[ADPinWDC]

Ian Bremmer in GZERO:  
Before negotiations had even started, Team Trump handed Vladimir Putin several of his core demands without securing a concession in return. The US ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine, rejected the possibility of deploying US peacekeeping forces, and acknowledged Russia’s territorial gains as the baseline for negotiations. Further, the talks excluded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European allies, signaling that the fate of Ukraine and Europe will be decided by Washington and Moscow.

Trump's "concessions" to Putin are just rude facts we don't like. 
1) There was not agreement on membership in NATO for UKR among Euros. 
NATO Chief Mark Rutte clarified this fact last week.  
Ukraine’s NATO membership never guaranteed in peace deal, Rutte clarifies
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence...clarifies/
 
None of them are going to send their 20-year-olds to Ukraine to fight Russia.  NONE of them.  Harsh fact. 
The Nazi Army tried to do that under Operation Barbarossa in 1941 and failed miserably.
-- 8 million casualties on all sides. 8 MILLION.   Keeping score? 
UKR is not in NATO and won't be.  Fact.
They are crippled badly as a Sovereign country right now -- how would they join? 

Kissinger saw it the same way -- he strongly advocated for neutrality, as with Austria.

2) Bremmer:  "The US rejected sending peacekeeping forces"... Does anyone want to hold an election on that, Mr. Bremmer? 
Does any Govt in Europe want to take that one to the people?  Ask Germany.  Scholz won't.  Poland will not.  
UK Labour PM Starmer "volunteered" to send peacekeepers with US backing.   He was out of bounds. 

What did EU decide in Paris at the "Emergency Summit Lunch" on Monday?
NOTHING.  Jacks or better to open, and everybody holds a busted flush.  Zip.  Nada.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/paris-summit-ukraine/

3) Bremmer:  "The fate of Europe and Ukraine will be decided by Washington and Moscow" --
Yes, correct.  That is a troublesome fact.   What has Europe done for 3 years? 
Piled up bodies in the Donbas every week by "doing whatever it takes".   For what? 

Ukraine is a damnable, bloody mess.
First priority:  Stop the bloodshed.
Not worried about scorekeeping in the salons of Europe, as they sip a fourth bottle of cognac. 
The Euros kept throwing ammo into the fire, "to fight to the last Ukrainian".  FAIL. 
Hurling another 200,000 soldiers into the maw won't gain a single mile of territory.  Harsh Fact.  

4)  Euro-slackers did not ante up 2% of GDP for TWENTY years... their NATO "commitment".   This is fact.
Now they complain about not having a seat at the table?   They didn't pay the dues.  

The two forces that can truly make a difference ARE USA and Russia.  That is the harsh landscape.   
USA is conducting shuttle diplomacy with Ukraine.   Putin refuses to recognize Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine.  
Returning to infantry and missile attacks will resolve NOTHING.  Nobody is going to "win" this war.  

There is no MILITARY leverage that brings Russia down or recovers territory.   Stop the bloodshed.  
Instead, financial sanctions and $200+ billion in frozen assets are one of the few elements of leverage.  

These are harsh facts.   Whether we like them or not... is a luxury.

[ADPinWDC]

Ian Bremmer in GZERO:  
Before negotiations had even started, Team Trump handed Vladimir Putin several of his core demands without securing a concession in return. The US ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine, rejected the possibility of deploying US peacekeeping forces, and acknowledged Russia’s territorial gains as the baseline for negotiations. Further, the talks excluded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European allies, signaling that the fate of Ukraine and Europe will be decided by Washington and Moscow.

Trump's "concessions" to Putin are just rude facts we don't like. 
1) There was not agreement on membership in NATO for UKR among Euros. 
NATO Chief Mark Rutte clarified this fact last week.  
Ukraine’s NATO membership never guaranteed in peace deal, Rutte clarifies
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence...clarifies/
 
None of them are going to send their 20-year-olds to Ukraine to fight Russia.  NONE of them.  Harsh fact. 
The Nazi Army tried to do that under Operation Barbarossa in 1941 and failed miserably.
-- 8 million casualties on all sides. 8 MILLION.   Keeping score? 
UKR is not in NATO and won't be.  Fact.
They are crippled badly as a Sovereign country right now -- how would they join? 

Kissinger saw it the same way -- he strongly advocated for neutrality, as with Austria.

2) Bremmer:  "The US rejected sending peacekeeping forces"... Does anyone want to hold an election on that, Mr. Bremmer? 
Does any Govt in Europe want to take that one to the people?  Ask Germany.  Scholz won't.  Poland will not.  
UK Labour PM Starmer "volunteered" to send peacekeepers with US backing.   He was out of bounds. 

What did EU decide in Paris at the "Emergency Summit Lunch" on Monday?
NOTHING.  Jacks or better to open, and everybody holds a busted flush.  Zip.  Nada.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/paris-summit-ukraine/

3) Bremmer:  "The fate of Europe and Ukraine will be decided by Washington and Moscow" --
Yes, correct.  That is a troublesome fact.   What has Europe done for 3 years? 
Piled up bodies in the Donbas every week by "doing whatever it takes".   For what? 

Ukraine is a damnable, bloody mess.
First priority:  Stop the bloodshed.
Not worried about scorekeeping in the salons of Europe, as they sip a fourth bottle of cognac. 
The Euros kept throwing ammo into the fire, "to fight to the last Ukrainian".  FAIL. 
Hurling another 200,000 soldiers into the maw won't gain a single mile of territory.  Harsh Fact.  

4)  Euro-slackers did not ante up 2% of GDP for TWENTY years... their NATO "commitment".   This is fact.
Now they complain about not having a seat at the table?   They didn't pay the dues.  

The two forces that can truly make a difference ARE USA and Russia.  That is the harsh landscape.   
USA is conducting shuttle diplomacy with Ukraine.   Putin refuses to recognize Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine.  
Returning to infantry and missile attacks will resolve NOTHING.  Nobody is going to "win" this war.  

There is no MILITARY leverage that brings Russia down or recovers territory.   Stop the bloodshed.  
Instead, financial sanctions and $200+ billion in frozen assets are one of the few elements of leverage.  

These are harsh facts.   Whether we like them or not... is a luxury.

[Nobadeer]

Apologies if this has previously been posted, but the movie Porcelain War is nominated for Best Documentary. Not sure it's still playing in any Bay Area theaters but if no longer on the big screen, it would be pretty compelling and powerful even if viewed on a computer monitor or iPhone.

[Nobadeer]

Apologies if this has previously been posted, but the movie Porcelain War is nominated for Best Documentary. Not sure it's still playing in any Bay Area theaters but if no longer on the big screen, it would be pretty compelling and powerful even if viewed on a computer monitor or iPhone.

[gailtate]

Kinda says it all right now. Read it and weep puke.

[gailtate]

Kinda says it all right now. Read it and weep puke.

[BostonCard]

This should be a "gifted" article, from the WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-ukraine-..._permalink

BC

[BostonCard]

This should be a "gifted" article, from the WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-ukraine-..._permalink

BC

[TrumpCard]

No comment on what deal Ukraine should or might sign.  I just shake my head when I see that Putin is offering to sign over rights to Ukraine's natural resources to the U.S.  I know that there are places in the world where wartime pillaging occurs, but I never dreamed that the U.S. would consider accepting pillaged property for any reason, let alone as compensation for tacitly allowing the pillaging to continue.

[TrumpCard]

No comment on what deal Ukraine should or might sign.  I just shake my head when I see that Putin is offering to sign over rights to Ukraine's natural resources to the U.S.  I know that there are places in the world where wartime pillaging occurs, but I never dreamed that the U.S. would consider accepting pillaged property for any reason, let alone as compensation for tacitly allowing the pillaging to continue.

[BostonCard]

Wild story about an American who believes that Russia represents the triumph of traditional values, and went to Ukraine to spy for the Russians (should be gifted).

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/russia-..._permalink

BC

[BostonCard]

Wild story about an American who believes that Russia represents the triumph of traditional values, and went to Ukraine to spy for the Russians (should be gifted).

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/russia-..._permalink

BC

[dabigv13]

Wild story about an American who believes that Russia represents the triumph of traditional values, and went to Ukraine to spy for the Russians (should be gifted).

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/russia-..._permalink

BC

Wow. That was quite a story.

[dabigv13]

Wild story about an American who believes that Russia represents the triumph of traditional values, and went to Ukraine to spy for the Russians (should be gifted).

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/russia-..._permalink

BC

Wow. That was quite a story.

[fullmetal]

How can US allies see this and not think that this could repeat itself in the future with other allies?

[fullmetal]

How can US allies see this and not think that this could repeat itself in the future with other allies?

[Goose]

How can US allies see this and not think that this could repeat itself in the future with other allies?

Seems pretty probable to me they see exactly that. When the US initially decided to "help" Ukraine my major concern was that we hadn't properly evaluated the downside of Ukraine being defeated despite our efforts. I was way too optimistic it seems. The current situation is IMO far worse.

[Goose]

How can US allies see this and not think that this could repeat itself in the future with other allies?

Seems pretty probable to me they see exactly that. When the US initially decided to "help" Ukraine my major concern was that we hadn't properly evaluated the downside of Ukraine being defeated despite our efforts. I was way too optimistic it seems. The current situation is IMO far worse.

[fullmetal]

Yeah, my question was somewhat rhetorical.  But now what's to stop...the US...from negotiating with Russia to split up the natural resources of Europe should Russia decide to invade Europe while "the US" abandons NATO?  Dark times when we allow Europe, in part or whole, to be carved up between a suddenly absent ally and a demonstrably aggressive, revanchist Russia.

[fullmetal]

Yeah, my question was somewhat rhetorical.  But now what's to stop...the US...from negotiating with Russia to split up the natural resources of Europe should Russia decide to invade Europe while "the US" abandons NATO?  Dark times when we allow Europe, in part or whole, to be carved up between a suddenly absent ally and a demonstrably aggressive, revanchist Russia.

[Goose]

IMO this discussion of who will "own" some of Ukraine's natural resources is bizarre. Even if the US and Ukraine reach an agreement, what prevents Ukraine from effectively refusing permission to develop them inside Ukraine? "Yes, you can develop them, but the freight rates to the (by then free and "secure") Ukrainian border will be pretty high. So will the taxes". Any agreement between Russia and the US in this regard is even more absurd. If Putin occupies Ukraine, why would he honor such an agreement? What is the US going to do? Sue him? If we won't go to war with Russia to protect Ukrainian sovereignty we certainly aren't going to do so over some undeveloped mineral resources in Ukraine.

There are a lot of serious issues involved and THIS is what is being discussed as "important". Bizarre.

[Goose]

IMO this discussion of who will "own" some of Ukraine's natural resources is bizarre. Even if the US and Ukraine reach an agreement, what prevents Ukraine from effectively refusing permission to develop them inside Ukraine? "Yes, you can develop them, but the freight rates to the (by then free and "secure") Ukrainian border will be pretty high. So will the taxes". Any agreement between Russia and the US in this regard is even more absurd. If Putin occupies Ukraine, why would he honor such an agreement? What is the US going to do? Sue him? If we won't go to war with Russia to protect Ukrainian sovereignty we certainly aren't going to do so over some undeveloped mineral resources in Ukraine.

There are a lot of serious issues involved and THIS is what is being discussed as "important". Bizarre.

[BostonCard]

I post this to give the White House's perspective (the Axios story is sourced exclusively from "administration officials")

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/21/zelensk...ine-russia

Without knowing what was in the deal, it is hard to know whether the Ukrainian position was rationale or not.  I get Goose's point, and also there is a part of me that thinks that if FCX (what Google says is the biggest US mining company) has a large titanium mine in Ukraine and the US air force is sourcing a lot of its titanium from there, that would be one of the biggest security guarantees for Ukraine.

On the other hand, it is a shakedown, and meekly acquiescing to it would a) not play well domestically in Ukraine and b) not be a good precedent for negotiations.

BC

[BostonCard]

I post this to give the White House's perspective (the Axios story is sourced exclusively from "administration officials")

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/21/zelensk...ine-russia

Without knowing what was in the deal, it is hard to know whether the Ukrainian position was rationale or not.  I get Goose's point, and also there is a part of me that thinks that if FCX (what Google says is the biggest US mining company) has a large titanium mine in Ukraine and the US air force is sourcing a lot of its titanium from there, that would be one of the biggest security guarantees for Ukraine.

On the other hand, it is a shakedown, and meekly acquiescing to it would a) not play well domestically in Ukraine and b) not be a good precedent for negotiations.

BC

[chrisk]

I post this to give the White House's perspective (the Axios story is sourced exclusively from "administration officials")

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/21/zelensk...ine-russia

Without knowing what was in the deal, it is hard to know whether the Ukrainian position was rationale or not.  I get Goose's point, and also there is a part of me that thinks that if FCX (what Google says is the biggest US mining company) has a large titanium mine in Ukraine and the US air force is sourcing a lot of its titanium from there, that would be one of the biggest security guarantees for Ukraine.

On the other hand, it is a shakedown, and meekly acquiescing to it would a) not play well domestically in Ukraine and b) not be a good precedent for negotiations.

BC

The White House is trying to project that it has all the leverage and that Ukraine needed to sign a deal yesterday. But Zelensky has some time to negotiate a deal and get better terms. How soon would Trump pull the plug realistically? He would use up a tremendous amount of political capital that he needs for domestic issues and he would have to live with the consequences of a collapsing Europe for almost 4 years.

[chrisk]

I post this to give the White House's perspective (the Axios story is sourced exclusively from "administration officials")

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/21/zelensk...ine-russia

Without knowing what was in the deal, it is hard to know whether the Ukrainian position was rationale or not.  I get Goose's point, and also there is a part of me that thinks that if FCX (what Google says is the biggest US mining company) has a large titanium mine in Ukraine and the US air force is sourcing a lot of its titanium from there, that would be one of the biggest security guarantees for Ukraine.

On the other hand, it is a shakedown, and meekly acquiescing to it would a) not play well domestically in Ukraine and b) not be a good precedent for negotiations.

BC

The White House is trying to project that it has all the leverage and that Ukraine needed to sign a deal yesterday. But Zelensky has some time to negotiate a deal and get better terms. How soon would Trump pull the plug realistically? He would use up a tremendous amount of political capital that he needs for domestic issues and he would have to live with the consequences of a collapsing Europe for almost 4 years.

[Hurlburt88]

I do wonder if there is more on the table in the US/Russia discussions than Ukraine and economic relationships.   If we think about the full globe and full spectrum of potential US geopolitical goals, seems like Kissinger-type thinking is an option

[Hurlburt88]

I do wonder if there is more on the table in the US/Russia discussions than Ukraine and economic relationships.   If we think about the full globe and full spectrum of potential US geopolitical goals, seems like Kissinger-type thinking is an option

[TrumpCard]

Well stop supporting Ukraine if you don’t give nukes to Iran. What could go wrong with an agreement like that?

[TrumpCard]

Well stop supporting Ukraine if you don’t give nukes to Iran. What could go wrong with an agreement like that?

[dabigv13]

The problem with some sort of "grand bargain" with Russia, even ignoring what it would mean to allow Russia to invade and annex their democratic neighbor, is that Russia has very little to offer the US.

Their economy doesn't produce many things the US could want or need. The only products we could conceivably want are raw materials, like oil. There is no Nixonian pivot possible either; Russia is very economically connected with China, by far their largest trade partner, and they are using North Korean troops in battle. Expecting Russia to act with the US against China or NK would be folly.

[dabigv13]

The problem with some sort of "grand bargain" with Russia, even ignoring what it would mean to allow Russia to invade and annex their democratic neighbor, is that Russia has very little to offer the US.

Their economy doesn't produce many things the US could want or need. The only products we could conceivably want are raw materials, like oil. There is no Nixonian pivot possible either; Russia is very economically connected with China, by far their largest trade partner, and they are using North Korean troops in battle. Expecting Russia to act with the US against China or NK would be folly.

[Goose]

Kissinger saw it the same way -- he strongly advocated for neutrality, as with Austria.

Kissinger saw a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't. In the case of Ukrainian, events proved that a neutral Ukraine was unacceptable to Russia. The first Bush administration "saw" that was true and encouraged them to stay inside the Russian Federation. The "Chicken Kiev" speech was a poster child for that.

Let us examine Austrian situation in 1945. Vienna is 1612 km from the present-day Russian border. In 1945 Russia was busy trying to control what became the Warsaw Pact nations. They were buffer states that separated Russia from Austria. While Russia occupied most of Austria, Austria was effectively surrounded by US forces in Bavaria and Italy. Austria is not part of the European Plain (https://www.britannica.com/place/European-Plain) which is considered the strategic gateway Europe to/from Russia corridor.  Austria is definitely not Slavic. Today it is 66% Roman Catholic and 2.2% Eastern Orthodox, so there were neither ethnic ties nor religious ties to the Soviet Union (as if it cared about religion). Therefore Austria wasn't important to Stalin/Russia. He had his hands full in the Balkan States. Both the US and the Soviet Union wanted to avoid conflict, so neutrality made sense to both. Austria is not a member of NATO. It joined the EU in 1995. Russia never had any particular political influence there.

Ukraine's situation was and is NOTHING like Austria's in 1945. For starters, Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine's economy was therefore totally integrated with Russia's. Ukraine is a mostly Slavic country and is 78% Eastern Orthodox. Ukraine very definitely IS in the European Plain. Ukraine therefore is an important factor in Russian defense. Ukraine also shares a very long common border with Russia. More importantly, Ukraine contained the home port of the Russian Black Sea fleet. It also could interdict traffic to/from the Sea of Azov.

After Ukraine did not join the Russian Federation in 1991 it became independent. It was militarily neutral, although it retained close ties with Russia.  In 2004 the presidential election was overturned by the courts in response to widespread improper interference by Russia in eastern Ukraine. Consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history_of_Ukraine for whatever details you might want. Russia continued to be the gorilla in the room until 2014. At that point the Ukrainian legislature overwhelmingly  passed a resolution to seek closer ties with the EU leading to eventual membership. The Russian aligned president refused to implement the decision. This resulted in the Euromaidan revolution. The President fled to Russia.

Russia responded by seizing Crimea, a part of the territory of a militarily neutral Ukraine. This action happened well before there was a hint that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. At that point, all Ukraine was trying to do was join the EU, something Austria, the "prototype" for Kissinger's  neutrality, had already done. It was absolutely clear that Russia was unwilling to allow an independent Ukraine that was not a client state of Russia. From 2004 to 2014 they more-or less were exactly that, "neutral" but beholden to Russia, with Russia repeatedly interfering in their internal affairs. Russia's violent reaction to Ukraine's even attempting to exercise their independence and assert their "neutrality" clearly demonstrates Dr. Kissinger was, once again, mistaken.

[Goose]

Kissinger saw it the same way -- he strongly advocated for neutrality, as with Austria.

Kissinger saw a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't. In the case of Ukrainian, events proved that a neutral Ukraine was unacceptable to Russia. The first Bush administration "saw" that was true and encouraged them to stay inside the Russian Federation. The "Chicken Kiev" speech was a poster child for that.

Let us examine Austrian situation in 1945. Vienna is 1612 km from the present-day Russian border. In 1945 Russia was busy trying to control what became the Warsaw Pact nations. They were buffer states that separated Russia from Austria. While Russia occupied most of Austria, Austria was effectively surrounded by US forces in Bavaria and Italy. Austria is not part of the European Plain (https://www.britannica.com/place/European-Plain) which is considered the strategic gateway Europe to/from Russia corridor.  Austria is definitely not Slavic. Today it is 66% Roman Catholic and 2.2% Eastern Orthodox, so there were neither ethnic ties nor religious ties to the Soviet Union (as if it cared about religion). Therefore Austria wasn't important to Stalin/Russia. He had his hands full in the Balkan States. Both the US and the Soviet Union wanted to avoid conflict, so neutrality made sense to both. Austria is not a member of NATO. It joined the EU in 1995. Russia never had any particular political influence there.

Ukraine's situation was and is NOTHING like Austria's in 1945. For starters, Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine's economy was therefore totally integrated with Russia's. Ukraine is a mostly Slavic country and is 78% Eastern Orthodox. Ukraine very definitely IS in the European Plain. Ukraine therefore is an important factor in Russian defense. Ukraine also shares a very long common border with Russia. More importantly, Ukraine contained the home port of the Russian Black Sea fleet. It also could interdict traffic to/from the Sea of Azov.

After Ukraine did not join the Russian Federation in 1991 it became independent. It was militarily neutral, although it retained close ties with Russia.  In 2004 the presidential election was overturned by the courts in response to widespread improper interference by Russia in eastern Ukraine. Consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history_of_Ukraine for whatever details you might want. Russia continued to be the gorilla in the room until 2014. At that point the Ukrainian legislature overwhelmingly  passed a resolution to seek closer ties with the EU leading to eventual membership. The Russian aligned president refused to implement the decision. This resulted in the Euromaidan revolution. The President fled to Russia.

Russia responded by seizing Crimea, a part of the territory of a militarily neutral Ukraine. This action happened well before there was a hint that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. At that point, all Ukraine was trying to do was join the EU, something Austria, the "prototype" for Kissinger's  neutrality, had already done. It was absolutely clear that Russia was unwilling to allow an independent Ukraine that was not a client state of Russia. From 2004 to 2014 they more-or less were exactly that, "neutral" but beholden to Russia, with Russia repeatedly interfering in their internal affairs. Russia's violent reaction to Ukraine's even attempting to exercise their independence and assert their "neutrality" clearly demonstrates Dr. Kissinger was, once again, mistaken.

[dabigv13]

(Reuters) - U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals have raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to Elon Musk's vital Starlink satellite internet system, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

https://x.com/phildstewart/status/1893094074166472944

This is obscene. Makes me embarrassed to be an American that we are acting like gangsters to a nation defending itself from an invading army that is continously committing atrocities and war crimes.

The mineral "deal" that Zelensky was surprised with and pressed to immediately sign had no actual security commitments from the US at all. None! It just gave the United States 50% of Ukraine's mineral rights, and in return Ukraine got no weapons, no soldiers, no alliance. And now we are threatening them like this. Shameful.

Our allies (for now) and other countries that use US military tech will surely take interest in this as well. I imagine Europe will be working on developing their domestic defense industry in this new era.

[dabigv13]

(Reuters) - U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals have raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to Elon Musk's vital Starlink satellite internet system, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

https://x.com/phildstewart/status/1893094074166472944

This is obscene. Makes me embarrassed to be an American that we are acting like gangsters to a nation defending itself from an invading army that is continously committing atrocities and war crimes.

The mineral "deal" that Zelensky was surprised with and pressed to immediately sign had no actual security commitments from the US at all. None! It just gave the United States 50% of Ukraine's mineral rights, and in return Ukraine got no weapons, no soldiers, no alliance. And now we are threatening them like this. Shameful.

Our allies (for now) and other countries that use US military tech will surely take interest in this as well. I imagine Europe will be working on developing their domestic defense industry in this new era.

[Goose]

(Reuters) - U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals have raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to Elon Musk's vital Starlink satellite internet system, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

https://x.com/phildstewart/status/1893094074166472944

This is obscene. Makes me embarrassed to be an American that we are acting like gangsters to a nation defending itself from an invading army that is continously committing atrocities and war crimes.

The mineral "deal" that Zelensky was surprised with and pressed to immediately sign had no actual security commitments from the US at all. None! It just gave the United States 50% of Ukraine's mineral rights, and in return Ukraine got no weapons, no soldiers, no alliance. And now we are threatening them like this. Shameful.

Totally agree.

Our allies (for now) and other countries that use US military tech will surely take interest in this as well. I imagine Europe will be working on developing their domestic defense industry in this new era.

I wish I had your confidence that they would. Right now, almost all of them all have significant political turmoil to deal with. Even Norway and Sweden have some issues. It is quite possible that "Europe" will do little or nothing. Lots of Europe wants to return to the status quo ante, where they had cheap natural gas and didn't fear Russia. They may chose to do exactly that, despite what has happened in Ukraine. Pretending that everything is OK may be politically more acceptable than dealing with "reality". I give that a 50% probability of happening. It is also possible that any nations who can will develop their own nuclear weapons. Certainly a few will simply align themselves with Putin and Russia, Hungary for sure and Slovakia maybe. Given how the US is behaving on the international stage right now, anything is possible.

[Goose]

(Reuters) - U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals have raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to Elon Musk's vital Starlink satellite internet system, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

https://x.com/phildstewart/status/1893094074166472944

This is obscene. Makes me embarrassed to be an American that we are acting like gangsters to a nation defending itself from an invading army that is continously committing atrocities and war crimes.

The mineral "deal" that Zelensky was surprised with and pressed to immediately sign had no actual security commitments from the US at all. None! It just gave the United States 50% of Ukraine's mineral rights, and in return Ukraine got no weapons, no soldiers, no alliance. And now we are threatening them like this. Shameful.

Totally agree.

Our allies (for now) and other countries that use US military tech will surely take interest in this as well. I imagine Europe will be working on developing their domestic defense industry in this new era.

I wish I had your confidence that they would. Right now, almost all of them all have significant political turmoil to deal with. Even Norway and Sweden have some issues. It is quite possible that "Europe" will do little or nothing. Lots of Europe wants to return to the status quo ante, where they had cheap natural gas and didn't fear Russia. They may chose to do exactly that, despite what has happened in Ukraine. Pretending that everything is OK may be politically more acceptable than dealing with "reality". I give that a 50% probability of happening. It is also possible that any nations who can will develop their own nuclear weapons. Certainly a few will simply align themselves with Putin and Russia, Hungary for sure and Slovakia maybe. Given how the US is behaving on the international stage right now, anything is possible.

[M T]

Barring a dramatic change in the Senate in two years, and barring changes in the election process, political leaders may expect that the US foreign policy will be as quickly changed in January 2029 as it was in January 2025.  One can certainly understand taking steps to protect themselves from the vagaries of US policy, but they may avoid too drastic steps by anticipating changes in 4 years. (Ukraine doesn't have that option.)

[M T]

Barring a dramatic change in the Senate in two years, and barring changes in the election process, political leaders may expect that the US foreign policy will be as quickly changed in January 2029 as it was in January 2025.  One can certainly understand taking steps to protect themselves from the vagaries of US policy, but they may avoid too drastic steps by anticipating changes in 4 years. (Ukraine doesn't have that option.)