Lim Tean | Facebook - "Geopolitics At Its Rawest !
Many were shocked at the scenes and the Meltdown in the Oval Office between Zelensky, Trump and Vance. I am not going to join the chorus of moralists who are having a field day condemning either the American or Ukrainian side. I have a very soft spot for Ukraine having visited many times the beautiful cities of Odesa and Kyiv in the early 2000s when I was doing a lot of work for Cherazmorput, then the 2nd largest dredging company in the world, based in Odesa. But I understand what Trump is doing, and the bigger context of why he is doing it. Do not forget that the Americans see China as the biggest threat to their global haegemony. It is not Russia that the Americans are worried about, it is China. Much of America’s foreign policy and military policy these days and perhaps for the rest of the century will be focused on how to remain ahead of China. It is for this reason I believe that Trump wants a quick end to the Ukrainian war and to establish good relations with Putin because he wants to prise Putin and Russia away from the China orbit. Nothing is more dangerous to America than China and Russia ganging up on Her. If you are an American strategist, you would be having nightmares at the friendship that has developed between China and Russia in the last 5 years with President Xi declaring that their ties are unbreakable and growing stronger everyday like steel that is constantly forged and tempered by fire. What is happening now is exactly a replay, albeit in reverse form of what happened in the 1970s with Nixon’s opening to China. I was very fortunate to have lived in Moscow with my family in those days, at the height of the Cold War. I was fascinated by my parents’ conversations at the dinner table of how the ingenious Nixon had opened the path to China, which had been America’s enemy since the Communist triumph over the Kuomintang in 1949 and whom the Americans had supported, to counter the Russians, with whom they were locked in a mortal struggle for control of the world. China had always sided with the Soviet Union because of their brotherhood in the Communist world. But Mao never had easy relations with Stalin or Krushchev who had humiliated him on several occasions, and had refused to aid the Chinese in becoming a nuclear power. So the Soviet-China ties were not as strong as they appeared on paper. Nixon saw his opportunity and pounced, to pull the Chinese away from the grip of the Soviets, and to act as a counter-weight. The developments of the last few years have not been favourable for Putin. Those who think that Putin can easily steamroll Ukraine are badly mistaken. If that was the case, there would have been no need for him to beg the Chinese for military help, the North Koreans for soldiers and ammunition and the Iranians for drones. Invading Ukraine was a grievous mistake for Putin which has brought the Russian economy to its knees as many of my Russian friends have confirmed to me. Putin needs a deal quickly, maybe even more so than Zelensky. As for those who argue that it is immoral for the Americans to do a deal with Russia, my riposte is simple. Why did Nixon do a deal with Mao, who was one of the greatest murderers of the 20th century, sending millions if not hundreds of millions to their death with his Great Leap Forward, the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution. It is geopolitics my friends, GEOPOLITICS! When the interest of nations are involved, morality is pushed to the back-burner. I wish Ukraine well and I hope for a just outcome to the war. I want to see Ukraine rise like the proverbial phoenix from the ashes. It is a beautiful country with beautiful people and culture. Finally, never forget that Russia arose from Ukraine. The entire Russian speaking world was born in Kyiv. Ukraine was the mother of Russia and it is nonsense for Putin to claim that Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent nation. A child has no right to say that to his mother."
Michael McCune - Many of you probably watched what took place... | Facebook - "Many of you probably watched what took place between Donald Trump and Zelenskyy tonight. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you might be thinking to yourself, Oh my God, Donald Trump just screwed up. However, as a lifelong practitioner of martial arts, strategy, and philosophy, let me explain the difference between what you believe you witnessed and what actually happened. Donald Trump has been under constant political persecution since the beginning of his first term. Over time, he has learned to be patient and calculated. Tonight, Zelenskyy was invited to the Oval Office. However, both Trump and JD Vance knew exactly what Zelenskyy was going to do—he would use this opportunity, in front of the American people, to make a power play. Both Trump and Vance anticipated this. When Zelenskyy began appealing to the emotions of the American people, JD Vance stepped in, accusing him of disrespecting Donald Trump. This was brilliant strategy. It’s important to understand that Zelenskyy is trying to gain access to NATO. Trump knew this but could not allow it to happen. If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. would be bound by NATO’s collective defense agreement—an attack on one is an attack on all. Now consider the larger implications: Ukraine and Russia despise each other. If Ukraine were to become a NATO member, any future skirmish between them would obligate the U.S. to enter into direct conflict with Russia. This would mean World War III. And if that happened, China would have to choose a side—they would almost certainly align with Russia. So what you witnessed tonight was a setup. Trump and JD Vance knew that the only way to achieve peace was to strategically align, at least on the surface, with Russia. Why? Because Russia would never sign a peace treaty if Ukraine were admitted into NATO. This is why Trump dismantled Zelenskyy’s argument. And when Zelenskyy, seeing his play failing, tried to backtrack and offer a treaty, Trump refused. Zelenskyy’s real intent was clear—he would not agree to peace unless security guarantees were in place. But what was he actually saying? That NATO must accept Ukraine. However, Russia would never agree to peace, knowing that NATO, their historical adversary, would surround them. Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump all knew this. Zelenskyy, thinking he had Democratic support, believed he could make this bold move on live television. But Trump and Vance saw right through it and outmaneuvered him. They knew that, in the short term, Democrats and the media would try to use this moment against them. But they also knew they had two years before midterms to prove their strategy was the right one. So they held their ground—brilliantly so. Now, Zelenskyy will have no choice but to back down and accept Trump's terms. But here’s the genius part—Trump is actually protecting Ukraine without dragging the U.S. into war. By negotiating a mineral deal, Trump ensures that Americans will be involved in Ukraine’s mining industry. This prevents Russia from launching an invasion, because attacking Ukraine would mean endangering American lives—something that would force the U.S. to respond. Trump played both sides like a master chess player. In the end, Zelenskyy will have no choice but to concede, because without U.S. support, Ukraine cannot win a prolonged war against Russia. And once U.S. companies have mining operations in Ukraine, Putin will be unable to attack without triggering massive international consequences. Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. In this game of chess, he’s 10 moves ahead of everyone."
Libs of TikTok on X - "Did you know that Biden once lost his temper with Zelensky because Zelensky wasn’t grateful enough for all the aid the U.S. was sending him? It’s almost as if Trump isn’t the problem and Zelensky is…"
Meme - *Trump dragging petulant Zelensky to peace talks*
Zelensky: "I WANT EUROPE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST RUSSIA! YOU CAN'T TALK TO PUTIN WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!! ... YOU'RE NOT GETTING OUR RARE EARTHS!! GIB ME MORE MAH-NEY!"
Real Ben Garrison Cartoons on X - "President Trump The Peacemaker. New Ben Garrison Cartoon.It appears Volodymyr Zelensky doesn’t want to end his war with Russia. The Ukrainian dictator has been demanding an “Army of Europe” to help him defeat Russia. That would mean WWIII, but Zelensky seems to welcome worldwide conflagration. Zelensky doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for our new president. He rejected Trump’s proposal to mine for rare earths in Ukraine as partial repayment for the $300 billion the US has sent to fund the war. Like this special Presidents' Day Cartoon? Please like, reply and share with your fens! Much more at https://grrrgraphics.com/trump-the-peacemaker-2/"
Melissa Chen on X - "The US wasn't the policeman of the world because of any higher-order reason such as promoting justice or safeguarding the global order. They mostly took up that role for the sake of energy security. As the US stopped becoming a net energy importer, this need to police the world and project power began fading away. The values-based foreign policy touted by the Americans was always a facade. The problem with saying that you are promoting freedom and democracy is that when you fail to live up to it yourself, those very values are called into question. People hate hypocrites. The Chinese have always pursued a foreign policy based on national interests, not values. Other countries never got a moral lecture when the Chinese came to offer development dollars disguised as aid. They don't pretend to be devoted to high-minded ideals and so they never have to live up to them. Yet other countries just fall in line because of pure self-interest. The truth is, European countries have been able to underspend on defense because of their belief that the Americans would guarantee European security. This illusion has been shattered. The behaviors of countries map closely to that of human nature. Like people, countries are transactional and pragmatic. Like people, they respond to carrots and sticks. What we're seeing now with Trump 2.0 is a return of US foreign policy to transactionalism. The decades post fall of the Berlin Wall was the anomaly."
February 28, 2025: Donald Trump presidency news - "One pro-Ukraine expert, normally supportive of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, cautioned that today’s shouting match between him and US President Donald Trump should be seen in a clear-eyed way. “Ukraine is losing this war,” the expert said. “Russia is making tens of thousands of drones per month, and Ukraine can’t shoot them all down. Russia is making advances because Russia doesn’t value human life and is OK to lose thousands of men a day. Ukraine can’t keep up with that and shouldn’t.” There are three options for Ukraine now, he explained.
“One, America can send military weapons and manpower and potentially, this starts World War III.
“Two, Ukraine can surrender and give in to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.
“Or three, we give this ceasefire plan and deal that Trump is pushing a chance. I would go for option three. Trump was talking about Ukraine getting land back that it has lost just yesterday,” the expert said.
“Zelensky knew the position of the Trump administration ahead of time. Perhaps this meeting was a trap,” the expert added."
Clearly, this "expert" has been compromised by the Kremlin since he doesn't support sending the Ukrainians even more aid and sacrificing even more Ukrainians in an endless war to weaken Russia just to send a message
Claire Lehmann on X - "If World War 3 is actually in the balance, you don’t reneg on a deal just because someone didn’t say “thank you” enough."
Sarah Haider 👾 on X - "After listening to the whole thing (more than once), here is my impression of the exchange (behaviorally/strategically, not in terms of where I lie on the merits of the actual policy. I am largely in Zelenskyy's camp on that point.) My impression of Trump's performance improved. He was fairly friendly while sticking his ground, even offering compliments to Zelenskyy's clothing, until the end. My impression of Vance's performance dropped, quite a bit. He seemed to have instigated the more heated exchange at the end, and didn't add much throughout. Without him, the exchange would not have gone off the rails. My impression of Zelenskyy stayed about the same. This was a fumble on his part, I think there is no question. At this juncture, he needs the US, the US does not need him, and he let his emotions get the best of him. At the very least, he should have hired an interpreter, as I believe his language sounded more offensive than meant, and an interpreter could have conveyed the nuances better. He should NOT have been interrupting Trump as he spoke near the end--he is asking something of Trump, it might not be "fair" but that position is not an equal one."
Richard Hanania on X - "I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context. When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened. You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument. In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders. For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal. The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere. The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw. Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument. I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point."
Winston Marshall on X - "Watching Zelensky yesterday I’m reminded of Churchill’s call with FDR in ‘The Darkest Hour’. Churchill’s humility before the Americans sits in stark contrast to Zelensky’s arrogance. Even mid-wit Keir Starmer understood this at his meeting this week. Perhaps something was lost in translation, the Slavic-manner grates Anglo-sensibilities. Either way he lost a huge proportion of the American public’s support after yesterday’s presser, as well as what good faith remained in the White House. I hope, for the sake of Ukraine and the world, he recognises his mistake, displays deference and sincere gratitude to his sponsors, and gets the minerals deal done. A minerals deal that would be in the interest of both Ukraine - by having US support - and the US - by being reimbursed for their support."
Thread by @Anc_Aesthetics on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Zelensky doesn't want to end the war because he knows what the Ukrainian people will do to him when the war is over No point in negotiating with someone in this position, pull out, let what happens happen His only "out" was to flee Ukraine and seek protection from America or another Western nation. He probably closed that door today with his behavior. My read of that exchange was that Zelensky came to Washington knowing it was do or die for him. You can see him curse under his breath in Russian during the exchange, the entire thing was the behavior of a very desperate man."
Lee (Greater) on X - "The aura from Trump/Vance is shocking to the left and much of the rest of the world because the masculine policy of “I pay the bills around here so I have the final say” is basically a foreign concept to them"
Auron MacIntyre on X - "In Zelensky’s defense insulting the American people was the best way to receive the aid of our government until roughly January 20th, 2025"
Mike Solana on X - "the british and french have much more leverage than ukraine, and still they came politely — and had a successful trip in washington. zelensky arrived and told trump, in front of press, war was coming to our country if we didn't give him money. issue aside, disastrous politics."
KyivPost on X - "The planned deal between Washington and Kyiv on minerals does NOT include security guarantees for Ukraine — US Treasury Secretary Bessent"
Russians With Attitude on X - "It took three long years, but finally the US have learned a valuable skill from Kiev: how to make unreasonable demands while offering nothing in exchange 👍"
Niall Ferguson on X - ""This will not stand. This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait."--George H.W. Bush on August 5, 1990. Full quote from Jon Meacham's biography. Future history students will be asked why this stopped being the reaction of a Republican president to the invasion of a sovereign state by a dictator."
JD Vance on X - "This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say. For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today. And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base? Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history. President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance. Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing. Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict. Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it. Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict. That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that."
Russia haters simultaneously mock the idea of this being a proxy war while promoting it as being a cheap way of weakening a strategic rival. Weird.
For 3 years we have been told that Russia is weak and on the verge of collapse. Cope is more comforting than facing facts./i>
Zelensky's conciliatory letter to Trump suggests he's run out of options - "Up until last week, Zelensky had held firm that Ukraine would only agree to peace if its security was guaranteed, otherwise it would fight on. He also accused Trump of living in a "disinformation space" after the US president repeated some of Moscow's claims. All of this served as a prelude to Friday's fiery exchange with Trump and US Vice-President JD Vance, who accused Zelensky of having "disrespected" the US and ultimately told him to leave. The Ukrainian leader had a warmer reception from European leaders at the weekend - but while they pledged to help secure Ukraine in the future, they made clear peace would still require US involvement. Then, on Tuesday, Trump paused US military aid to Ukraine, raising concerns it may only be able to hold out for a matter of months - and leaving Zelensky to make his peace with the situation. In a letter to the US president, he even gave specifics on what the first stage of a peace process could involve, including a naval and aerial ceasefire - proposals first suggested by France's President Emmanuel Macron over the weekend. Trump said he appreciated the letter, in a sign of cooling tensions between the two leaders, and that Zelensky had agreed to strike a peace deal. What is more telling is Zelensky's willingness now to sign a mineral deal without the security guarantees he is hoping for - and had portrayed as essential until very recently."
Visegrád 24 on X - "BREAKING: All 27 EU members states today approved the ReArm Europe program that will add EUR 800 billion in Europe’s defense spending 🇪🇺"
Europe must trim its welfare state to build a warfare state - "In that rare thing, an Angela Merkel statement that aged well, the long-serving German chancellor worried that Europe accounted for 7 per cent of the world’s population, a quarter of its economic output and half of its social spending... The reason Merkel wanted some welfare trimmings was to preserve Europe’s “way of life”. The mission now is to defend Europe’s lives. How, if not through a smaller welfare state, is a better-armed continent to be funded? Borrowing? Britain and France have had tense moments with bond investors of late. Public debt nears or exceeds national output in both countries, as it does in Italy. One way around this might be some Europeanisation of debt. Imagine a pact in which, in effect, Germany borrows more to defray the costs of military build-up in other countries, which in turn can do things — build nuclear weapons, post troops near Russia — that might be too taboo for Berlin to do itself. The trouble is that just describing this grand bargain in words makes one wince at the profound unlikelihood of it, at least in the short term. (Which, given the incentive Russia has to act on its territorial ambitions before Europe re-arms, is the term that matters.) The other option is to raise taxes. At the margins, this could happen. But big rises? In an already undynamic continent? It would show that Europe has learnt nothing from decades of economic torpor, or from endless competitiveness reports, or from America. It isn’t even clear that tax increases are more saleable to the electorate than spending cuts. In Britain, a government with a huge mandate hasn’t entirely recovered from autumn’s tax-raising Budget, even though its brunt fell mostly on business. Twice, Emmanuel Macron has incurred protests that shook the French state. The first was against a tax rise. Anyone under 80 who has spent their life in Europe can be excused for regarding a giant welfare state as the natural way of things. In truth, it was the product of strange historical circumstances, which prevailed in the second half of the 20th century and no longer do. One was the implicit American subsidy through Nato, which allowed European governments to spend a certain amount on butter that might otherwise have gone on guns. (Though plenty was spent on both.) Another was the fact that, during the welfarist golden age, Europe had little competition from China or even India, which didn’t really plug into the world economy until the 1990s. The “social market” was nurtured in a cocoon. Yet a third helpful factor was a youngish population — 13 per cent of Brits were over 65 in 1972. Now around a fifth are. The numbers for France are similar, and Germany’s a tad higher, with all three countries projected to age a lot more as the century wears on. These pension and healthcare liabilities were going to be hard enough for the working population to meet even before the current defence shock. Now, they are scarcely plausible, to say nothing of the moral spectacle of the young being asked to bear arms and keep the old in a certain style. This is more than even Lord Kitchener asked. Governments will have to be stingier with the old. Or, if that is unthinkable given their voting weight, the blade will have to fall on more productive areas of spending. Either way, the welfare state as we have known it must retreat somewhat: not enough that we will no longer call it by that name, but enough to hurt. It was never designed for a world in which living to 100 is banal. It was never meant to enable such things as Britain’s current out-of-work benefits bill. The rise in social spending over the past century has been uncannily global — encompassing Japan, the US, Australia, Canada — but the absolute levels are highest in Europe. As the most militarily exposed of those places, this isn’t tenable. The question is whether the public agrees. I have come to doubt whether rich, democratic societies can make difficult reforms — except in a crisis."
This would also blunt the cost of mass migration. Too bad cutting the welfare state is "fascism". But maybe left wingers hate the US enough to stomach that
Meme - Wall Street Mav @WallStreetMav: "Someone ordered the top leaders in the EU to all send the exact same post with identical wording.
1) are they so stupid they thought nobody would find it odd that they were all using the EXACT same wording?
2) who ordered them all to do this and why did they obey?"
Valdis Dombrovskis, Ursula von der Leyen, Roberta Metsola, Antonio Costa: "Your dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President @ZelenskyUa. We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace."
Claire Lehmann on X - "My X feed right now is just a cascade of leaders from Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, France, Poland--even the US--expressing support for Zelensky as if Ukraine were just hit w/ a terrorist attack. Have never seen such an outpour in my life. All provoked by disgust for 2 men."
Peachy Keenan on X - "The hilarious thing is that the only way Europe can remilitarize will be to cancel their enormous socialized medicine and welfare programs, which they can only do because they don't need armies thanks to the US umbrella. But they still have to tax their citizens 60-90% of their incomes. To raise money for their new military, they'll need to either increase taxes (impossible) or tell their people the free health care ride we underwrite is over. Good luck with your new NATO army, Europe 😂"
Sam Bowman on X - "1) Americans need to get that if Putin wins in Ukraine with a peace deal that is good enough that it vindicates the invasion, World War 3 is far likelier.
2) Europeans need to get that the era of fantasy politics - being the “regulatory superpower”, giving up economic growth to “lead the world on Net Zero”, endlessly growing welfare states, elite consensus in favour of immigration policies that voters hate - is over.
We cannot rely on America anymore. Not in five years - now. Economic growth and self-defence override all other priorities."
Clearly Trump is a monster by not letting Europeans talk big by free riding on the US so they can push the left wing agenda and destroy their countries
Nataša Pirc Musar on X - "Slovenia upholds the principles and respect of international law and international relations. What we witnessed in the Oval Office today undermines these values and the foundations of diplomacy. We stand firmly in support of Ukraine's sovereignty. We repeat, Russia is the aggressor. It is imperative that we nurture and protect democratic ideals, ensuring they are reflected in our actions and interactions on the global stage. It is time for Europe to take the lead on the path to peace in Ukraine. With respect for international law, UN Charter, fairness and above all … decency. @ZelenskyyUa @tfajon @vladaRS"
Richard Grenell on X - "Actually, you are one of the lowest spending NATO members on defense. You committed to pay 2% in 2014 yet still only pay 1.29% now. Nothing undermines NATO more than not paying your fair share."
Wall Street Mav on X - "European leaders are retarded.
Danish PM Mette Frederiksen: "Peace in Ukraine is more dangerous than the ongoing war."
She won't end the war because Putin might attack someone else in the future. Under that logic, there is no end to the war ever."
Clearly, the possibility of war tomorrow is worse than the certainty of war today. There will be no peace till Russia is defeated, so every last Ukrainian must die in pursuit of this dream
If Russia couldn't even take on Ukraine and are still struggling with their invasion why are Europeans are cautious of a possible russian invasion? : r/stupidquestions - "What's the percentage of the russian army is being used in Ukraine? 20%?, 30%? How strong is their army exactly? And if they couldn't even beat Ukraine what makes them confident in taking on Europe?"
Kai Drey on X - "As a German, I just want to get this straight. The entire Western world wants us to build up a huge army, march through Poland and fight the Russians? Just writing it down so there are no misunderstandings in the future"
Spitfire on X - "EU leaders are threatening to send troops to Ukraine if the US doesn’t keep sending money. They’re threatening to start a WWIII if the US tax payer doesn’t continue prolonging an unwinable war. Make it make sense."
Spitfire on X - "Starmer announces intention to put UK "boots on the ground and planes in the air" to protect a peace deal in Ukraine. This is extremely dangerous and increases the risk of WWIII."
It is better to risk World War III today than possibly have Putin be emboldened for tomorrow
Luc Frieden on X - "Luxembourg stands with Ukraine. You are fighting for your freedom and a rules based international order. 🇱🇺🇺🇦"
Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 on X - "Luxembourg has a grand total of 939 people in its army. You have two unarmed helicopters and a cargo plane."
Lee Hurst on X - "Zelensky’s tantrum has done more to end the EU than anyone else. He did this deliberately. He knew what he was doing. He knows US support is all but over and is hoping this will put pressure on the EU. The EU will now be shitting itself as the shock dawns upon them that the public will now find out that, without the US, it is a paper tiger."
@amuse on X - "UKRAINE: Norway's largest marine fuel company refused to sell diesel to a US Navy Virginia-Class attack submarine after Zelensky's disastrous Oval Office meeting. While the fuel was only for the USS Delaware's backup diesel engine, this is the first time a NATO member refused a fellow NATO member fuel for a military vessel. It may be time for the US to exit NATO."
Shaun Maguire on X - "This is a miscalculation by Norway of epic proportions These American submarines are patrolling Northern waters for European security Whatever one’s personal views are, it’s foolish to lose sight of the power dynamics"
Norway says it will keep supplying fuel to US navy after company calls for boycott - ""We have seen reports raising concerns about support for U.S. Navy vessels in Norway. This is not in line with the Norwegian government's policy," Norway's Defence Minister Tore Sandvik said in a statement. "American forces will continue to receive the supply and support they require from Norway," he added. Sandvik issued his statement after privately held Norwegian fuel supplier Haltbakk Bunkers said that it would stop supplying U.S. Navy ships in response to how Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was treated at the White House on Friday. "Huge credit to the president of Ukraine restraining himself and for keeping calm even though USA put on a backstabbing TV show. It made us sick... No Fuel to Americans!," the company said in a now deleted Facebook post. Haltbakk Bunkers CEO Gunnar Gran confirmed to Norwegian newspaper VG that the company made a decision not to supply the U.S. military, but said the move would have a "symbolic" impact as it didn't have a fixed contract."
Meme - *Ukraine*
Soldier: 'The UK doesn't have any spare troops, but it's sending a battalion of human rights lawyers'
‘50% battle-ready’: Germany misses military targets despite Scholz’s overhaul - "The German army's battle-readiness is less than when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, military officials, lawmakers and defence experts told Reuters. Even if a new government boosts defence spending, it will remain hamstrung for years, particularly by a lack of air defence, artillery and soldiers, they said. "Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we had eight brigades at around 65% readiness," Colonel Andre Wuestner, head of the German Armed Forces Association, told Reuters in an interview. Sending weapons, ammunition and equipment to Ukraine, as well as accelerating Germany's own drills, took a toll on the available equipment, he said. "Together, this means the German land forces are down to a readiness of around 50%," he said. Chancellor Olaf Scholz promised after Russia's invasion to overhaul Germany's decrepit military, but three years later a pledge to provide the NATO alliance with two divisions – typically around 40,000 troops – by 2025 and 2027 faces major setbacks, more than a dozen military officials, lawmakers and defence experts said... Scholz's historic pledge to bring about a Zeitenwende, or turning point, in Germany's approach to its military has not worked, the sources said, blaming a lack of a sense of urgency, a dysfunctional procurement system and strained finances. Berlin has failed to fully equip troops for a division for NATO by the start of this year, and in any case has no air defences to support them, the sources said. Its pledge for a NATO division by 2027 is "long out of our reach," said a military source... Russian President Vladimir Putin is ramping up his forces to 1.5 million troops as he aims to be capable of fighting in two different theatres. Wuestner, the colonel, said Germany is far from the only European state to be slow to respond to Russia's military incursions into Ukraine since 2014, but "in particular we Germans hit the snooze button." Defence ranks third after immigration and the state of the economy in what Germans see as the most pressing problems for the new government, according to a survey by public broadcaster ARD published in January... During the Cold War, Germany spent between 3% and 4.5% of GDP on defence and maintained 500,000 troops and 800,000 reserve forces. But the Bundeswehr has not met a target of 203,000 troops set in 2018, and it is currently short-staffed by some 20,000 regular troops, according to defence ministry data."
European Union spent more on Russian gas than Ukraine aid in 2024 - "The European Union (EU) spent $23 billion on Russian oil and gas in the third year of the war on Ukraine, more than the $19.6 billion in financial aid it offered to the war-ravaged nation last year, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air... Despite Western bans on Russian crude and refined products, Russian oil exports are down a mere 8% since before the invasion of Ukraine... Russian prices are still lower than buying fuel elsewhere, according to Jonathan Bass, founder of Argent LNG. "Russian pipeline gas has been cheaper than LNG prices, even with the geopolitical risk, the European buyers still find Russian gas economical." Europe’s Russian fuel dependence, in large part, is due to the Biden administration’s restrictions on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, according to Bass. President Donald Trump lifted that pause in a day-one executive order. After the invasion, "Europeans went in and said, ‘okay, we're gonna rely on American LNG.’ But then Biden pauses it… That made the Europeans afraid of relying on America’s political swings," Bass said"
Meme - Samuel Gregg @DrSamuelGregg: "This is the dilemma Europe finds itself facing. Most Europeans think Europe should do more for Ukraine. But only minorities think that THEIR country should do more. That is a circle that cannot be squared."
"Most Europeans feel Ukraine is not getting enough western support. Are the current measures against Russia and aid given to Ukraine enough to prevent a Russian victory?
However only a minority think their country should increase support. How should your country manage support it is giving to Ukraine?"
Time for the US to do more even though they have given the most, and for Europe to guilt them for not giving enough
bestsongs.com.ng 
