To be disgusted at the talks between Russia and the US

[SunnyDayInFeb]

So Russia and the US are meeting in Saudia Arabia to carve up Ukraine.

And Ukraine, whose people have been fighting and dying since their country was invaded, haven't even been invited to the table.

It's like we are back in the 19th century with the European colonial powers drawing lines on a map to divide Africa between them.

2016,Obama said Europe is complacent, spend more

of course he isn’t but it still doesn’t make it right. It’s morally abhorrent.

Kennedy said the same in the early 60s and Trump in his first presidency threatened to pull out of NATO if the Europeans didn't increase their defence spending as % of GDP - so it's not as the US hasn't given enough warning on this.

true but then someone has to cover the cost of helping either the public via taxes or getting something in return eg rare earth elements

@AlternativeView

Less so France but the likes of Spain, Italy and Belgium are assuming that if the US rows back from supporting NATO in Europe then they still won't have to increase their defence spending much because Germany and the UK will take up the slack by increasing their defence spending.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
France is now over the 2% of GDP in 2024 and Spain and Belgium have increased considerably since 2014.
NATO is also based in Belgium.

Ukraine CANNOT win without US support, and even Starmer recently admitted that any peace deal can only work with US security backing. Why don’t Europe go ahead and dismantle NATO and go it alone.

And saying you pay half, it’s your continent and you have way more people than the US so EU should be taking the lead not arguing you contributed half.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-pm-starmer-says-us-must-provide-security-guarantee-ukraine-deter-russia-2025-02-18/

Europe has the financial capacity to support the war indefinitely 😄😅😂😀😆joke of the century.

As much as I loathe Trump, and do not relish the apparent breakdown of NATO, this is an entirely fair comment.

Trump even told the then incumbent president of the European Commission (during his first term) that if Europe is attacked, the US will never (again) come to help Europe.

Europe needs to invest heavily in defence, and that investment needed to happen yesterday.

Sadly, I think the investment might need to include nuclear weapons.

@Getoff where have you read that they can manage without the US?

I haven't heard commentators say much on that

I’m so fed up of all these ignorant comments about Ukrainian people going back for dental visits. You do understand that Ukraine is x3 the size of the UK, right? And that only eastern part is an active war zone?

*I’m Russian, just for the context.

it will cost Europe quite a lot of billions to fund a war with russia

@Getoff

to get these costings i did need assistance:

If Europe were to fight a war against Russia without NATO, here’s a breakdown of key military costs and required items:

1. Troops & Manpower

• Active troops expansion – Europe currently lacks the manpower for a prolonged war. Expanding armies could cost €200-400 billion over several years.
• Conscription infrastructure – Reintroducing drafts, training, and equipping soldiers would cost €50-100 billion.
• Soldier salaries & benefits – Maintaining a force of several million troops would cost €100+ billion annually.

2. Weapons & Ammunition

• Tanks – A modern Leopard 2 tank costs ~€15 million; thousands would be needed, totaling €100+ billion.
• Artillery & shells – Each 155mm shell costs €3,000-5,000, with millions required per year (~€50 billion+).
• Small arms & equipment – Uniforms, rifles, body armor, radios, etc., for millions of soldiers would cost €20-50 billion.

3. Airpower

• Fighter jets – A Eurofighter Typhoon costs €120 million each. Hundreds would be needed (~€150+ billion).
• Drones – High-end drones (e.g., Bayraktar, Reaper) cost €5-25 million each, needing a €10-20 billion investment.
• Missiles & air defense – Patriot missile systems cost €1 billion per unit, with interceptor missiles at €3 million each (~€50-100 billion total**).

4. Naval Warfare

• Warships & submarines – A modern destroyer costs €2+ billion, while a submarine is €1-3 billion (~€100+ billion for sufficient fleets**).
• Naval bases & logistics – Upgrading European naval infrastructure would cost €20-50 billion.

5. Logistics & Support

• Fuel & maintenance – Sustaining modern militaries costs hundreds of billions annually (e.g., keeping fighter jets operational costs €50,000+ per flight hour).
• Medical & casualty care – Field hospitals, prosthetics, and medical evacuations could cost €50+ billion.
• Transport & supply chains – Military trucks, armored carriers, and rail logistics could cost €50-100 billion.

6. Cyber & Electronic Warfare

• Cyber defense & warfare – Advanced cybersecurity systems and offensive cyber capabilities would need €20+ billion.
• Satellite & surveillance – Spy satellites cost €500 million+ each, and Europe would need more (~€10+ billion).

Estimated Total Cost for Fighting a War Against Russia Alone:

• Initial costs: €1-2 trillion to scale up militaries, production, and supplies.
• Annual war costs: €300-500 billion per year, assuming a prolonged conflict.

This does not include economic damages, reconstruction, or potential nuclear escalation costs.

There's a very really chance that war will come regardless - Putin likely feels very empowered. I guess it's for European leaders to decide whether to delay (and hope the threat goes away following this "peace process") or take a stand now. I expect they'll do the former, if only to give more adequate time to prepare.

based on the costs, we may as well order defcon 2,

I didn't say Ukraine can or will join NATO, and of course all NATO members have to approve Ukraine's joining. They have not met the membership criteria in the past and certainly do not now.

What I said is that NO ONE EXCEPT UKRAINE can say that Ukraine will NEVER join NATO. Not in ten year, twenty years, when circumstances have completely changed, when a pro-Ukraine regime is in control of the USA and every other NATO country. I'm not saying that this will ever happen, but NATO's charter isn't compatible with ruling it out. If Trump (or anyone else) says it can be done, then he's (they're) ignorant or lying. Literally, no one else can make that commitment for Ukraine except Ukraine. And even they have limits on exactly how what Zelensky commits to can be codified to legally bind future Ukrainian governments.

(Edited as originally unclear.)

@Catsandcheese

"France is now over the 2% of GDP in 2024 and Spain and Belgium have increased considerably since 2014.
NATO is also based in Belgium."

Yes the number of NATO countries spending more than 2% has increased in the last two years but to build a relevant military this needs to be in excess of 3% for decades. It's all too little and too late.

its a bit like trying to build tanks when the enemy tanks are rolling across the fields

@Cupcakes2035

Yep exactly- oh and blaming the Americans for it all.

These comments from Trump re: the Riyadh meeting are both horrifying and illuminating. He refers to "savage barbarism", but it seems to be aimed at the Ukraine side rather than Russia. He says Ukraine could have ended the war 3 years ago by "making a deal" - with a much larger invading army? And the popularity numbers he talks about are nonsense. The last measurement - taken about December 2024 - had Zelenskyy at about 59%.

This is the emerging US-Russia alliance I referred to earlier in the thread. The rhetoric is ramping up.

"^Russia wants to do something, they want to stop the savage, barbarism … What's going on over there, soldiers are being killed by the thousands on a weekly basis, it's ridiculous," Mr Trump said.
"We want to end it. It's a senseless war. It should have never happened."
Mr Trump also said that he would be comfortable allowing European peacekeeping troops to be deployed to Ukraine to maintain any future ceasefire or deal to end fighting with Russia.
Asked how he would respond to Ukrainians who felt "betrayed" about not being involved in diplomatic talks between the US and Russia, Mr Trump said Ukraine could have made a deal with Moscow three years ago to avoid the bloodshed seen in the war.
"This could've been settled very easily, just a half-baked negotiator could have settled this years ago without the loss of much land, very little land, without the loss of any lives, without the loss of cities that are just laying on their sides," he said.^

^"When they're worried about not being seated, somebody should've gone in and made a deal a long time ago."
The president also took aim at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying he was leading his country under "essentially martial law" and his popularity among Ukrainian citizens has dropped to "four per cent".
"You have cities that are absolutely decimated and I would say if they want a seat at the table, wouldn't people of Ukraine have to say: 'Its been a long time since we've had an election?'
"That's not a Russia thing, that's something coming from me and coming from many other countries also.^"
Source: www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-19/donald-trump-takes-aim-at-ukraine-over-russia-war-talks/104953730

@

Something that hasn't been referred to much in our media, but has been touched on in Russian sources is the presentation by Krill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The Riyadh meeting also considered economic considerations, and Dmitriev's described the scale of losses incurred by US companies after they withdrew from Russia when the Ukraine war began.

This is significant, as by clearly appealing to Trump's back pocket, Russia are luring the US back in.

this strategy could pave the way for a significant realignment in U.S. foreign policy

I used assistance to create this :

Scenario Analysis: Can Europe Hold the Line without the usa ?
Scenario 1: Russian Limited Incursion (e.g., Baltic or Arctic conflict)

• NATO Europe could likely hold Russian advances but would struggle to retake lost territory without U.S. reinforcements.

Scenario 2: Full-Scale Russian Attack (High-Intensity War)

• Europe could defend key regions but would be severely hampered by logistical shortages and air defence gaps.
• Prolonged warfighting without U.S. support would be unsustainable.

Scenario 3: Hybrid Warfare & Cyber Attacks

• Russia could exploit political divisions within NATO and destabilise European cohesion through cyber and energy warfare.

NATO Europe could delay and resist a Russian assault but would require significant structural changes to achieve long-term strategic independence.

Well Japan is right next to China.

At a guess by aiding Ukraine, Japan aims to deter similar aggressive actions in the Asia-Pacific region

On Russian TV:

Host, Solovyev:

"Why not create a military coalition between Russia and America and divide Europe? Who needs it? I think it's a great idea. We'll set up our bases, without a hitch, at the usual points - Berlin, Paris, as in 1814. Europe will immediately save money on the armed forces, on the military-industrial complex, and they won't have to worry about anything."

https://x.com/gerashchenkoen/status/1891898946202546265?s=61&t=3wYru9PP_J0h74BXKFXAfmw