, yet. Russia has now taken pretty much all of the oblasts and I think a key thing to watch out for is if Russia decides to claim more. Don't forget the SMO has always been about attrition though, not territory. If Russia continues to attrit, Russia will be able to take whatever territory it wants.. Which could be the land bridge to Transinistra, and everything east of the Dnipr.. And then Ukraine probably joins Yugoslavia in the historical maps section.
I would be very surprised if the Ukrainians concede all of Kherson, since that gives the Russians the bridgehead over the Dnipro that they will need when they - the Russians - restart the war in 2-3 years time; keeping Kherson west of the Dnipro would seem to be a Ukrainian security guarantee Red Line)
Ukraine doesn't really have any choice, and I agree the Dnipr makes a logical place to draw a line, red or otherwise. People keep forgetting though that Russia also has security concerns, and their own red lines.. Which we kept crossing, and kept pushing. Plus Russia would want to avoid the Minsk situation repeating, so not allowing Ukraine to rearm as it did following the outbreak of their civil war, loss of DPR & LPR and threatening those populations again. So a peace deal a la Istanbul would probably impose conditions on the size of Ukraine's armed forces and limitations on long-range weapons.
It seems likely that Putin will pay any cost (in dead Russians and destroyed equipment) to regain all true Russian territory, but in the mean time will need to constantly re-buff Trump's calls for a ceasefire,. How long can he get away with that before Trump takes offense, and decides Putin is not a guy he can do a deal with?
Russia's already pretty much done this and is now mopping up in Kursk and Belgorod. Trump can take offense all he wants, but also doesn't hold many cards. Russia's already heavily sanctioned, so what sanctions levers does the US have that haven't already been pulled? The EU's already up to it's 16th(?) round of sanctions, Russia's economy is growing, the EU's contracting. The 'ceasefire' is a bit of a nothingburger and arguably favors Russia over Ukraine, simply because Russia has a far larger amount of infrastructure, which means Ukraine hasn't really been able to do it much damage. Plus if you look at the tempo of Russia's attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, those have typically been every 45 days or so. Russia can just use 30 days to stockpile more missiles and drones, and use the time to hunt down and destroy Ukraine's Neptune missile and drone production facilities.
"The objective was probably an attempt to capture the Kursk NPP"
To use your own words 'A rather strange conclusion, unsupported by any evidence.'
The possible objective of Ukraine's incursion into Kursk was discussed in these hallowed pixels back in August, so I won't repeat that discussion.
Again, you also seem to contradict yourself somewhat, claiming that Russia could use forces in Kursk Oblast that couldn't be used elsewhere, but that those same forces will be rested and will then be used elsewhere.
You do, however, seem to be convinced on the "Russia StronK!" idea, which is less sound a conclusion than you might wish it to be.
While Ukraine is clearly not winning, Russia is clearly losing.
There are increasingly informed assessments that the Russian Army is now in something of a death spiral. A very good assessment of the Russian army casualties and replacement system was posted by Perun on his you tube channel a few weeks ago (drawing on multiple information sources, both 'western' and Russian). He noted the huge increase in the value of signing on bonuses for individuals volunteering to join the Russian army, reflecting the difficulty it is having in obtaining necessary manpower. Despite this, the army manpower seems to have peaked summer last year, and now be (very slowly - not in itself significant) declining. This on top of the fact that the Russian army has maintained its manpower levels by funnelling untrained recruits straight into the front line, with 5 days from recruited to dead, crippled or captured seemingly about standard. While the untrained recruits always form the larger percentage of casualties, WWI style 'wastage' inevitably slowly whittles away the number of experienced capable troops too. The Russian army is, qualitatively, probably getting worse day-by-day.
37 months ago, Russian artillery had a 5:1 quantitative advantage over the Ukrainians, and was qualitatively better. That's now dropped to a 1.5:1 quantitative advantage, but with confirmed cases of 1950s towed systems (and at last one confirmed usage of towed WWII systems) in Russian service, while the Ukrainians are using increasing numbers of Caesar, Archer, M777 etc, the Ukrainian's now have the qualitive edge over the Russian army.
At the start of the 3 day SMO, Russia had 'inexhaustible' stocks of armour and artillery. At the end of 2023, it was estimated that these stocks would be exhausted between the end of 2024 and the end of 2025. The stockpiles are not yet exhausted - but certain types of vehicles and weapon systems - the most modern - have been exhausted. External storage and modern commercial satellite imagery makes it relatively easy for people to do this sort of assessment, and it seems likely that much of the little that is left is beyond economic repair, possibly beyond any practical repair. Russia can sustain it's vehicle and equipment losses for the time being, but not indefinitely, and every system lost on the front line and replaced by one from storage is likely to be a capability downgrade.
In contrast, Ukraine gets to replace its equipment losses with equipment that is either modernised or new-build, and which is maintaining or improving capability.
Ukraine is also now out-producing Russia in drones, and using them to carry out strikes deep into the Russian hinterland, such as the one that caused a huge explosion at Engels airbase last night, and the regular strikes at Russia's oil infrastructure. It is not a surprise that Putin wanted a ceasefire that would stop Ukraine making these strikes while allowing him to continue blowing up residential tower blocks.
To use your own words 'A rather strange conclusion, unsupported by any evidence.'
Sllly me. Of course the objective was potatoes. The conclusion though was supported by road signs.
Again, you also seem to contradict yourself somewhat, claiming that Russia could use forces in Kursk Oblast that couldn't be used elsewhere, but that those same forces will be rested and will then be used elsewhere.
Nope, not at all. Russia has enough forces that they can rotate units out of the line. Ukraine doesn't, or won't, or when it does it just leaves territorial defence forces or conscripts to try and plug the holes.
There are increasingly informed assessments that the Russian Army is now in something of a death spiral. A very good assessment of the Russian army casualties and replacement system was posted by Perun..
Next you'll be telling me Denys Davydov is a reliable source..
This on top of the fact that the Russian army has maintained its manpower levels by funnelling untrained recruits straight into the front line, with 5 days from recruited to dead, crippled or captured seemingly about standard.
Yep. Those 'meatwave' attacks by Russians armed only with shovels. But facts aren't what you think they are, and facts seem to support that it's Ukraine that has had to resort to conscription, dragging people off the streets and being thrown into the meatgrinder where they're surrendering at the first opportunity.
37 months ago, Russian artillery had a 5:1 quantitative advantage over the Ukrainians, and was qualitatively better. That's now dropped to a 1.5:1 quantitative advantage, but with confirmed cases of 1950s towed systems (and at last one confirmed usage of towed WWII systems) in Russian service, while the Ukrainians are using increasing numbers of Caesar, Archer, M777 etc, the Ukrainian's now have the qualitive edge over the Russian army.
Of course they do. This is why Telegram is full of videos of outgoing Ukrainian artillery, and not videos of wrecked Caesars, Archers, M777 etc. But picking one howitzer at random-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_howitzer_2A18_(D-30)
Ukraine: 129
Russia: 4,570
But Russia can produce artillery and more importantly ammunition far faster than we seem able to.
At the start of the 3 day SMO, Russia had 'inexhaustible' stocks of armour and artillery
Ah, that 3-day meme from Milley again. But at the start of the SMO, our 'leaders' told us that Russia would be out of ammo within a few months, it would be out of missiles, and it's resorted to scavenging washing machine parts.. Yet they're still firing, and this is despite some successes by Ukraine at hitting ammunition dumps.. But of course Russia has also been hitting Ukrainian supplies and deliveries. The tempo doesn't really seem to be slowing down. And sure, eventually, maybe the West will be able to increase 155mm ammunition production to 10,000 a month.. But Ukraine's biggest problem is their demographic timebomb. It takes maybe a couple of hours to produce a shell, but at least 18yrs to produce a conscript. Which is again back to this being about attrition, not territory.
Ukraine is also now out-producing Russia in drones, and using them to carry out strikes deep into the Russian hinterland, such as the one that caused a huge explosion at Engels airbase last night, and the regular strikes at Russia's oil infrastructure.
Again a rather bold claim, and Russia is also producing drones in large quantities. Ukraine's hit Engels and other airbases before and it hasn't slowed them down much. Russia does have a lot of airfields it can operate from after all.
It is not a surprise that Putin wanted a ceasefire that would stop Ukraine making these strikes while allowing him to continue blowing up residential tower blocks.
Uhuh. That old chestnut again. Ukraine usually talks about how it shot down 132/120 drones and missiles, and yet stuff still blows up. Ukrainian physics is different to the RoW and when it fires interceptors at drones and missiles, none of them fall back to earth. It's something that I find suprising that there have been relatively few civilian casualties in this conflict, at least compared to others like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and of course Gaza & Lebanon. Those last two show what happens when a beligerent does decide to intentionally target residential tower blocks.
But such is politics. Every explosion is a new sales opportunity.
To be honest, I prefer the explanation that Vance saw an opportunity to exploit Trump's narcissism and went for it and Trump lost his shit – the misunderstanding of "feel" is telltale for someone with diminishing mental faculties. But we all knew that the event was staged to try and humiliate and intimidate Zelensky, someone who lives knowing that everyday could be his last and still finds time to visit the soldiers at the front.
It's no surprise that Trump's antics have led to an uptick in US veterans deciding to go to fight in Ukraine.
@Charlie Clark
"To be honest, I prefer the explanation that Vance saw an opportunity to exploit Trump's narcissism and went for it and Trump lost his shit"
You may prefer that narrative but thats a personal preference over what actually happened.
"But we all knew that the event was staged to try and humiliate and intimidate Zelensky"
You really aught to watch the discussion in front of the cameras. Not the last 10 minutes where Vance tells Zelenskyy they should discuss this in private but the whole thing. Zelenskyy just doesnt know how to behave. This wasnt a stitch up it was a moronicly simple turn up, play nice, sign the agreement Zelenskyy wanted to do in the US and have dinner. Instead Zelenskyy actually managed to misbehave so badly he got thrown out without getting to sign.
Watch it. No special narratives or anyone telling you what to think, just watch the actual footage. But it will destroy what you believe happened I promise you.
"the negotiating table"
It's not a "negotiating table". That's not how Trump makes "deals". He decides what HE wants and strong arms the "other side" into accepting the deal. Anyone trying to "negotiate" is just wrong, in his eyes, because, of course, Trump is NEVER wrong. But he does get petulant if you tell him he's wrong.
@John Brown (no body)
What on earth are you on about? If they want the war to go on they can, the US just had enough of funding it. The fact Biden got them to the negotiating table against Ukraines position of no negotiation and Russia not wanting a 30 day ceasefire and Trump has achieved it. And you still have to pretend its a bad thing to stop killing people. FFS
I never said peace or negotiating is a bad thing, you made that up.. I said Trump doesn't understand how to negotiate. He just bullies the other side into agreeing with him or leaving with nothing. Sadly, he has the power to do that. I note that the other day Trump claimed Putin has agreed to a cease fire. He said no such thing. He said he agreed "in principle" and then threw in a load of ridiculous conditions that no sane person could possible agree to. And yet, weirdly from your point of view, Zelensky HAS agreed to a cease fire, WITH Trumps preconditions.
Lets see Trump tell us how he's going to make Putin really agree to a cease fire and what threats Trump is prepared to make to enforce it. So far, all the threats have been aimed at the victim, not the aggressor.
@John Brown (no body)
"I never said peace or negotiating is a bad thing, you made that up.. I said Trump doesn't understand how to negotiate."
Ah ok. So why didnt Obama negotiate instead of accepting the initial incursion? Why didnt Biden negotiate instead of accepting the limited incursion? At least Trump is trying to negotiate and so far has been very successful. Zelenskyy rejected negotiations and now he is willing, Putin rejected ceasefires and he is now open to it.
"Lets see Trump tell us how he's going to make Putin really agree to a cease fire and what threats Trump is prepared to make to enforce it. So far, all the threats have been aimed at the victim, not the aggressor."
Its a bit tired to keep claiming the bs that Trump is only threatening Ukraine. The fact is there is little to threaten Russia with since Biden used up leverage to achieve nothing and the only real big stick is war that US and Europe has ruled out. Negotiations now are just to stop the killing. Note the invasions stopped in Trumps first term vs the Presidents either side of him.
It's possibly the biggest condemnation of the national security apparatus built up over the last 24-25 years. You managed to spy on everyone's communications, but couldn't manage to roadblock a stooge driven like a car by a foreign power from becoming the executive and tearing down the rest of the system.
I'm so annoyed that all this effort and time went into something that was so easily defeated.
It's possibly the biggest condemnation of the national security apparatus built up over the last 24-25 years. You managed to spy on everyone's communications
Well, there was Iraq's WMD, OBL's Mount Doom, and 51 intelligence agents not noticing a crackhead's laptop. As for spying on communications, Crossfire Hurricane and spying on your political rivals.
.. but couldn't manage to roadblock a stooge driven like a car by a foreign power.
Hmm? You mean Biden, his unauthorised possession of classified information, his family dealings with Ukraine and China? But I take it you're not really a fan of democracy or due process. Meanwhile, Europe can adjust to the new political landscape and invest accordingly. Too bad that means cutting social spending to fill more bodybags, but eventually or 'leaders' may realise that restoring trade with Russia is more beneficial than trying to prop up the Banderites in Ukraine.
This post has been deleted by its author
It turns out we had ample intelligence about 9/11, but there is so much intelligence traffic that the right pieces didn't float up to the decision makers on top to do anything. I suspect the same is probably true with Trump's compromise by Russia in the 80s. No one cared about some failing real estate guy in NYC trying to avoid bankruptcy by help the Russian mob money launder using his properties. Didn't have anything to do with national security, and became irrelevant once the wall fell and the USSR disintegrated.
America was undoubtedly the leader in cyber threat intelligence, a multi-billion €/£/€ industry which for historic reasons often follows defense influence, whether it will remain so if and when the dodgy orange realter departs the white house is far from certain. I am not sure if forfeiting the leading position the USA had in industry and diplomacy was what he meant when he said America first but it may yet be what he bequeaths the nation.
I say this as to lead an industry you need to be doing it the best and or most and if no one trusts you, you stop opposing some of the biggest threats (*cough* Russia *cough*), and you fire the experts shaping policy e.g. at CISA and on voluntary boards well its hard to see how America will continue to be the provider of choice and set any policy agendas.
Quote: "...Questions are also being asked about what intel is safe to share with Washington...."
Really? These questions have been asked for at least twenty years!
Maybe readers will remember that everyone (except Colin Powell!) knew that Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction"..............
Please, ElReg, you need to get a grip!
