Sweet

There was never an agreement not to expand NATO east, or that there would be no NATO enlargement. There may have been a few words exchanged but an ‘agreement’ to that effect never existed. In 2013 Ukraine was on the cusp of signing a trade association with the EU but the president at the last minute decided not to under pressure from Russia. Greg said if you don’t meddle you don’t get wars - well Russia was meddling. The civil unrest that followed threw the president out and the new parliament passed trade association law. Ukraine was NOT about the join NATO. The country wanted to join NATO but there was no membership talks ans NATO countries were divided as to whether Ukraine should join NATO. With respect to the supposed peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, nobody really knows how close it was to being signed. Ukraine presented an agreement to Russia which Russia rejected. Russia presented an agreement to Ukraine which it rejected. Both sides walked away, not just Ukraine.

Aid had basically stopped since Trump took office. This was expected. Europe seems to want to step up. Hope they do. Although I do think some form of peace is really the only option now. But why would Putin agree to peace unless he gets everything he wants?

100%

You border Canada and Mexico lol. Two very friendly countries. Imagine you bordered China.

Yes and no. Cuba - not exactly an ally of America, not the same outcome as Ukraine. Canada, and Mexico, part of a sliver of old America as justification for annexation? Doubtful. Get what you are saying of course, talking points change, but it’s not the same. You’re implicitly suggesting all else is equal when it’s not. America has been a much friendlier neighbour than Russia over the past 150 odd years. American values are much preferred than Russian or Chinese for that matter. Their systems and beliefs are very different. Comparable yes, the same no, and the differences matter hugely.

Sure, but just say that it’s their problem and not ours. It’s makes a lot more sense than regurgitating Putin’s talking points.

Lol, their empires were always going to go fade. The Suez crisis was more about control of the canal which was seen as vital to the economies of Western Europe. It’s ironic that Trump is / was talking about taking the Panama Canal back, about 70 years ago it was America that prevented Europe from controlling the Suez.

For the most part this is what I think could happen to. Not sure Europe would have been ready to go to war with China though. It would be kind of ironic that Trump, who wants to assert America abroad by acting tough, is actually undermining American influence abroad.

You’re joking right? Europe largely does what America says. You’ve heard of the Suez crisis right? Since Suez, Europe has nearly always consulted America on foreign policy, or did what America asked of it on foreign policy.

England was in control of Ireland (a sliver of old England) much longer than Russia controlled Ukraine. The Ukrainians too regard themselves as Russian just like the Irish regard themselves as a type of English. And of course Putin would consider Ukrainian democracy, free markets and a desire to live like free like the Americans a provocation. What a despicable way to live. How dare the Ukrainians - I mean old Russians.

Some of these are 10+ baggers in 5 years. Incredible.

Some of these European defence stocks are up 15+% today.

I don’t think they are reliable sources given all that has happened. That may have been the impression they had, but I didn’t see it reported anywhere that Zelenskyy was going to sign a deal. He was expected to sign a deal but that’s different for agreeing beforehand to sign it.

Did he? It was anticipated that he might. But I never saw anything that said he had agreed to sign it beforehand.

Unfortunately it’s still nowhere near enough - yet

Excellent videos

I’ve no idea. It’s really quite strange. The people complaining about his dress couldn’t shine his shoes.

That’s my reading of events too. Europe needs a US aligned foreign policy, rather than a US dependent foreign policy. The former would have / will? give them independence and muscle so that Ukraine doesn’t need the US. But this has been known for years and nothing was done.

David Sacks? One of the biggest doofuses around. There is an extraordinary difference in quality between his analysis and that of Victor Hanson. Hanson is making well reasoned points, Sacks is playing pop-psychologist for half of his post, stating things he cannot possibly know.

What made it worse for Vance, particularly when he was demanding Zelenskyy say thanks, was that he voted against sending aid to Ukraine. I didn’t realise this to this morning. He went full Karen in the oval offices and he’s a liability. I wonder if he is in the next Oval Office meeting - if not Trump may have sidelined him. Zelenskyy made a mistake too, he took the bait when he should have shut up. But he’s a president of a country at war for over three years. You can see visibility the toll it has taken on him. He’s done more for his people than just about any other modern politician I think off. In other words he deserves some slack. No slack for Vance though. It’s permanently altered my view of him. Good video by the way @Xerxes of the Gen. Jack Keane.

We are all information peasants here, guessing as to what will or won’t be offered. So I’m not judging you, but there is nothing in your post really regarding the ambiguity that isn’t speculation. Which is fine, it’s your opinion, but we don’t see it the same way.

Lol, stretch of the year.

Yeh, it was actually Vance who started it by lecturing on diplomacy. And Zelenskyy pointed out that had been tried. Not quite sure how it blew up the way it did. Incidentally, the day before Vance also did a similiar thing with UK PM Starmer about free speech, and Starmer hit back. That didn’t blow up, and there were no claims of disrespect. I think Vance has shown he is a bit of a liability. Trump and Zelenskyy managed to get on OK even though they did not see eye to eye. Oddly, Vance claimed that Zelenskyy was trying to ‘litigate’ it publicly, yet it was he who started the public litigating. I agree it wasn’t a plan to trap Zelenskyy, but surely Trump must be thinking that his VP kinda chucked a grenade. Zelenskyy threw back and it kicked off. For reference this is Starmer vs Vance the day before:

Perhaps, but they can rip a lot higher if military spending increases significantly. But horse could have bolted. I don’t know.