Salisbury Fox

I believe that Trump administration is compromised given they shamelessly echo Russian messaging. I therefore believe that Putin will continue to push to assimilate the rest of Ukraine in the future, their economy and society is heavily reliant on continuous conflict. Last I heard Ukraine had effectively signed off on a minerals deal, which gave the US a great deal of control, but yes it does seem to have gone quiet on that front. Whilst the US may want to lift sanctions, I can’t imagine Europe will be keen for very good reasons. I do feel that we are going to regret taking this opportunity to show that aggression does not prevail, but then we have a president who seems determined to smash the rules based order to the detriment of everyone else. Salisbury have been very inconsistent this season, but losing by 3 or 4 may be a stretch, unless we can get Faes on loan in time

No problem and thanks. You are right that they haven’t reneged on their commitments to article 5 at this stage, but they have weakened NATO. It’s clear that they want to pivot to the Pacific making me certainly doubt whether they would come to the aid of smaller countries like the Baltics.

You are making the assumption that Russia would have negotiated in good faith back then and a deal would be better than what could be achieved today. Another assumption you are making is that any US security guarantee would have lasted when Trump became president. Evidence doesn’t support this as the US is no longer a guarantor of security for Europe let alone thinking it would keep an agreement in place for Ukraine. And thanks for the patronising comment on rocket science, appreciated.

Simply saying that they should look to negotiate in 2022 doesn’t mean a palpable deal was on the table. It also assumes that Russia would have accepted a deal on terms that were agreeable to both sides.

Well at this stage I would continue to arm Ukraine with everything the West has for as long as they want to stay in the fight. If only to put them in a better negotiating position as a minimum. Also, increase the economic pressure even further, their economy is far more unhealthy than they would have us believe, despite some over optimistic forecasts in the past. I appreciate that you will disagree and also that it is less likely to happen due to the current incumbent in the White House, but any other plan that I have seen rewards and emboldens Russia, and actually makes the world far less safe. It’s a rarity to find a nation that is willing and/or able to resist an adversary the size of Russia and it should be considered shameful to not utilise this opportunity., not only because it’s the right thing to do for Ukraine, but also for the rest of the civilised world.

Appeasing an aggressor is not a plan, it just kicks the can down the road and encourages others to use force to get what they want.

Not as silly as the Trump administration. End of the dying, for how long? I would suggest that normalising illegal annexations is not a good outcome either. You seem to be taking a very short term view on something that will have ramifications for decades. They wouldn’t have needed to take occupied territories back by force if they were and had been given the tools to attrit Russian forces on a larger scale.

Agreed, it does look like there are already suggestions of some limitations being applied to 5 eyes which is crazy. If you work in that area you surely have to be questioning the integrity of the US, especially with Tulsi Gabbard being appointed. I suspect the whole basis of who is friendly and who isn’t must be questioned.

The general consensus appears to suggest that it will be between 3-5 years before Russia is equipped to be of serious concern. By that time Poland should be well equipped themselves. I would imagine that Russia would be quite content to sow discord in Poland for now like they are suspected of doing with farmers blocking Ukrainian grain shipments. I suspect similar tactics being used on Moldova and Romania are of more immediate concern.

I would suggest that it’s a matter of opinion of whether we are truly powerless, hence the urgency to increase defence spending and the use of counter tariffs. Europe just needs to be a more confident player on the world stage. This will ultimately be to America’s detriment too.

I must be misinterpreting your posts then and so apologies. I am of the view that any tacit acceptance of what’s going on is dangerous, even if it is grounded in a reality of Trump’s making. My opinion is that this sort of acceptance can lead to the view that it’s inevitable that the US has a right to claim Greenland. Of course you are right that no one knows what a tolerable outcome will be, but it seems pretty obvious to me that rewarding acts of aggression will lead to a more dangerous world. It’s short term thinking at play. Whilst many doubt that Russia has either the ambition or capability to undertake further imperialistic actions, they will remain a destabilising threat to Europe.

It shouldn’t have been a surprise to see Ukraine struggle to go on the offensive when they were being asked to employ combined arms manoeuvre without air support. It certainly wasn’t through a lack of willingness from Ukraine, it was more on the failure of the West to give them the tools to do the job. Also, switching off the intelligence support is hardly going to help with their difficulties either. For all of the struggles that they are having in Kursk, they are having some tactical successes near Pokrovsk and so they are very much still in the game. The frontline is not collapsing, although Trump is doing his best to change that. As for predictability, is it not predictable that the world will become a more dangerous place when the US is prepared to sell out countries to a stronger aggressor state? We are already see some pulling out of conventions on the use of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, is this likely to encourage nuclear arms proliferation? My point is that you seem to be ignoring the consequences of the US position in favour of getting this ended now on terms friendly to Russia. I’m pretty sure Taiwan are watching this with great interest.

Betrayal was certainly in plain view when the US sided with Russia at the UN and when they blamed Ukraine for being invaded.

Even a Russian imposed leader and Russian control? I struggle to understand how people can write them off after everything that has gone on.

I’m not sure it has to be though, Ukraine has proven very capable. I don’t see why we wouldn’t keep them in the fight for as long as they want or at the very least put them in the strongest position for negotiations. I think Europe's politicians are beginning to realise that we are already at war with Russia albeit not in a conventional sense. We now need to start showing figures like Fido and Orban that there are consequences for being open to Russian influence

That would be a sell out and I fail to see how that is in the interests of anyone who isn’t in the pay of Russia. Meanwhile Russia is providing preconditions for talks.

I don’t feel they could have been anything other than transparent given the amount of support needed. Plus, how else were they to get that support without openly pressurising states to step up. Russia’s economy is in the toilet, their logistics are destroyed hence the wide use of donkeys, now would be the best time to strengthen Ukraine’s hand, not weaken it. I don’t believe that suggestions of a guerilla war offer a plausible negotiations strategy either. For starters it would likely result in much of Ukraine’s population fleeing creating an enormous refugee crisis for the rest of Europe.

I don’t blame them for looking for security guarantees, it’s absolutely ridiculous that these were given up before talks have even began. It’s either gross incompetence, naivety or Russia has something on them. One of Russia’s pre-requisites of no NATO membership has already been given up by Trump. There are lots of historic examples where peace agreements have not prevented war a number of years down the line and so I don’t share your optimism that putting Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position will lead to a desired end goal for the rest of Europe or the rest of the non-dictator led world.

I agree that peace is always worth a go, I just don’t see how peace can endure by giving away most of your negotiating strengths to an aggressor state. Not to mention encouraging others to act in a similar manner.

Well that assumes that Trump’s strategy is viable in the long term too.

If the target is Russia then I would suggest that hitting Moscow and St Petersburg would be enough.

Obviously it would depend on the Rules of Engagement that are put in place. Given we will be able to track aircraft from launch to any incursion I would expect any Russian aircraft to be met with some of our own pretty quickly. To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised to see some form of no fly zone to prevent that sort of thing, making it more obvious who was to blame. The Russians playing games will be a constant threat though and I would say that there is a higher risk of more deniable activities like mines and IEDs being laid.

A really good piece of analysis on the American approach to peace in Ukraine in the video linked below which culminated in the Oval Office spat the other day. Seems very plausible to me, well worth a watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kITMluS2pT4

Agreed.

Assuming you mean nuclear, well you have to be able and willing to use them. Would they be used in the defence of say Estonia?