Salisbury Fox

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?

You are right, much of the Russian military has been destroyed, but given that Putin uses external conflict as a rallying tool I don’t expect them to all of a sudden become a peaceful nation. It will likely take years for them to rearm, but we must not underestimate the ability of their people to endure hardship for the sake of the nation, and for Putin to even care about those outside of Moscow and St Petersburg. Europe are unable to be able to match theis without significant sacrifice. Whilst Western Europe may have less of a threat to worry about, the Baltic states etc are right to be worried as can we, or would we defend them if attacked. I certainly doubt that the US would come to their aid. It’s also worth considering that attacks don’t always have to be through the use of a conventional military, for years Russia has been sowing the seeds of discontent in Europe. Fico and Orban are proof that a country can be aligned to Russian interests without force.

I’m not sure I agree with you there, as the island building and aggressive maritime manoeuvres indicates otherwise.

Shameful

History has shown that the terms of ending wars are really important if you don’t want flare ups in the future. I don’t see how giving Russia pretty much everything they want will lead to a more stable world, in fact I would suggest that it will make things much worse. In terms of destabilising countries through illegal migration, well Russia has literally been doing that in Finland and through Belarus. I should also add that I haven’t seen Zelensky doing nazi salutes yet, perhaps that will come given how right wing Ukrainians must be.

Well Trump is seemingly making the victim of aggression pay reparations for having the temerity of wanting to be a sovereign nation, more so than what was imposed on Germany after WW1 if what I have read about the deal presented to Zelensky for 50% of Ukraine’s resources is true. Burnt rapidly through any goodwill from the support given before. I don’t see anyone foolish enough to trust the US in the near to medium future. Shame Europe don’t seem able or in some cases willing to step up which will no doubt come back to bite us.

If the new series on Netflix called American Primeval has some factual basis I can sort of see why they are the way they are.

I think it would be naive to think that safe routes like say in France would not be swamped by an enormous amount of genuine and economic migrants. Many cases are very complex and so I very much doubt cases could be resolved in a general sense within 2 weeks without removing many of the existing safeguards. Those who still use other methods of entry will still pose a problem if they are undocumented. I’m not entirely sure of the reasons why asylum seekers can’t work before a decision is made but I would expect there to be issues around security and complications with pension contributions to name a couple. Personally I would like more resources given to addressing the black market which may help address the pull factor and exploitation of vulnerable people.

If safe routes are ever to be provided then the government would need to know how many they could take in to ensure the resources are available and in the right place to provide the support needed. There would likely have to be an increase in asylum case workers and they would have to be mindful that those who are refused may still use clandestine methods to get into the country anyway. In short, I believe that there’s a reason why it’s not been done already (less for directly from refugee camps) and it’s not just because of the political risks in doing so.