bigredfish
Known around here
I won’t miss it , we have more important shit to tend to
Ukraine related: Was Ukraine Government Is Handing Out Guns To Citizens, What Happened to Gun Control?
- Thread starter mat200
- Start date
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,807
- 26,635
America is pre-emptively ceding fundamental and long-held positions to Russia in the hope of ending a war it is not fighting. This is likely to make it less, not more, secure.
Ten days of diplomacy in Brussels, Munich and Riyadh have laid bare President Donald Trump’s approach to the Russia–Ukraine war. It is a policy of rapid, unilateral concession of long-held positions on fundamental interests to persuade the aggressor to stop fighting. The established name for such a policy – not a polemical but a well-established one – is ‘strategic surrender’. In the classic study commissioned by the United States intelligence community in 1957, this is defined as ‘orderly capitulation … to obtain some political concession’.
This term captures, far better than ‘negotiations’, the dynamics of the US–Russia talks that began last week in Riyadh and are expected to continue in Moscow and Washington. Genuine negotiations involve carrots and sticks: offers that will benefit the other side if it agrees to a desired outcome and threats to impose costs if it does not.
America is using little of either. It is instead accepting a series of escalating Russian demands without extracting any quid pro quo except the promise of an end to the war on terms that Russia dictates. In doing so, America has reversed a series of fundamental positions. Having isolated and constrained Russia, it is normalising their relations and exploring new trade and investment opportunities. Having given Ukraine military and financial help to defend itself, it has announced the end of aid, and reportedly threatened to cut the essential Starlink satellite link while demanding access to mineral wealth on onerous terms. Having pledged to protect Europe for eighty years, it is scaling back its protection to a smaller, unspecified and increasingly doubtful commitment. Vice President J.D. Vance has raised the possibility of troop withdrawals from the continent – a demand that Russia has reportedly already made.
Russia, by contrast, has ignored the few requests that America is known to have made. When US officials asked Russia to suspend attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities before talks began, their counterparts claimed that no such attacks were taking place. Russia has also categorically rejected the deployment of foreign forces in Ukraine, despite Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s suggestion that ‘European and non-European troops’ could be deployed as ‘peacekeepers to Ukraine’.
The baffling urgency for a deal
America’s extreme and undisguised urgency is also characteristic of strategic surrender rather than typical end-of-war negotiations. It predictably strengthens Russia’s position even further. In his book, The Art of the Deal, Trump wrote, ‘the worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead’. This is precisely what Trump is doing, and the consequences are just as he describes, enabling Russia to steadily raise the price it extracts for agreeing to stop fighting.Putin has been very clear what this price is. His ambitions go far beyond the subordination of part, or even all, of Ukraine. They extend to establishing a dominant position in a new European security order defined on Russia’s terms. This vision was set out in two draft treaties that Russia presented to America and NATO in December 2021 that demanded, among other measures, the withdrawal of NATO forces to its 1997 borders and of American nuclear weapons from Europe. Putin envisages the formation of ‘a completely new world order … unlike what we know from the past, for example, the Westphalian or Yalta systems’.
While America cannot ‘negotiate’ – especially with only one side – an end to a war it is not fighting, it could instead have tried to mediate such an outcome. This would involve offering the victim, Ukraine, security guarantees to accept a compromise, and restraining the aggressor, Russia, with the threat of escalating sanctions and further support to Ukraine. In its first week, the Trump administration hinted at such a strategy, threatening severe economic pressure on Russia through new sanctions and lower oil prices. It is now doing the opposite: constraining Ukraine, publicly refusing either to provide or protect any forces that might guarantee a peace agreement, hinting it may ease sanctions on Russia, and agreeing to talks in Saudi Arabia – a country that adamantly opposes lower oil prices.
The puzzle of America’s interests
Strategic surrender has always been a policy adopted by states facing total defeat and occupation. Since America is vastly superior to Russia, and faces no such danger, its decision to do so is puzzling. Three further factors compound this.Firstly, while Trump promised to end the war quickly during his election campaign, there is no evidence that doing so by siding with Russia is popular with American voters. Only 30% say America is giving too much support to Ukraine.
Secondly, the administration has not clearly articulated why its approach serves American interests. Trump has called the conflict a ‘terrible war’ that has killed ‘millions’, and senior figures say it is ‘bad for America’. But none has set out in any detail the benefits of ending it as soon as possible, on terms highly favourable to Russia. Alone among the administration’s policies, this one lacks a clear rationale in terms of core national interests.
Thirdly, this approach is in fact likely to harm America’s long-term security. It will not only imperil Europe, its biggest trade and investment partner, but will make Russia a more powerful, assertive and attractive ally to America’s adversaries around the world.
This is especially true of China. Some in Washington argue that America can conduct a ‘reverse Kissinger’ that detaches Moscow from its quasi-alliance with Beijing. The analogy is historically uninformed and strategically illiterate. When America established ties with China in 1972 to help contain the Soviet Union, relations between Beijing and Moscow were already extremely poor – the two had fought a border war only three years earlier. Today, by contrast, they are unprecedentedly close. The concessions that America grants Russia in Europe will not induce it to curtail highly beneficial cooperation with China, but merely enable it to negotiate this on more favourable terms. Russia could thus secure a privileged position in a new strategic triangle, enjoying better relations with the US and China than they have with one another.
Other countries have chosen strategic surrender to avert disaster in dire military weakness. America has initiated a diplomatic version from a position of great strength. If it continues on this course, it will become less secure. The reason America has chosen it is profoundly mysterious.
Last edited:
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,807
- 26,635
Which is why Trump should not have pushed too much on this one ..
This failure is showing weakness of the Trump Administration, this will impact the other more important "stuff"
Would have been better to let this simmer on the back burners and force Europe to get more involved while USA focuses on the major domestic issues.
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,807
- 26,635
Are WE The Baddies?
Ryan McBeth
A high-stakes Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky devolved into a public clash, highlighting deep fractures in their relationship and complicating efforts to negotiate an end to the Ukraine-Russia war. Zelensky argued that Russia couldn’t be trusted to make peace, while Trump, alongside Vice President JD Vance, criticized Ukraine’s war strategy and lack of gratitude for U.S. aid. The real loser here is the US who may now be viewed as an unreliable partner for arms sales on the world stage.
Ryan McBeth
A high-stakes Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky devolved into a public clash, highlighting deep fractures in their relationship and complicating efforts to negotiate an end to the Ukraine-Russia war. Zelensky argued that Russia couldn’t be trusted to make peace, while Trump, alongside Vice President JD Vance, criticized Ukraine’s war strategy and lack of gratitude for U.S. aid. The real loser here is the US who may now be viewed as an unreliable partner for arms sales on the world stage.
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,807
- 26,635
USA industry is going to get hit hard due to this, as allies can not rely on the USA anymore.
- 4. Only an idiot would purchase American weapon systems or systems that rely on American parts
- 5. Europe needs to delink from US supply chains because they might be leveraged
- 6. Intelligence sharing with the US risks that information being shared with Russia.
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,807
- 26,635
I would have to agree .. this was absolutely pre-mediated and deliberate ..
Donald Trump " .. this is going to be great Television" and ended the press conference .. it was absolutely deliberate, designed to humiliate Zelensky, .. "
Zelensky, is either forced NOT to push back, and then loses support as a weak leader, OR he stands up and gets bullied even more.
Feb 28, 2025
“This was a premeditated gangster-like ambush. It was low blows. It was clearly deliberate.”
Donald Trump and JD Vance were “goading” Volodymyr Zelensky into humiliating himself, says Tim Marshall.
Donald Trump " .. this is going to be great Television" and ended the press conference .. it was absolutely deliberate, designed to humiliate Zelensky, .. "
Zelensky, is either forced NOT to push back, and then loses support as a weak leader, OR he stands up and gets bullied even more.
Feb 28, 2025
“This was a premeditated gangster-like ambush. It was low blows. It was clearly deliberate.”
Donald Trump and JD Vance were “goading” Volodymyr Zelensky into humiliating himself, says Tim Marshall.
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
I know you're very much pro Ukraine, but I have to interject here (and I usually keep out of this)... We are giving away money hand over fist to the Ukraine (and everybody else and their brother). Not one of them could give two shits about the US. If the European Union wants to go it alone, so be it. I'm all for pulling all troops (and equipment) out of the EU and use them to guard OUR borders and letting the EU (mis)handle their own borders...
CCTVCam
Known around here
- Sep 25, 2017
- 2,853
- 3,733
Is that a lecture from a failed State?
Hey we have a failing Government too. You're right on that!
CCTVCam
Known around here
- Sep 25, 2017
- 2,853
- 3,733
Maybe you'll believe your own Government then?
From the US Goverment Accountabillity Office - As of Dec 2023 US had given $62.3 Bn in Military Aid not $500Bn.
Ukraine: Status and Use of Supplemental U.S. Funding, as of First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2024
Congress responded to Russia's invasion of Ukraine with funding of more than $174 billion for U.S. agencies to provide arms to Ukraine, aid civilians...
CCTVCam
Known around here
- Sep 25, 2017
- 2,853
- 3,733
How much money did you expend on each of the 2 gulf wars?
What Trump is blinding you here is what this is buying. This isn't buying arms for Ukraine. It's buying Security for the US. Both World Wars show you cannot contain war in Europe, it will spread to the US. An emboldened Russia is a big threat to the US as Russian missiles don't respect boundaries or even Oceans and nor do their subs or Status 6 Nuclear Torpedo. The more land Russia aqcuires, the more wealthy it becomes in both physical wealth and tech knowledge and the more able to challenge the US. It also gains overseas markets and trading rights not to mention the US loses all Naval bases, repair stations and supply facilities in Europe.
Lets say for example you follow Trump and pull out of NATO and leave Europe to itself, and Russia takes over Europe. Apart from the monetary wealth of all it's manufacturing and natural resources, (Norway has huge petrochemical reserves for example), it also gains all it's technological capabilities. The chip fabs, the high tech manufacturing, the weapons companies based in the EU giving it the tech and personel to manufacture and develop cutting edge weaponary. Existing weaponary eg captured F35's, Typhoons, F22's if still in Europe at the time or if shot down, US patriot batteries, Aegis radars and interceptors, US radar and listening bases & tech etc. A Russia that has the EU isn't just another quiet country that's got a bit bigger, it's a majorly more powerful nation that has not only the increased wealth, but the knowledge and equipment to take away all US over match and maybe even overtake the US on some weaponary tech, and all that tech is transferred back to mainland Russia as well, so you're looking at a high tech Russia that matches or even over matches the US. That's disaster for the US.
Lets not forget the list of European Defence Manufacturing ocmpanies that have some of the highest tech weponary in the world that rivals the US brands. These are just some of the biggest:
1. Airbus defence arm
2. Safran
3. BAE Systems
4. Thales
5. Dassault
6. Rhienmetal
7. Leonardo
8. QinetiQ Group
9. Babcock
10. Rolls Royce
11. Fincantieri S.p.A.
12. Naval Group
13. Diehl Defence
14. Navantia
15. Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace
That's 15 huge names with some of the highest tech manufacturing and knowledge in the world. Some like Airbus, BAE, Roll Royce and Rheinmetal I'm sure US citizens are already familiar with. Rolls Royce make what many might regard as the worlds best and most advanced jet engines for example. Other companies US citizens might be less familiar with eg Dassault make the Rafael fighter jet amongst others, Rheinmetal make some of the worlds best tanks / armoured personel carriers, Kongsberg make some of the world's most adanced antiship missiles, some of which are used by US forces currently eg Naval Strike MIssile, QinetiQ Group make the UK's Dragonfire Laser System which is amongst the world's most advanced.
A Russia that gains Europe gets all that expertise and everything I haven't mentioned which is the majority of high tech systems these companies make.
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,807
- 26,635
I am Pro-America .. and that makes me Pro-Ukraine in this Russo-Ukraine war ..
a win here for Russia is a defeat for American power, America will be seen as weak - Russia is 1/14th the economic power of the USA, USA and EU can easily support Ukraine to Defeat Russia if the will power is there.
NATO is the best alliance the USA has created, and is getting dumped into the trash .. this all harms the USA
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,807
- 26,635
The Great X Debate, with Matt Continetti: Vance v. Ferguson, Trump Diplomacy, DOGE, and Hackman
Hoover Institution
Feb 28, 2025 The GoodFellows | Conversations From the Hoover Institution
A one-week window into the Trump administration’s worldview—the president blaming Ukraine for Russia’s invasion; his vice president taking to social media to accuse a Hoover scholar of “historical illiteracy”; the US then refusing to join other UN members in condemning Russian aggression—raises the question: Is the Trump brand of confusion and controversy mere happenstance or a calculated means to an end?
Recorded on February 27, 2025.
Hoover Institution
Feb 28, 2025 The GoodFellows | Conversations From the Hoover Institution
A one-week window into the Trump administration’s worldview—the president blaming Ukraine for Russia’s invasion; his vice president taking to social media to accuse a Hoover scholar of “historical illiteracy”; the US then refusing to join other UN members in condemning Russian aggression—raises the question: Is the Trump brand of confusion and controversy mere happenstance or a calculated means to an end?
Recorded on February 27, 2025.
To me, you both have very solid statements and neither is wrong (imo), and I (just me) stand behind both statements. Not being a statesman here, just I am Pro-America and Anti-Communist (whether it is Putin or Rocket Man, or what ever flavor of 'red' is picked). I don't care if it is Ukraine or Iceland, I hate it when Communism spreads...it is a disease with no good ending.
With that said, I think Zelensky has gotten a bit too big for his trousers (or whatever TF he wears). Yes, he is between a rock and a hard place, I get that. And if my country was wrongly invaded, pretty sure I would be a bigger asshole then he is being right now.
However, Why TF isn't the rest of the world doing more? ESPECIALLY NATO? You know why? Because they are used to suckling from our BIG, TAX PAYER FUNDED TITS! And, the Europeans are scared of the big, bad bear. Cough, cough.
Our country is hurting right now...we need to take care of the home front first. I do not agree with disbanding NATO...but I do agree that we need to downsize it and make Europe step up more. As for Ukraine, how much money do we, as taxpayers, have to keep paying for this? When is the end? I for one am ready for it. THIS has been a EUROPEAN problem and they should have handled it better...but again with the tit suckling.....
bigredfish
Known around here
Maybe you'll believe your own Government then?
From the US Goverment Accountabillity Office - As of Dec 2023 US had given $62.3 Bn in Military Aid not $500Bn.
Ukraine: Status and Use of Supplemental U.S. Funding, as of First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2024
Congress responded to Russia's invasion of Ukraine with funding of more than $174 billion for U.S. agencies to provide arms to Ukraine, aid civilians...www.gao.gov
At least $183 Billion that we know of
bigredfish
Known around here
Russia isn’t going to invade or take over any of that any more than I’m going to get killed by a cow falling out of the sky and landing on me today.
bigredfish
Known around here
We started it.
It’s time to admit it and get the fuck out
It’s time to admit it and get the fuck out
bigredfish
Known around here
They’re desperately wanting war. They think by dragging NATO into it we’ll be obligated to join and more importantly, give them free money.
Fuck the UK
Fuck the UK
Uk better fix it's immigration. But even if they stop it completely, UK will be the second Islamic country in the world to posses Nukes and the first Islamic country in the world with a nuclear Triad.
These idiots have around 400 tanks, they gave around 14 main battle tanks to Ukraine. Out of remianing tanks in UK, only 40 remains under operational status.
If the clowns in EU think they can win this war they are going to be for a rude shock.
Ukraine had the second largest army, tanks, IFV, APC and missile force in EU after Russia.
Even after being trained by Nato the Ukraine Elite forces could barely penetrate the Russian first defense line.
If the EU clowns send their troops to Ukraine slaughter house. Islamists will take over UK, France, Belgium and Germany 10 to 15 years earlier then predicated.
These idiots have around 400 tanks, they gave around 14 main battle tanks to Ukraine. Out of remianing tanks in UK, only 40 remains under operational status.
If the clowns in EU think they can win this war they are going to be for a rude shock.
Ukraine had the second largest army, tanks, IFV, APC and missile force in EU after Russia.
Even after being trained by Nato the Ukraine Elite forces could barely penetrate the Russian first defense line.
If the EU clowns send their troops to Ukraine slaughter house. Islamists will take over UK, France, Belgium and Germany 10 to 15 years earlier then predicated.
Fuck the UK and Fuck NATO.
Sybertiger
Known around here
EU financial support to Ukraine
Find out more about how the EU has supported Ukraine’s economy since the beginning of Russia’s war of aggression.
commission.europa.eu