[dabigv13]

Trump and Putin will negotiate a deal so bad for Ukraine, Zelensky will be forced to refuse it. Then when the US cuts off aid, Ukraine will take the blame as warmongers who don't want peace.

Hopefully Europe holds firm after we abandon Ukraine. Ukraine with European support will still be a very tough nut for the Russian armed forces to crack in it's current state.

Also 

Putin can determine bloodshed -- he wields serious Oreshnik MIRV missiles which Europe lacks. He can reduce Kyiv to ashes. 

This is untrue. If he could reduce Kyiv to ashes, he already would have done so. He's certaintly been trying for a few years. The Oreshnik was already used once and didn't do much damage because the MIRVs accuracy is pretty low. It's an intimidation weapon, not a very useful actual weapon without the nuclear warheads.

[dabigv13]

Trump and Putin will negotiate a deal so bad for Ukraine, Zelensky will be forced to refuse it. Then when the US cuts off aid, Ukraine will take the blame as warmongers who don't want peace.

Hopefully Europe holds firm after we abandon Ukraine. Ukraine with European support will still be a very tough nut for the Russian armed forces to crack in it's current state.

Also 

Putin can determine bloodshed -- he wields serious Oreshnik MIRV missiles which Europe lacks. He can reduce Kyiv to ashes. 

This is untrue. If he could reduce Kyiv to ashes, he already would have done so. He's certaintly been trying for a few years. The Oreshnik was already used once and didn't do much damage because the MIRVs accuracy is pretty low. It's an intimidation weapon, not a very useful actual weapon without the nuclear warheads.

[cardcrimson]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

The quantity of immediately available raw materials in Ukraine is generally vastly overstated. Raw materials are at least notionally present in many locations. In almost all cases there is no ongoing extraction and no on-the-ground sampling of exactly what ore concentration, ore chemistry, and ore body size is involved. Ukraine would have to do the prospecting, select appropriate locations and build mines/refining facilities before they could ship processed ore. If the current administration would accept a very long-range "earn out" period and if the investment capital required was made available, it could work.

Long term, it might be a good investment but there will be no ROI for quite awhile. I am not sure the administration would accept that kind of deal. I am not sure the administration is looking for long-term gains. OTOH it may be a good way to pressure Putin and explain a new willingness to help Ukraine.

   

---  YES, agree strongly with Goose... having been to Ukraine.  
1)  Totally agree on vast overstatement, with no real recent analysis of mineral assays, cost of access, refinement... 
I visited Kyiv in March 2023 with an energy project team (getting the lights back on).  
In general, there is a big deficiency of "business thinking" around the table.   Very, very few MBAs.  
"How much investment would be required?" is just seen as Government (Soviet) budget, not investment.  They take it for granted. 
Ukrainians somehow are fed a really false narrative about "TRILLIONS" in rare earths, titanium, beryllium, etc.   It's fraudulent. 
Some think they just get a basket and roam around to scoop up nuggets of gold, silver, etc. 

2)  Americans are not thinking, "just with wallet, not heart".  This is false -- though the Int'l media likes to promote that narrative. 
Ending bloodshed is the number one objective of a peace deal. 
Bessent did not articulate his approach well; He's a hedge fund guy, not a PR maven.   Ukraine will need EXTERNAL investment.
He is talking about bringing capital to JVs.   There is no other model for Ukraine.  Without capital, they are dead.  

3)  Europe is stuck in a "Versailles model" Peace Conf like 1919, where all the parties gather round a table.   NO. 
That is an assembly of non-equals with much squawking, like a UN General Assembly.   Counter-productive. 
The Trump Power model is:  only the two principals that can actually make a difference will frame a deal.  

Putin does not recognize Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine because his term expired and he is operating under martial law. 
Yes, this is a unilateral power play.  Putin is a dick; we know this.  But, Putin will meet with Trump.  Start there. 
Putin can determine bloodshed -- he wields serious Oreshnik MIRV missiles which Europe lacks.  He can reduce Kyiv to ashes.  
  
4)  Initially, there will be no territorial give backs.  This will evolve.  The idea is to stop bloodshed first.  
Some in Europe want to mount up another 200,000 soldiers (they don't have) and "show Putin".   Madness.  
That will sacrifice the next generation of Ukrainians.  Another year of slaughter will not regain any territory.  Sorry. 
Europe is not at the table initially because, frankly, they don't bring much to the party:  

*  More than HALF the NATO Euro-slackers have run below their 2% GDP "commitment" on NATO for more than 20 years.  
Sorry -- that matters. 
* Now... the majority of Ukrainians want "the war to end".   They are done.  Exhausted.  This is a shift from 2022.  
* My daughter, as a US Army Logistics captain served on the NATO front (2015-2018) out of Germany.  
She observed: "All the EU soldiers were older -- mid30s to mid40s -- few of their young people serve in the military."  
"Imagine the weekend warriors in the First Blood Rambo movie (1982) that muster to attack Rambo. 
"They know how to fix vehicles, but their military skills are not up to par.  Germans are more worried about lead in trees." 
* She did not leave with much confidence that Europe can defend itself (EU Army).   

Air Force (jets) is probably better with F-16s and F-35s... but that is a pathway to WW3.  Is that what you want? 
I think the air force resources in the West prevent Putin from trying to advance on other countries.  

* Politically, Europe is suffering a lot of turmoil with half their governments in some state of turmoil, diminishing legitimacy. 
Americans truly do not understand this.  Europe holds elections that NOBODY wins.  

What to do?   
A) End the bloodshed.   That takes a deal with Russia.  Only USA can forge that deal.  Real-politik.  That's how it is.  Sorry. 
B)  Build a slow ramp that can enable Ukraine to recover.  Right now, the Govt cannot meet payroll.  
Japan is interesting:  their engineering firms are already in Kyiv (they cannot provide military aid), and offering to de-mine large regions. 
C)  Ukraine does not have fertile soil today.  The potential exists, but they exhausted their soil with poor management practices. 
A massive soil amendment campaign is required to restore the fertility -- and Europe could help with that.  
Ukraine must produce exports:  Agriculture and minerals.  -- their currency is worthless.   

There are NO ideal solutions.  First, stop the bloodshed.  Save young people.

Thanks for the insights.

[cardcrimson]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

The quantity of immediately available raw materials in Ukraine is generally vastly overstated. Raw materials are at least notionally present in many locations. In almost all cases there is no ongoing extraction and no on-the-ground sampling of exactly what ore concentration, ore chemistry, and ore body size is involved. Ukraine would have to do the prospecting, select appropriate locations and build mines/refining facilities before they could ship processed ore. If the current administration would accept a very long-range "earn out" period and if the investment capital required was made available, it could work.

Long term, it might be a good investment but there will be no ROI for quite awhile. I am not sure the administration would accept that kind of deal. I am not sure the administration is looking for long-term gains. OTOH it may be a good way to pressure Putin and explain a new willingness to help Ukraine.

   

---  YES, agree strongly with Goose... having been to Ukraine.  
1)  Totally agree on vast overstatement, with no real recent analysis of mineral assays, cost of access, refinement... 
I visited Kyiv in March 2023 with an energy project team (getting the lights back on).  
In general, there is a big deficiency of "business thinking" around the table.   Very, very few MBAs.  
"How much investment would be required?" is just seen as Government (Soviet) budget, not investment.  They take it for granted. 
Ukrainians somehow are fed a really false narrative about "TRILLIONS" in rare earths, titanium, beryllium, etc.   It's fraudulent. 
Some think they just get a basket and roam around to scoop up nuggets of gold, silver, etc. 

2)  Americans are not thinking, "just with wallet, not heart".  This is false -- though the Int'l media likes to promote that narrative. 
Ending bloodshed is the number one objective of a peace deal. 
Bessent did not articulate his approach well; He's a hedge fund guy, not a PR maven.   Ukraine will need EXTERNAL investment.
He is talking about bringing capital to JVs.   There is no other model for Ukraine.  Without capital, they are dead.  

3)  Europe is stuck in a "Versailles model" Peace Conf like 1919, where all the parties gather round a table.   NO. 
That is an assembly of non-equals with much squawking, like a UN General Assembly.   Counter-productive. 
The Trump Power model is:  only the two principals that can actually make a difference will frame a deal.  

Putin does not recognize Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine because his term expired and he is operating under martial law. 
Yes, this is a unilateral power play.  Putin is a dick; we know this.  But, Putin will meet with Trump.  Start there. 
Putin can determine bloodshed -- he wields serious Oreshnik MIRV missiles which Europe lacks.  He can reduce Kyiv to ashes.  
  
4)  Initially, there will be no territorial give backs.  This will evolve.  The idea is to stop bloodshed first.  
Some in Europe want to mount up another 200,000 soldiers (they don't have) and "show Putin".   Madness.  
That will sacrifice the next generation of Ukrainians.  Another year of slaughter will not regain any territory.  Sorry. 
Europe is not at the table initially because, frankly, they don't bring much to the party:  

*  More than HALF the NATO Euro-slackers have run below their 2% GDP "commitment" on NATO for more than 20 years.  
Sorry -- that matters. 
* Now... the majority of Ukrainians want "the war to end".   They are done.  Exhausted.  This is a shift from 2022.  
* My daughter, as a US Army Logistics captain served on the NATO front (2015-2018) out of Germany.  
She observed: "All the EU soldiers were older -- mid30s to mid40s -- few of their young people serve in the military."  
"Imagine the weekend warriors in the First Blood Rambo movie (1982) that muster to attack Rambo. 
"They know how to fix vehicles, but their military skills are not up to par.  Germans are more worried about lead in trees." 
* She did not leave with much confidence that Europe can defend itself (EU Army).   

Air Force (jets) is probably better with F-16s and F-35s... but that is a pathway to WW3.  Is that what you want? 
I think the air force resources in the West prevent Putin from trying to advance on other countries.  

* Politically, Europe is suffering a lot of turmoil with half their governments in some state of turmoil, diminishing legitimacy. 
Americans truly do not understand this.  Europe holds elections that NOBODY wins.  

What to do?   
A) End the bloodshed.   That takes a deal with Russia.  Only USA can forge that deal.  Real-politik.  That's how it is.  Sorry. 
B)  Build a slow ramp that can enable Ukraine to recover.  Right now, the Govt cannot meet payroll.  
Japan is interesting:  their engineering firms are already in Kyiv (they cannot provide military aid), and offering to de-mine large regions. 
C)  Ukraine does not have fertile soil today.  The potential exists, but they exhausted their soil with poor management practices. 
A massive soil amendment campaign is required to restore the fertility -- and Europe could help with that.  
Ukraine must produce exports:  Agriculture and minerals.  -- their currency is worthless.   

There are NO ideal solutions.  First, stop the bloodshed.  Save young people.

Thanks for the insights.

[dabigv13]

Trump is now blaming Ukraine for starting the war (Russia invaded Ukraine). He is also repeating Russian lies about Zelensky, saying he only has 5% approval (he has ~57% approval in public polling). Considering the day Russia invaded, Trump called the invasion "genius" and "saavy" this is not at all surprising.

We are aligning with Russia, and against our (former?) NATO allies. Ominous. Why?

[dabigv13]

Trump is now blaming Ukraine for starting the war (Russia invaded Ukraine). He is also repeating Russian lies about Zelensky, saying he only has 5% approval (he has ~57% approval in public polling). Considering the day Russia invaded, Trump called the invasion "genius" and "saavy" this is not at all surprising.

We are aligning with Russia, and against our (former?) NATO allies. Ominous. Why?

[Goose]

Putin can reduce Kiev to ashes quickly by using nuclear weapons. He can't do so with conventional weapons, at least quickly enough to matter. That has been amply demonstrated.

What is unfortunately also true is that Ukraine has had no viable path to victory since the failure of their 2023 offensive. Eventually that takes a toll on morale. That will defeat Ukraine within a year or so anyway, best case, unless something "significant" changes. Worst case, Ukraine could crack at any moment.

Russia has its problems as well. The main differences are that 1) they have several paths to victory, so it is reasonable for them to believe they can attain it, and 2) morale isn't a problem in the general populace, at least not yet.

Unfortunately the US is not  in any way practicing Realpolitik. Talking to Putin is viewed as a "victory" for Putin. Fine, peace talks have to start somewhere. However, that encourages Putin to believe he has the upper hand and encourages him to be intransigent. Even more unfortunately the US then proceeded to confirm that he did in fact have the upper hand by starting negotiations to restore trade relations with the US. Realpolitik would have required a quid pro quo. We got nothing for giving something. We didn't have to do that. IMO very stupid negotiating tactics and in no way Realpolitik. Right now it appears we are in full Neville Chamberlain mode. Start talks. Sequentially concede to your opponent virtually everything he wants. Declare victory and peace in our time. That didn't end up well. Arguably that approach leads even more directly to WW III than giving Ukraine more aid will.

In general nobody, even Putin, will start WW III on purpose. Too big a risk, too much downside. However, it is quite possible that WW III will start based on a miscalculation. I don't need to remind anybody that WW II started that way. Hitler didn't think France and Britain were serious. They were. The Ukraine war itself started based on Putin's miscalculation of a quick (matter of days) victory. There is ample reason to believe he can miscalculate again. I for one would prefer that we make it clear by our deeds that aggression against sovereign European states by Russia will be resisted by effective force. Failing to do that invites a much wider war when it becomes (as it inevitably has and will) vital to US national interests that we do so.

The one thing that may save Ukraine, at least temporarily, is that Putin will believe Ukraine will completely crumble soon and therefore he won't take a deal, no matter how favorable. I now don't think it is actually possible for Putin to overplay his hand in negotiations. We have cleverly positioned ourselves to have no political leverage at all. I previously had some hopes for Putin being so unreasonable that the US wouldn't accept the obviously disastrous deal. It appears we aren't even hoping for a "decent interval".

The Europeans apparently can't get their act together regarding how they might participate in a cease-fire/surrender deal. I can absolutely guarantee them that if Ukraine goes under, the refugee crisis in Europe will make their current migrant problems appear nugatory. Those Ukrainian young people "saved" from the war will be on their way into Europe in a heartbeat. The old people will be two steps behind them. The Moldavian population will probably be right behind them.

Actually, there is a second thing that may save Ukraine. In war, nothing is certain. Since Ukraine isn't involved in any negotiations they aren't bound by the agreements reached therein. They can keep fighting, at least for awhile. Sometimes things happen.

[Goose]

Putin can reduce Kiev to ashes quickly by using nuclear weapons. He can't do so with conventional weapons, at least quickly enough to matter. That has been amply demonstrated.

What is unfortunately also true is that Ukraine has had no viable path to victory since the failure of their 2023 offensive. Eventually that takes a toll on morale. That will defeat Ukraine within a year or so anyway, best case, unless something "significant" changes. Worst case, Ukraine could crack at any moment.

Russia has its problems as well. The main differences are that 1) they have several paths to victory, so it is reasonable for them to believe they can attain it, and 2) morale isn't a problem in the general populace, at least not yet.

Unfortunately the US is not  in any way practicing Realpolitik. Talking to Putin is viewed as a "victory" for Putin. Fine, peace talks have to start somewhere. However, that encourages Putin to believe he has the upper hand and encourages him to be intransigent. Even more unfortunately the US then proceeded to confirm that he did in fact have the upper hand by starting negotiations to restore trade relations with the US. Realpolitik would have required a quid pro quo. We got nothing for giving something. We didn't have to do that. IMO very stupid negotiating tactics and in no way Realpolitik. Right now it appears we are in full Neville Chamberlain mode. Start talks. Sequentially concede to your opponent virtually everything he wants. Declare victory and peace in our time. That didn't end up well. Arguably that approach leads even more directly to WW III than giving Ukraine more aid will.

In general nobody, even Putin, will start WW III on purpose. Too big a risk, too much downside. However, it is quite possible that WW III will start based on a miscalculation. I don't need to remind anybody that WW II started that way. Hitler didn't think France and Britain were serious. They were. The Ukraine war itself started based on Putin's miscalculation of a quick (matter of days) victory. There is ample reason to believe he can miscalculate again. I for one would prefer that we make it clear by our deeds that aggression against sovereign European states by Russia will be resisted by effective force. Failing to do that invites a much wider war when it becomes (as it inevitably has and will) vital to US national interests that we do so.

The one thing that may save Ukraine, at least temporarily, is that Putin will believe Ukraine will completely crumble soon and therefore he won't take a deal, no matter how favorable. I now don't think it is actually possible for Putin to overplay his hand in negotiations. We have cleverly positioned ourselves to have no political leverage at all. I previously had some hopes for Putin being so unreasonable that the US wouldn't accept the obviously disastrous deal. It appears we aren't even hoping for a "decent interval".

The Europeans apparently can't get their act together regarding how they might participate in a cease-fire/surrender deal. I can absolutely guarantee them that if Ukraine goes under, the refugee crisis in Europe will make their current migrant problems appear nugatory. Those Ukrainian young people "saved" from the war will be on their way into Europe in a heartbeat. The old people will be two steps behind them. The Moldavian population will probably be right behind them.

Actually, there is a second thing that may save Ukraine. In war, nothing is certain. Since Ukraine isn't involved in any negotiations they aren't bound by the agreements reached therein. They can keep fighting, at least for awhile. Sometimes things happen.

[dabigv13]

Financial Times and Bild are reporting that as a part of a deal, Trump is likely to withdraw US troops from the Baltic states, Kosovo, and possibly other places as well.

Why? Who benefits?

I imagine nuclear proliferation will be an emerging theme of our near future. Would be folly for any current US ally to rely on our nuclear umbrella.

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland-und-...195a71efba

https://www.ft.com/content/11f121f9-391c...2894e1b79d

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892271455783604419

[dabigv13]

Financial Times and Bild are reporting that as a part of a deal, Trump is likely to withdraw US troops from the Baltic states, Kosovo, and possibly other places as well.

Why? Who benefits?

I imagine nuclear proliferation will be an emerging theme of our near future. Would be folly for any current US ally to rely on our nuclear umbrella.

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland-und-...195a71efba

https://www.ft.com/content/11f121f9-391c...2894e1b79d

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892271455783604419

[Mick]

In general nobody, even Putin, will start WW III on purpose. Too big a risk, too much downside. However, it is quite possible that WW III will start based on a miscalculation. I don't need to remind anybody that WW II started that way. Hitler didn't think France and Britain were serious. They were. The Ukraine war itself started based on Putin's miscalculation of a quick (matter of days) victory. There is ample reason to believe he can miscalculate again. I for one would prefer that we make it clear by our deeds that aggression against sovereign European states by Russia will be resisted by effective force. Failing to do that invites a much wider war when it becomes (as it inevitably has and will) vital to US national interests that we do so.

Interesting perspective and one to which I agree. You could state that WWI happened as a result of miscalculation...all the major powers came out losers. 

For another perspective, Dr. Kori Schoke taught "Thinking About War" at Stanford and the U. S. Military Academy. She is the Deputy Director-General, International Institute for Strategic Studies and edited (with Jim Mattis) American Views of Our Military, was the military advisor to the McCain campaign, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, etc. among other roles. 

Dr. Kori Schake - NATO Engages   Kori Schake - Wikipedia

In this piece, she doesn't agree with the idea of accidental war, or war as a result of miscalculation. I don't think she's in the majority, far from it, but it's an interesting read.

The Exculpating Myth of Accidental War | Johns Hopkins SAIS

In this eight-year-old Stanford mag piece, she advocates for strengthening global alliances, not surprisingly.

Bolstering alliances in a changing world | Stanford Report

[Mick]

In general nobody, even Putin, will start WW III on purpose. Too big a risk, too much downside. However, it is quite possible that WW III will start based on a miscalculation. I don't need to remind anybody that WW II started that way. Hitler didn't think France and Britain were serious. They were. The Ukraine war itself started based on Putin's miscalculation of a quick (matter of days) victory. There is ample reason to believe he can miscalculate again. I for one would prefer that we make it clear by our deeds that aggression against sovereign European states by Russia will be resisted by effective force. Failing to do that invites a much wider war when it becomes (as it inevitably has and will) vital to US national interests that we do so.

Interesting perspective and one to which I agree. You could state that WWI happened as a result of miscalculation...all the major powers came out losers. 

For another perspective, Dr. Kori Schoke taught "Thinking About War" at Stanford and the U. S. Military Academy. She is the Deputy Director-General, International Institute for Strategic Studies and edited (with Jim Mattis) American Views of Our Military, was the military advisor to the McCain campaign, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, etc. among other roles. 

Dr. Kori Schake - NATO Engages   Kori Schake - Wikipedia

In this piece, she doesn't agree with the idea of accidental war, or war as a result of miscalculation. I don't think she's in the majority, far from it, but it's an interesting read.

The Exculpating Myth of Accidental War | Johns Hopkins SAIS

In this eight-year-old Stanford mag piece, she advocates for strengthening global alliances, not surprisingly.

Bolstering alliances in a changing world | Stanford Report

[dabigv13]

I am getting warnings from a mod I presume related to my posts on this thread. Is there a problem with my posts? Can we not state facts on the Ukraine thread? I realize it has been a bit of a special carve out on the no politics rule, but I'm pretty much just posting links and noting the exact words our President is using.

[dabigv13]

I am getting warnings from a mod I presume related to my posts on this thread. Is there a problem with my posts? Can we not state facts on the Ukraine thread? I realize it has been a bit of a special carve out on the no politics rule, but I'm pretty much just posting links and noting the exact words our President is using.

[fullmetal]

Yeah, there have been no "politically" bent statements here.  The facts are the facts, and if they make someone look bad for making bad statements, that's on them.

[fullmetal]

Yeah, there have been no "politically" bent statements here.  The facts are the facts, and if they make someone look bad for making bad statements, that's on them.

[TrumpCard]

FWIW, I like your posts.  To avoid problems, just avoid using the name or title of any politician, particularly a powerful one.  If you refer to the governmental entity that's undertaking the action or policy, then it sounds less political even if the content is the same.  The U.S. is doing ______.  California decided to ________.

[TrumpCard]

FWIW, I like your posts.  To avoid problems, just avoid using the name or title of any politician, particularly a powerful one.  If you refer to the governmental entity that's undertaking the action or policy, then it sounds less political even if the content is the same.  The U.S. is doing ______.  California decided to ________.

[BostonCard]

If you are a subscriber to the Economist,  you can attend a virtual subscriber only event:

Ukraine and Russia: what next

It's on Monday, available over a stream (and with a recording after)

https://www.economist.com/subscriber-eve...ars-on-hub

It will include Zanny Minton Beddoes (Editor-in-chief), Edward Carr (Deputy editor), Shashank Joshi (Defence editor), Arkady Ostrovsky (Russia and Eastern Europe editor), and Oliver Carroll (Ukraine correspondent).  Joshi is particularly good in his position as defense editor.

BC

[BostonCard]

If you are a subscriber to the Economist,  you can attend a virtual subscriber only event:

Ukraine and Russia: what next

It's on Monday, available over a stream (and with a recording after)

https://www.economist.com/subscriber-eve...ars-on-hub

It will include Zanny Minton Beddoes (Editor-in-chief), Edward Carr (Deputy editor), Shashank Joshi (Defence editor), Arkady Ostrovsky (Russia and Eastern Europe editor), and Oliver Carroll (Ukraine correspondent).  Joshi is particularly good in his position as defense editor.

BC

[Mick]

I am getting warnings from a mod I presume related to my posts on this thread. Is there a problem with my posts? Can we not state facts on the Ukraine thread? I realize it has been a bit of a special carve out on the no politics rule, but I'm pretty much just posting links and noting the exact words our President is using.

FWLIW, I'm usually sensitive to political posts and I haven't detected a whiff. If I'm the issue, I'm asking the mods to let me know and I'll refrain from posting on this topic.

[Mick]

I am getting warnings from a mod I presume related to my posts on this thread. Is there a problem with my posts? Can we not state facts on the Ukraine thread? I realize it has been a bit of a special carve out on the no politics rule, but I'm pretty much just posting links and noting the exact words our President is using.

FWLIW, I'm usually sensitive to political posts and I haven't detected a whiff. If I'm the issue, I'm asking the mods to let me know and I'll refrain from posting on this topic.

[paloalto]

Financial Times and Bild are reporting that as a part of a deal, Trump is likely to withdraw US troops from the Baltic states, Kosovo, and possibly other places as well.

Why? Who benefits?

I imagine nuclear proliferation will be an emerging theme of our near future. Would be folly for any current US ally to rely on our nuclear umbrella.

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland-und-...195a71efba

https://www.ft.com/content/11f121f9-391c...2894e1b79d

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892271455783604419

To answer your question, you are not just stating "facts".  You are posting your political opinion.  You are criticizing the policy of the current administration.

[paloalto]

Financial Times and Bild are reporting that as a part of a deal, Trump is likely to withdraw US troops from the Baltic states, Kosovo, and possibly other places as well.

Why? Who benefits?

I imagine nuclear proliferation will be an emerging theme of our near future. Would be folly for any current US ally to rely on our nuclear umbrella.

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland-und-...195a71efba

https://www.ft.com/content/11f121f9-391c...2894e1b79d

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892271455783604419

To answer your question, you are not just stating "facts".  You are posting your political opinion.  You are criticizing the policy of the current administration.

[dabigv13]

If the US withdraws troops from NATO allies, as reporting suggests, it will be much more likely for those countries to seek nuclear weapons. That's my informed opinion.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm letting the reader make up their own mind. What do you think?

[dabigv13]

If the US withdraws troops from NATO allies, as reporting suggests, it will be much more likely for those countries to seek nuclear weapons. That's my informed opinion.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm letting the reader make up their own mind. What do you think?

[fullmetal]

[fullmetal]

[TrumpCard]

I'm in the nuclear proliferation is bad camp.  Not that there's anything wrong with people who like nuclear proliferation.  It's a matter of personal choice.

[TrumpCard]

I'm in the nuclear proliferation is bad camp.  Not that there's anything wrong with people who like nuclear proliferation.  It's a matter of personal choice.

[dabigv13]

Perhaps the reason for pulling US troops from Europe is that we will not have the funds or manpower to assist NATO in the future. If we reduce the DOD budget by 40% over the next 5 years, yeah I suppose troops in Poland may be a luxury.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered senior leaders at the Pentagon and throughout the U.S. military to develop plans for cutting 8 percent from the defense budget in each of the next five years, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post and officials familiar with the matter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...dget-cuts/

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but why would we do this? Who benefits?

[dabigv13]

Perhaps the reason for pulling US troops from Europe is that we will not have the funds or manpower to assist NATO in the future. If we reduce the DOD budget by 40% over the next 5 years, yeah I suppose troops in Poland may be a luxury.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered senior leaders at the Pentagon and throughout the U.S. military to develop plans for cutting 8 percent from the defense budget in each of the next five years, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post and officials familiar with the matter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...dget-cuts/

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but why would we do this? Who benefits?

[fullmetal]

If they can find a way to streamline the defense contracting process and hold contractors accountable, I'd be down with that.  But that requires specific knowledge and experience.  I imagine SecDef may just hand out 8% reductions across the board like sequestration.

[fullmetal]

If they can find a way to streamline the defense contracting process and hold contractors accountable, I'd be down with that.  But that requires specific knowledge and experience.  I imagine SecDef may just hand out 8% reductions across the board like sequestration.

[Goose]

If they can find a way to streamline the defense contracting process and hold contractors accountable, I'd be down with that.  But that requires specific knowledge and experience.  I imagine SecDef may just hand out 8% reductions across the board like sequestration.

The performance of the office of the Secretary of Defense has been very poor since about 1992. Both the "business" side of the house (acquisition, personnel etc.) and the strategic performance of the office has IMO been seriously inadequate. Goldwater-Nichols created a situation where the Secretary of Defense was essentially responsible for "everything". It hasn't worked at all well, overall. We are now "jointly" incompetent strategically instead of individually :-).

It isn't a new problem. Solving it is not going to be quick or easy. It is fair to say that the actual spending of the defense budget has not been well managed for a very long time. IMO while audits are "nice to have", it is much more important that we have competent people in the defense department that realize RESULTS are all that matter, not appearances and bureaucratic niceties. Massive subject, too big for the Cardboard to solve :-).

[Goose]

If they can find a way to streamline the defense contracting process and hold contractors accountable, I'd be down with that.  But that requires specific knowledge and experience.  I imagine SecDef may just hand out 8% reductions across the board like sequestration.

The performance of the office of the Secretary of Defense has been very poor since about 1992. Both the "business" side of the house (acquisition, personnel etc.) and the strategic performance of the office has IMO been seriously inadequate. Goldwater-Nichols created a situation where the Secretary of Defense was essentially responsible for "everything". It hasn't worked at all well, overall. We are now "jointly" incompetent strategically instead of individually :-).

It isn't a new problem. Solving it is not going to be quick or easy. It is fair to say that the actual spending of the defense budget has not been well managed for a very long time. IMO while audits are "nice to have", it is much more important that we have competent people in the defense department that realize RESULTS are all that matter, not appearances and bureaucratic niceties. Massive subject, too big for the Cardboard to solve :-).

[2006alum]

I am getting warnings from a mod I presume related to my posts on this thread. Is there a problem with my posts? Can we not state facts on the Ukraine thread? I realize it has been a bit of a special carve out on the no politics rule, but I'm pretty much just posting links and noting the exact words our President is using.

Checking in here for the first time in ages - I never read this precisely because (thankfully) everyone is measured and no one complains to us about it. For precisely that reason, I'm not sure what mod reached out to you or why, but it would not have been because a fellow user complained. When a user does complain to us, we all get the complaint message and the stated reason, so that we can coordinate a response. I'm not sure I see anything about your recent posts that are out of line from everyone else's, so I'm not sure what the reason was without them speaking up. Sorry!

[2006alum]

I am getting warnings from a mod I presume related to my posts on this thread. Is there a problem with my posts? Can we not state facts on the Ukraine thread? I realize it has been a bit of a special carve out on the no politics rule, but I'm pretty much just posting links and noting the exact words our President is using.

Checking in here for the first time in ages - I never read this precisely because (thankfully) everyone is measured and no one complains to us about it. For precisely that reason, I'm not sure what mod reached out to you or why, but it would not have been because a fellow user complained. When a user does complain to us, we all get the complaint message and the stated reason, so that we can coordinate a response. I'm not sure I see anything about your recent posts that are out of line from everyone else's, so I'm not sure what the reason was without them speaking up. Sorry!

[fullmetal]

There are reports that SecDef is planning to fire and remove several senior military officers.  This is, of course, completely within the right of the executive branch to do so, but so rarely without clear cause.

[fullmetal]

There are reports that SecDef is planning to fire and remove several senior military officers.  This is, of course, completely within the right of the executive branch to do so, but so rarely without clear cause.