• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Political impacts of Ukraine war

As Brexiteer Tusk is kind of the enemy of my enemy. Having said that he is fairly representing Poland and I agree with him.

Tusk to tell leaders that more European troops needed near Russia​


Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, will tell fellow leaders in London that more European troops need to be stationed in countries bordering Russia.

Before flying to the UK, Mr Tusk said Europe had to achieve military and “defence independence” from the US and start “believing we are a global power.”

He said he would “loudly demand that all European countries think about how to strengthen our flank, and that European troops should be much more present in Finland, the Baltic states and on our border with Russia and Belarus”.

“In the Ukrainian-Russian war, Poland stands on Ukraine’s side – no ifs, ands or buts – not only because human decency requires it, but also for our security,” Mr Tusk told reporters in Poland.

Poland, which will spend 4.7 per cent of GDP on defence this year, has been one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters.

Mr Tusk said it also wanted strong transatlantic relations and the “closest possible alliance” between Europe and the US.

“We support Ukraine and we strengthen our alliance with the United States – no matter how difficult the circumstances are,” he said.

“We also know that Poland must buy an additional insurance policy. This means European armaments, the military and defence independence of Europe. Independence – not isolation.”

Mr Tusk said that, with Ukraine, Europe had 2.6m soldiers compared to 1.3m US soldiers and 1.1m in Russia. It also had more fighter jets.

“Today in Europe we have a deficit of imagination and courage. Europe must understand its strength,” he said. A strong Europe, confident in its strength, well prepared to defend its borders, is a Europe that can guarantee peace.”


Some of those Atlantic countries could send some of their combat aircraft forwards to Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania. Or if that is a step to far forward for them send them to Germany and Czechia.
 
BBC is covering the European summit on Ukraine and the subsequent comments from global leaders.


Highlight appears to be a proposed four point plan for Ukrainian security championed by Keir Starmer, among which appears to be a proposal to form a ‘coalition of the willing’ to put “boots on the ground, and planes in the air”.

  1. To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine,
  2. To have Kyiv at the table for any peace talks,
  3. For European leaders to to aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine and;
  4. A "coalition of the willing" will be formed to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there.
Other commentary is recognizing both the need for Europe to step up, and the need for co ti use engagement and partnership with the U.S.

I expect we’ll see well informed commentary on this in the coming days, but obviously to most eye opening comments would see to be those suggesting the possibility of a coalition military force.
 
1. To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine,
Not much help if it's just a continuation of allowing Russia to slowly win.

2. To have Kyiv at the table for any peace talks,
Statement of obvious.

3. For European leaders to to aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine and;
Security guarantees. Worth about as much as past security guarantees.

4. A "coalition of the willing" will be formed to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there.
The only remarkable point on the list. Summer campaigning season is fast approaching. I'm very interested to see what they put up.
 
1. To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine,
Not much help if it's just a continuation of allowing Russia to slowly win.

Russia’s gaining a bit of ground but at a gradually reducing rate of gain, and yet it can’t even take back its own land in Kursk…most assessments note that Russia is rapidly approaching a societal and economic tipping point…we’ll see I guess while this variant of ‘peace’ is noodled by the various players.

2. To have Kyiv at the table for any peace talks,
Statement of obvious.

Wasn’t so obvious when Trump said MBS was hosting him and Vlad, without Zelenskyy.

3. For European leaders to to aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine and;
Security guarantees. Worth about as much as past security guarantees.

So what would make any security guarantee by joint American and Russian agreement any more worthy than European guarantees.

4. A "coalition of the willing" will be formed to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there.
The only remarkable point on the list. Summer campaigning season is fast approaching. I'm very interested to see what they put up.
Indeed. Interesting to see who mates up to the coalition.
 
TRussia’s gaining a bit of ground but at a gradually reducing rate of gain, and yet it can’t even take back its own land in Kursk…most assessments note that Russia is rapidly approaching a societal and economic tipping point…we’ll see I guess while this variant of ‘peace’ is noodled by the various players.



Wasn’t so obvious when Trump said MBS was hosting him and Vlad, without Zelenskyy.



So what would make any security guarantee by joint American and Russian agreement any more worthy than European guarantees.


Indeed. Interesting to see who mates up to the coalition.
No agreement signed by Putin and Trump without boots on the ground from ALL Nato countries and a commitment to initiate Article 5 if Russia so much as sends a reconnaissance drone over the border is worth any more than the paper its printed on. I also haven't heard anyone demanding that the children that have been kidnapped be sent home which should be one of the minimum concessions
 
No agreement signed by Putin and Trump without boots on the ground from ALL Nato countries and a commitment to initiate Article 5 if Russia so much as sends a reconnaissance drone over the border is worth any more than the paper its printed on. I also haven't heard anyone demanding that the children that have been kidnapped be sent home which should be one of the minimum concessions
That would require Russia to admit it has taken those children and he won’t do that.
 
No agreement signed by Putin and Trump without boots on the ground from ALL Nato countries and a commitment to initiate Article 5 if Russia so much as sends a reconnaissance drone over the border is worth any more than the paper its printed on. I also haven't heard anyone demanding that the children that have been kidnapped be sent home which should be one of the minimum concessions
This idea has ways seemed silly to me. "We won't let them in NATO, with the exception that we will treat them as a NATO member for the purposed of Article 5, arguably the most important article I the NATO constitution." if Russia won't accept Ukraine in NATO, why would they accept such an arrangement? It's tantamount to being the same thing.
 
I wonder if we are going to see more and more NK equipment in Russia or Chinese if there is no ceasefire. It seems clear that refurbishment and stocks can not keep up with losses. Will these countries be willing to throw away their inventory on this war? Perhaps Europe wishes to run down Russian war stocks to nothing?
 
I wonder if we are going to see more and more NK equipment in Russia or Chinese if there is no ceasefire. It seems clear that refurbishment and stocks can not keep up with losses. Will these countries be willing to throw away their inventory on this war? Perhaps Europe wishes to run down Russian war stocks to nothing?

NK and Iran, but both of those countries won’t want to totally deplete their own forces. While SK isn’t likely to jump across the border, Iran probably doesn’t get the same feelings from its neighbors.
 
This idea has ways seemed silly to me. "We won't let them in NATO, with the exception that we will treat them as a NATO member for the purposed of Article 5, arguably the most important article I the NATO constitution." if Russia won't accept Ukraine in NATO, why would they accept such an arrangement? It's tantamount to being the same thing.

No the point to Art 5 is IF NATO forces are in Ukraine and attacked by Russia then that would trigger Art 5.
 
This idea has ways seemed silly to me. "We won't let them in NATO, with the exception that we will treat them as a NATO member for the purposed of Article 5, arguably the most important article I the NATO constitution." if Russia won't accept Ukraine in NATO, why would they accept such an arrangement? It's tantamount to being the same thing.
Even though I wrote it I agree with your comments which is why a just settlement short of total victory is not attainable. Russia is already saying they won't accept European piecekeepers at all so unless that changes the gathering of the willing is a non-starter. If they change and say they will accept European piecekeepers and those soldiers don't have the backing of their respective nations should Russia start hostilities again (including the little grey men) we will end up with a lot of body bags. A solution is just not in the cards.
 
Even though I wrote it I agree with your comments which is why a just settlement short of total victory is not attainable. Russia is already saying they won't accept European piecekeepers at all so unless that changes the gathering of the willing is a non-starter. If they change and say they will accept European piecekeepers and those soldiers don't have the backing of their respective nations should Russia start hostilities again (including the little grey men) we will end up with a lot of body bags. A solution is just not in the cards.
Russia wants a negotiated solution based on a fait accomplit. The Europe could choose to move forces into Ukrainian flanks and rear areas to free Ukrainian forces up and to deliver more local training as Ukrainian units rotate to the deep rear. That could itself be then presented as a fait accomplit in subsequent rounds of negotiations.

If Russia wants to preface things with “Fuck you, we’re already here”, other interested parties could, with Ukraine’s invitation, do the same.
 
This is (below) along the lines of what I've posted last week - What if Trump is angling to bring Russia directly into the US economic fold, related to his comments of 'Canada has nothing that we need' statements.

Institute of War -


Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed to Kremlin journalist Pavel Zarubin on February 24 that Russia has an "order of magnitude" more rare earth materials than Ukraine and stated that Russia can cooperate with both the US government and US companies in capital investment projects for rare earth materials.[4] Putin referred to mineral reserves both within Russia and within occupied Ukraine in his attempts to appeal to the United States to invest in "Russian" rare earth minerals (claiming minerals in occupied Ukraine as Russia's own). Putin also offered to conclude deals with the United States on the supply of Russian aluminum. CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and newly appointed Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries Kirill Dmitriev told CNN on February 24 that Russia is open to economic cooperation with the United States, that the first stage of cooperation would be in the energy sphere, and that such cooperation is key for a "more resilient global economy."

Our Federal Government should be VERY concerned about this chatter. Russia can supply many many things to the US cheaper than we here in Canada can. Trump is ALL about getting 'the best deal' for the US and getting these raw resources cheaper for the US and drawing Russian in, towards the US and away from China is a 'win' for the US.
 
Back
Top