Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a stark address to the nation today, drawing deliberate parallels with his wartime speech on the morning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Speaking outside the Presidential Office in Kyiv, he told Ukrainians that the country now stands at “one of the most difficult moments in its history” and may be forced into “a very tough choice”, referring to the ultimatum given by the United States.
He warned that Ukraine is under “some of the heaviest pressure yet” and may face a binary decision: “either the loss of our dignity or the risk of losing a key partner.” Without naming the United States directly, he made clear the stakes: accept “the difficult 28 points” being pushed by allies, or face “an extremely hard winter – the hardest yet – and the dangers that follow.”
Zelensky stressed that he had already given his answer years ago when he took the presidential oath. Recalling his 2019 inauguration, he quoted the pledge he made to “defend the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine” and insisted he would “never betray it.”
He promised intensive diplomatic efforts with Washington and other partners, saying Ukraine would not be painted as unwilling to pursue peace. “We will work calmly with the United States and with all our partners,” he said. “I will lay out the arguments. I will persuade. I will offer alternatives.”
But he set clear red lines: “Among all the points of the plan, at least two cannot be overlooked: the dignity and freedom of Ukrainians.”
Turning to Europe, Zelensky said he had spoken with EU leaders and urged them to remember that Ukraine remains “the only shield” between Russia and the European Union. “We believe: Europe will stand with us,” he added.
The president combined diplomatic messaging with a sharp appeal for national unity, warning against political infighting as international pressure intensifies. “We need to pull ourselves together,” he said. “Quit the squabbling. Stop the political games. The state must function.”
He cautioned that the coming days would bring “enormous pressure – political, informational, all kinds – designed to weaken us.” Ukraine, he said, must not allow the Kremlin to exploit domestic division.
Zelensky ended by invoking the early days of the full-scale invasion, urging citizens to recall how “the enemy did not see our backs running away. They saw our eyes full of resolve.” The same unity, he argued, is essential now if Ukraine is to secure “a dignified peace.”
“Our people are with me,” he said. “Dignified. Free. United.”
A terrible plan, totally in Russia’s favour.
The aggressor is rewarded, Ukraine gets nothing good.
Just the same demands wrapped in a different coat! This is Whitcoff just parroting Pootins dream🤬
I don’t even know why the media bother parroting this crap, Russia lacks the military capability to get any of this stuff.
America is a diminished power with little sway left in Ukraine or in Europa and Donald Trump is an increasingly lame duck that’s seen as little more than an embarrassment in his own country.
Best we just ignore this nonsense.
Reading some of the comments below seems to suggest to me that people believe everything is going nicely in Russia!
Not that strikes on their oil refineries, power stations,oil export docks,airfields,radars and more than one major sabotage event on their railways etc are happening!
They are now down from 450t of gold to 173t in their SWF and selling off more to fund this war,that’s why they really come out with desperate demands like this to get trump to do their dirty work!
Russia lacks battlefield tactics, but nothing else, they are producing lots of weapons every month, they still have plenty of troops.
They will play the attrition tactic until, either UKR is exhausted, or the west gets fed up/ runs out of money or the political will to carry on.
Never underestimate your enemy, especially one that has a huge military industry and the economy to back it up.
Have they?Tank refurbishment pile is nearly gone as the only AFVs left are beyond repair and Uralvagonzvod has gone down from three shifts to two!oil production down by 25/30% depending were you look,fuel queues and job layoffs a plenty across Russia,interest rates artificially held down by the Kremlin.Its really not hard to find the numbers!
Yes they still have around 3000 Tanks, not all will be fielded or serviceable they also produce about 20 new T90Ms every month.
OSINT suggests as of this month Russia still has 7000 AFVs left
My point is they are far from being exhausted/defeated. And if you follow ISW or other war maps you will see they are still slowly taking territory.
The day they unilaterally cease fire and stop taking territory is day they are finished.
They are very slowly taking territory at a horrendous cost in manpower and equipment!
AFV production can’t keep up with the loss rate in Ukraine as well having to keep forces elsewhere in Russia so I would suggest they are spread very thinly indeed. We haven’t even gone into aircraft/helicopter/ship losses! Anyway I suppose we can all argue over facts and figures but from reports I’ve seen and read the situation in Russia is very far from rosy
At the moment Ukraine still hasn’t taken the gloves off and gone for civil infrastructure like the orcs have but push them too far and who knows if they become desperate enough,how will the populations of Moscow,St Petersburg react to their apartment blocks coming down around them?👍
Question is: how long does the fighting have to go on until the attrition rate totally exhausts the Russian reserves and most Tanks/AFVs in the field are new?
I think at that point we will see a slowdown
But can UKR hold on that long?
Drones and missiles, and glide bombs have become Russia’s weapons of choice, and they have plenty of those.
It has the whiff of the Versailles treaty imposed on Post WW1 Germany… feels like a punishment on Ukraine with meagre gains for them. Now we know why Trump was so keen to circumvent Europe… the US gains everything economically from rebuilding Ukraine, and gets paid using the money from Russia’s frozen assets.
lol what revisionist history. It was Germany that started WW1, normal that they pay reperations for all the deaths and destruction they caused. Funny that this narrative typically comes from those far away on the other side of the ocean whose lands, cities and population were not devastated often adopt this fallacious pov. Which also has the perverse effect of absolving Germany and its nazi ideology of its horrendous crimes, and present them as the victims with no other choice. There was no coup d’etat, the Nazi were welcomed to power by the german people under thunderous applause.
Ukraine didn’t invade, it was 100% Russia. This proposal is just another clear sign that the US doesn’t care about Ukraine and Europe, as well as its inability to make Russia do anything it does not want.
I didn’t comment on the Versailles treaty itself. What you say about Ukraine echoes exactly what I pointed out.
I always thought after ww2 Germany should have been split up and given away to the allies so that there was no Germany anymore
That might have worked better, especially considering the difference between north and south Germany, east and west. Whatever anyone thinks of the Versailles treaty – which the French wanted as a punishment, not so much the British who saw how it could potentially backfire – it placed an impossible burden on the Weimar Republic that led to a democratic collapse and the rise of National Socialism.
Unbelievable really.
Steve Witless has to be the most useless negotiator ever.
The Tangerine Tinted Buffoon is obviously getting a Big Beautiful Deal…..
I’m not much into conspiracy theories but something is going on under the bonnet here. I smell $$$$ and Rubles. When it comes out it is going to be pretty base.
Actually it looks like Witkoff might have been sidelined after the planned Budapest summit fell-through. I think this is more the work of the Vile-President, JD Vance.
Whereas Trump is simply corrupt, Vance is an ideologue and seems to buy into Putin’s claims of protecting Christianity from western liberalism…
I thought Shabana Mahmood was protecting us from western liberalism.
It’s even worse. Trump’s world view is that the US has no allies, only business opportunities. His aim is to plunder Ukraine, and likely enrich his family. My guess is that is also why he is circling Venezuela.
It is not a peace plan. It’s akin to an armistice where Ukraine are treat as the defeated aggressor. All concessions by Ukraine, all Russian demands met, plans to carve up what remains economically between the US and Russia, and what remains is left with massive restrictions in their armed forces. Absolute disgrace. Ukraine have done nothing wrong, defended themselves, and this is what gets decided to be their fate.
Lasting stain on America. Europe watched and did little.
Perverse isn’t it? You’d think that the UK, Europe with Ukraine would have enough strength and capacity to stand up to Russia independently of the US. Time will reveal the reaction and consequences of all this.
I don’t comment on this site to often but when I read other comments that are very much angry on Trump and the US I must write a few words: firstly Ukraine reserves are almost drained, all young men have been allowed to leave the country recently. Secondly Ukraine made a lot of strategic mistakes during this war that depleted their resources. Thirdly the corruption in Ukraine is not only real, it’s massive and contributing directly to the war effort.
I rarely comment either, but as I am not privy to the facts on Ukrainian manpower which are not published I refrain from comment an I suspect you are no more in their confidence than I.
No one gets it all right in war, though a lot of he mistakes early on were either a product of pressure from the west to fight a type war we had not equipped them fully to fight as well as decisions forced on them by the constraints of what they had. Had the US government not repeatedly tied their hands or sought to “manage” how much and what types of weapons they were supplied with a lot of the losses would have been avoided.
Corruption is to be found in any country, look at what is going on in the US under Trump. The corruption in Ukraine is a legacy of the russian occupation and cultural dominance. In any country it is not the existence of corruption that matters but what is done about it. Ukraine is actively exposing, prosecuting and rooting out the systemic corruption they have been gifted by russia as fast as they can. To criticise them for the revealed corruption is hypocritical.
Let’s not forget the difference between russia and Ukraine in russia it is systemic, deliberately built in to the vertical of power and springs from the very top, spreading throughout the system, in Ukraine it is prosecuted.
Regardless of all of the above, russia is the criminal aggressor and Ukraine is fighting to defend its self; the desperation of Trump to claim he stopped the war is so great that he will sacrifice anything, most especially the Ukrainian people and the reputation and global standing of the USA.
Was Biden any better than Trump? No he wasn’t, in the fact the US and most of other allies gave Ukraine only that much so they can survive but not enough to win this war, and yes I know more about corruption in Ukraine as I’m Polish speaking person and we have tons of evidence in Poland for corruption in Ukraine coming from no other people than Ukrainians themselves, including current or former servicemen, they even told us about special price chart how much one must pay to avoid forced recruitment and to be send on front, poor people fighting for Ukraine not rich.
And on the end let’s be honest: in any politics, and especially global politics, nobody cares who is right and who isn’t, who is good guy and who’s bad guy, it’s just business, and business for America is to end this war and possibly lure Russia on their side as confrontation with China is far more important than anything that happens in Europe, especially Easter Europe.
Yes he was, massive difference. Biden made the mistake of not helping Ukraine enough in an attempt to avoid an escalation with Russia, keeping Europeans on his side. Trump is giving his friend Putin whatever he wants so that he can go back to business, totally disregarding Europeans allies and opening the door to future Russian aggressions on the continent.
And Biden failed because only when he was president Ukraine had chance to win this war, now it’s too late. As for Trump, as erractic he is, and as inconsequent he’s behavior is, what he does is what he promised too he’s voters which demanded to end this war.
I’m a Trump voter for the simple reason that the alternative was worse, in my opinion. I and most of his supporters anticipated that he would support Ukraine, as he did in the first term. We were wrong. At this point, it’s obvious, his sole objective with the conflict is to win a Nobel Peace Prize. He doesn’t care who wins or if Ukraine continues to exist. To him, the concept of liberty and justice are irrelevant.
Nobody cares if Ukraine exists, nobody cares if Poland exists, except us. America used eastern Europe again for their own business, and Europe as whole is too weak to respond.
What’s your point? Russia has no corruption? Russia made no mistakes? Russia hasn’t depleted its reserves and resources? It’s a long war that’s existential for Ukraine. Saying that one side is having a hard time of it doesn’t seen to me to define the outcome nor dictate British policy (or Polish for that matter).
Everything Trump sees is short termist. He’s willing to sell Ukraine down the river and Zelensky clearly is having none of it. We have to remain steadfast allies with Ukraine and hope that Putin blinks first, no matter whose side Trump finally comes down on.
Oh Russia is very corrupted but the difference is that in Russia Putin decides who’s oligarch and in Ukraine oligarchs decide who’s president. Also you talk about resources: Ukraine depilated Russian resources but not enough, just look on the size of both countries and number if people living there, plus Russia is supported by China. Europe can remain steadfast allies to Ukraine but what Europe has to offer to cover what America can take away? Do we have as much money? Do we have as many weapons? How Ukraine find new recruits? Just in Poland we have dozens of thousands of young military age Ukrainian males, enough to create several divisions but it seems like they don’t want to fight for their country. Ask yourself this questions.
👍
That was me agreeing with Andrew S – just for clarification…
Trump is a sh@t. Simple as that. A disgrace of a President.
I bet he has never heard of the Sudetenland.
Totally agree. What a bloated egotist. Disgusting treatment of Ukraine by the US leadership and Russia. Its not their country to carve up. I hope Zelenksky and Ukraine can survive this and the UK and Europe has his back. The UK will need to stand more on its own feet.
Trump once and for all showing he’s a Russian shill.
Nothing Trump says is once or for all. He turns coats with every step of his flip flops.
TACO.
Europe (UK included) needs to turn its economy needs to turn to a war economy and fast because America is completely unreliable and I dont think they’d defend us if Article 5 was called.
Who are we defending against with this war time economy?
Assuming your reply was a joke.
Clearly our military needs major, major investment aswell as our European partners. Take a guess why we would need to rapidly remilitarise.
Give you a clue, theres a big war going on in Eastern Europe right now.
The autocratic alliance of Russia, China Iran, and North Korea.
You think if we ignore them they will go away? They are already sabotaging western democracy.
Russia itself is still fielding an army of 750,000, despite its losses in UKR ,
it has the ability to keep building new weapons, keep sending recruits,
they are still advancing and taking territory,
They are still a dangerous and capable foe with a deep hate of ‘Anglo Saxon culture’
We need to rearm quickly.
Trump would probably give Putin intel on us!
I may agree with some of Trumps domestic policies but my god does this man make Neville Chamberlain look reasonable in the foreign policy department
Same here. I voted for “not Dem” and Trump was the only choice. I figured I would agree with his choices most of the time. And now it is becoming obvious that agreeing with him 60% of the time may have been optimistic.
Ukraine needs to cut us (the US) loose and rely on Europe rather than having any reliance on the US. The irony is that Europe would not need US help to support Ukraine effectively if they had started rebuilding their defense capabilities back in 2017 when Trump first started demanding they do so. But they waited until 2023 to start the process in any truly effective manner. They made slight increases to spending before that but there was no fear in their hearts. Well, they feel the fear now.
I think that Ukraine will still be able to get some aid from the US even after they reject a bad deal brokered by Trump. But even if they get nothing they will be better off than if they truly have received the 28 points that I have seen mentioned. I hope these 28 points are a fabrication, but given the lack of concern for Ukraine Trump has voiced in the past, they are all too possible.
Clunker, Chamberlain tried with allies (France and Italy) to conclude a regional (continent-wide) peace agreement with the aggressor nation’s leader, Hitler. Trump is however not trying to negotiate peace with Putin, one-to-one. The similarity is that the Munich Agreement reluctantly accepted Hitler’s invasion and occupation of the Germany speaking region of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland – provided aggression ceased.
Hitler did not comply with the Munich Agreement by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia and then Poland. So Chamberlain declared war on Germany.
The simile will be good only if Trump declares war on Russia.
Trump is more like Moseley if he had got in to power than Chamberlain.
Nah, Trump may be many things but he’s not a Nazis. I am not one of those idiot left wingers that calls someone Nazis for being slightly right of centre. I know Trump is likely more than slightly right but I stand by my view
Moseley was more an admirer of Mussolini than Hitler. So not a Nazi but a Fascist and I think Trump and Farage are in the same vein. Vance is more like Franco’s fanatical Catholic supporters.
You can think what you like, that’s your right. Doesn’t make you correct though
Sadly if the US does go ahead and try and force this essential surrender on Ukraine ( infact you could go so far as to say aiding Russia in its geopolitical aims) then NATO is essentially a walking corpse. No European NATO nation will ever trust the US to have its back and I think that will mean a complete separation of European and US strategic goals.
Europe will have no choice now but to throw everything at Ukraine.. essentially separating its own and US goals.
I honestly think the present US administration has decided that Russia as a neutral party it can trade and try to separate from China is more geostrategically important that all the European nations as allies..
Personally I think this is stupid as fuck and Xi is laughing his arse off at Trump because when it comes to a future US sino war Russia is always going to fall down on chinas side every time.. and the European nations even if they wanted to could never get involved as they could no longer trust the US as an ally of good faith and you don’t enter a world war for a bad actor unless your forced to.
Yes, and if the US wants to do business with Russia they can have it. Will the American people accept it though? I can’t see Europe letting Russia into their fold afterwards. It’s going to be interesting to see what comes of this and who in Europe stands up and where the UK goes from here and which leaders the populations vote for.
Why not? Europe is still buying Russian gas in larger quantities than it did in 2022.
Yep and that is why the push for renewable energy is so very very important the ENATO nations need to be energy independent and our oil and gas reserves need to be treated more like the irreplaceable strategic reserves they are.. I would like to see the North Sea oil that is left managed as a strategic resource
Renewable energy today requires back up from alternative generation systems. Britain cannot become energy independent through renewable energy until battery technology improves dramatically. Even then, the various raw materials required for the massive battery storage required will introduce overseas dependencies. Modular nuclear offers energy independence, probably expensively. Britain requires a mixture of generation technologies which we pretty much had until the lunacy of ‘net zero’, based on dodgy modelling. The North Sea has plenty more to offer this country if we introduced a more welcoming tax regime. Instead we import from Norway which supplies us from……the North Sea. Frankly, Noddy and Big Ears would do a better job of running this country than the bunch of complete no hopers we have endured for the last thirty five years.
There are many ways to a stable supply.. tidal is a proven source and would be profoundly efficient in the Uk due to the massive level of tidal energy we have literally the largest potential tidal production on the planet.. but we have ignored it because it requires something this county hates doing and that is civil engineering projects.
Also the whole battery issue is a red herring.. on a national scale you don’t store energy in lithium ion batteries that’s insane you store it in gravity batteries.. which is again nothing more than very basic mass civil engineering..
It’s Nimbisim and an unwillingness to invest in mass civil engineering projects that is holding back being free from energy dependence.
I know you have been sucked into the green energy and that is your opinion, but the simple fact is we can be energy independent and can ensure our oil and gas is managed as a finite strategic resource.
Uk load moves from between 20GW and 60GW with the Baseload requirement of 20GW of firm energy. This by 2050 is likely to shift to about 50GW and 120GW with a firm baseload of about 50GW.
We could realistically economically get about 30GW of power needs from tidal.. nuclear capacity is aiming for 24-25 GW for 2050 that takes us to 55GW or the whole firm baseload capacity managed by tidal and nuclear. Physics world did a good article on the fact you could then easily get UK 100GW from flexible renewable sources.. wind, solar, tidal and biofuels.. the UK could easily have hundreds of GW of gravity batteries.. both hydro pumped solid mass gravity batteries .
‘Time The Big one of course is time. Gravity batteries are time limited. The length of time a gravity storage unit can resupply the grid on loss of renewable energy supply is quoted as 8-16 hours by Energy Vault. This is a relatively short period of time compared with how long the wind could crease to blow and 16 hours of relatively low sunshine in winter months is not exceptional. Therefore Fossil powered generation would still be needed 24/7.
Capital costs associated with building both the renewable energy sources and the localised storage. Whilst running costs for both are negligible (Charging of localised storage being affected by energy that would have “gone to waste”). However the interest payments on loans secured to build the facilities will add to the running costs.
Environmental costs The effect of wind farms on the scenic environment has already become the focus of fierce opposition in many locations and Gravity storage solutions will be even more detrimental to the landscape.
Location Again linked with environmental but also with the renewable energy sources. Energy Vault depicts a gravity storage tower in the mist of a group of wind turbines. The siting of which would play havoc with the wind required to generate the power to be stored.
Reliability of Power Supplies. The increase in use of renewable energy will eventually bring the whole Power grid system into a state of Chaos. Traditional generation techniques cannot match the running costs of renewable energy sources. However renewable energy sources are not reliable. So in Countries where the electricity supply is not state owned how will corporate bodies manage these discrepancies? How will fossil fuel generation remain viable whilst most days of the year consumers are buying low cost, locally generated, renewable energy?’
But why bother?
‘Since the observed emergence of most of the climate impact drivers(heat and cold, wet and dry, wind, snow and ice, coastal, open ocean, and other) presented in IPCC Table 12.12, and confirmed by the analysed updated time series, as well as most of the response indicators ( (e.g. hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, wet mass movements, storms) in Table 1, do not exhibit worsening trends, our overall view is that the ‘climate crisis’, as portrayed by many media sources today, is not evident yet.’
The requirement for net zero is unevidenced, net zero consequently utterly pointless.
“Since the observed emergence of most of the climate impact drivers…”
Do you have a source for this nonsense?
How can you describe it as nonsense if you haven’t read it. The author, Giorgio Alimonti, is a great deal more qualified to comment on this matter than either you or I.
‘This article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet
I’ve read it. It’s crap.
Why?
It’s Gianluca Alimonti, not Giorgio, and he’s a nuclear physicist pontificating on things he knows nothing about. He’s been caught out before, which is why one of his papers was summarily dumped recently for being mendacious shite.
‘This paper is not breaking new barriers of scientific understanding, rather it is a work of investigation and compilation from freely available sources, many of them to be found in the published output of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Most extreme weather events are not getting worse.
You take that piece completely out of context and use it a lot, I’m sorry but that particular paper is about the concept of the media generated “climate crisis” and essentially says it’s not helpful as what we are seeing at present is lots of separate climate impacts that need to be managed separately and not lumped into one climate crises.. as he points out the preset climate shift has meant that for instance some water ways are 10-20% below historical flows some are 10-20% above.. they need different management..
What that paper does not go anywhere near is to deny man made global warm or in any way to consider what the future impact will be of the 2-4-6 degree risk and impact models.. you keep doing this.. taking individual papers and the view of one or two people in very limited sets of reviews and use them to cast shade on the entire mam made climate change evidence base and scientific consensus of the risk balance and future impact.
Just for your information that is exactly what the tobacco industry paid agents to do for about 40 years.. and managed to sell billions of pounds of tobacco at the same time taking decades of healthly life years from hundreds of millions of people…
Now I’m just a 50 year old guy who has studies environmental science at university then became a risk manager of complex systems essentially trained to review evidence and put in place mitigations against catastrophic failures in complex systems.. so I’ve read the scientific consensus, I’ve read the best individual papers the systematic reviews of evidence base as well as the umbrella studies.. I’ve read the EUs 2-4-6 degree risks assessments and what will happen to our various nations.. and simply put if there is zero change and we keep going the way we are the world is fucked and civilisation is fucked. Now that’s a bit of a pain for companies trying to make shareholder profits and it’s not something people like to think about so they grap onto things that cast shade on those outcomes.. but the professionals who look at catastrophic risk and mitigation of catastrophic risk.. we don’t pretend we don’t hope and we don’t cast shade.. we look at the brutal truth.
Then you really should rethink your position.
Alimonti’s paper is simply ‘a work of investigation and compilation from freely available sources, many of them to be found in the published output of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Most extreme weather events are not getting worse, with or without human involvement’.
Furthermore:
‘The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and mid-troposphere. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming. Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity. Global sea level has risen approximately 8 inches since 1900, but there are significant regional variations driven primarily by local land subsidence; U.S. tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate. Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies. Moreover, solar activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated. Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than
beneficial.’
And
‘Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity’ which is great news for the developing world……
Oh, I see. It’s the latest excretion from the muppet who had a paper retracted by the journal a couple of years back for being utterly unscientific and disingenuous.
You’re one of those…
You haven’t read it, which explains the brevity, atmospherics, of your comments.
Here you are:
Alimonti, G., & Mariani, L. (2025). Quantifying the climate crisis: a data-driven framework using response indicators for evidence-based adaptation policies. Environmental Hazards, 1–30.
Come back when you know what you are talking about
🤣
‘It is not difficult to find all the relevant climate data, while the education needed to understand it relies mainly on an ability to read words and comprehend numbers. This climate paper is not breaking new barriers of scientific understanding, rather it is a work of investigation and compilation from freely available sources, many of them to be found in the published output of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Most extreme weather events are not getting worse, with or without human involvement’
Not difficult at all…..if you have an ability to read words and comprehend numbers….
🤣🤣
‘Professor Gianluca Alimonti of the University of Milan is a leading expert in high energy particle physics. Michael Mann can try to repeat his original Guardian-published attack along the lines that it was another example of scientists from “totally unrelated fields” coming in and naïvely applying inappropriate methods to data they don’t understand. How we laughed then, but even more so today. The new Alimonti blockbuster shows it is not difficult to find all the relevant climate data, while the education needed to understand it relies mainly on an ability to read words and comprehend numbers.’
Emojis are not an argument.
And particle physics has sod-all to do with climatology. And neither has much to do with Ukraine.
That’s not an argument either. ‘it is not difficult to find all the relevant climate data, while the education needed to understand it relies mainly on an ability to read words and comprehend numbers…..’
‘The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and midtroposphere. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming. Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity. Global sea level has risen approximately 8 inches since 1900, but there are significant regional variations driven primarily by local land subsidence; U.S. tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies. Moreover, solar activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated. Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than
beneficial.’
If we are squandering taxpayers money on nonsense and, consequently, unable to live up to the security assurances we signed up to in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, that has a great deal to do with Ukraine.
Endlessly quoting the words of a scientific fraud is not an argument either. Alimonti is one of a number of (mostly) physicists who think their expertise in their field gives them the intellectual authority to wade in to completely unrelated areas and talk shite. He cherry-picks his data and misrepresents his sources, which, for those who have ‘an ability to read words’, means that it’s crap science.
The usual evidence free assertions. ‘Cherry picking’? Have you read all his references? No. You haven’t. That is bigotry, pure and simple.
I’m afraid Monro is very young and does not really understands the concept of scientific consensus over the opinion of a few individuals.. if it was 30 years ago he would be smoking 40 a day and telling everyone that harm from smoking was unproven by quoting a tobacco industry paid opinion.
Yeah, I’m bored of him now..
Real science does not recognise ‘consensus’, only a balance of probability. The balance of probability, in this case, is that since CO2 levels in the long term do not correlate with marked changes to the climate, ‘climate science’ is simply an attempt to soak the taxpayer. You will see how the taxpayer responds, democratically, in this country, in due course.
By that statement you have clearly shown you have no understanding of how the scientific community works.. science is based on consensus. To think otherwise shows a lack of training in research.
Gravity battery 12-16 hours..you have taken that from one specific design of tower gravity battery..where as the true potential is mine based gravity batteries..all those pit shafts can be converted into huge sub surface gravity batteries.. and that’s 12-16 hours for each surface tower gravity battery.. if you have 2 then that is 24-32 hours…and you can turn them on and off as demand goes up and down…
Tidal is always on firm power.. nuclear is always on firm power..that’s all you need..
As for investment in infrastructure you do realise that new gas fired power stations cost lots as well as does the infrastructure for extraction of gas and transporting it..
The whole visual impact is I’m sorry fucking ridiculous… Oohh it does not look nice.. well it does not cause respiratory collapse and early death or catastrophic climate change that will leave us all screwed and dead.
You can pick any option as long as your willing to take the consequences but denial of consequences is for fools..denial of man made climate change and the scientific consensus as well as the modelling and risk assessments of harm is denial of consequences .
True investigative science does not recognise ‘consensus’, particularly one based on dodgy models incapable of accurately reflecting the data verified climate of the years after their construction.
I refer you to my comment above.
True science is entirely based on the development of a scientific consensus.. someone may has a hypothesis that disagrees with the null hypothesis..they then attempt show the null hypothesis is wrong thus proving the hypothesis..further research’s undertake other sets of research with similar hypothesis testing the null hypothesis after a number of sets of research systematic reviews are undertaken and finally a consensus is reached.. single point studies are not a scientific evidence base or large sets of studies over time are considered a scientific evidence base..
That is your fundamental problem your picking a paper and running within it like it’s the word of god.. where as science goes..that’s nice let’s test that a hundred times in a hundred ways and see what happens…. And you can bet your arse those hundred studies will show slightly different things as the methodology of the research proving of the hypothesis and null hypothesis are themselves tested and modified.
Can I ask have you ever been trained in research and had to assess an evidence base for consensus so you can take that consensus to the real world and apply it to life and death ? Because I have, it was my job to review the scientific consensus on the treatment of medical conditions and the create services that followed that consensus… if I had simply picked one research paper and built services on that I would have be struck off,probably taken to court and ended up in prison for man slaughter… infact I have myself lead investigations of people who did exactly that.. taken one bit of evidence and I have seen them prosecuted for that.
There is a clear distinction here between tried and tested practical applications based on empirically well proven scientific doctrine and the investigative scientific process itself.
That is a distinction that has unfortunately somehow eluded you.
The investigative scientific process is diametrically opposed to consensus.
‘A core part of the scientific method is skepticism, which forces scientists to examine claims and ensure they are backed by sufficient evidence. Disagreement drives progress: Dissent and criticism are vital for scientific progress
Scientific truth is based on reproducible evidence, not on popular opinion or agreement and certainly not models (because ‘all models are wrong but some are useful.
While consensus can be a useful indicator of well-established findings, science requires verifiable results and a willingness to challenge existing ideas. The focus should be on evidence and independent verification rather than a majority vote, as scientific progress often comes from scientists who overturn the consensus.
Science is an objective framework for understanding the natural world through observation and experimentation, not through opinion. A single reproducible result from one investigator can overturn the consensus.
Skepticism is crucial: A core part of the scientific method is skepticism, which forces scientists to examine claims and ensure they are backed by sufficient evidence.
Disagreement drives progress: Dissent and criticism are vital for scientific progress, as they highlight potential errors or new perspectives. A consensus that suppresses or devalues disagreement can lead to groupthink. History shows that scientific breakthroughs have often come from individuals who went against the established consensus; Copernicus; Galileo with their heliocentric model etc..
The term “consensus” can be misleading because it can imply complete agreement, which is rare in science, and it is also used to shut down debate or criticism.
A scientific consensus is not the ultimate goal of science. Science is an ongoing process, and today’s consensus may be revised with new evidence and understanding.’
Your problem is that you haven’t even bothered to read Alimonti’s paper or considered its extensive list of references.
I actually have read his paper and that is why I can tell you the limits of his conclusions.. I’ve also read a lot of the seminal research he is using. You are completely miss understanding what research is ( your investigative science) which is the testing of a hypothesis against a null hypothesis and the totally of the scientific process.. that single point research proves nothing on its own.. because it needs to be tested over and and and those tests needed to be modified and expanded.. that then creates the consensus.. we use that as a tried and tested method because single point “investigative science” as you call it is very often wrong and if you follow that single point of research you almost invariably create harm… the arse who created the whole MMR creates autism movement was a single point “investigative research”… that is west we ONLY use scientific consensus as the “truth” at that time.. it is modified as the evidence base develops.. but any true scientist will tell you that all research contains flaws and problems and the point of consensus is to as much as possible mitigate those flaws.. that is why picking one our two sets of research and running with them is bad science.. you do meta data analysis of the thousands of sets of research and from those meta data studies come up with what is the consensus… but you do you and believe what you want.
Unfortunately your inability even to spell ‘misunderstanding’ drives a coach and horses through any credibility you might have hoped for. Your credibility is further undermined by failing to spot that I have quoted more than one paper, only one of which was written by Alimonti. As I have explained, you are mistaking consensus regarding the appliance of certain agreed scientific conclusions, after extensive testing, for the investigative scientific process, which is never set in stone. Scientific progress relies on scepticism. There is a great deal of scepticism regarding ‘net zero’. That is why many, if not most, countries are abandoning it. The idea itself is based on a number of misconceptions which I have set out above. It relies on flawed modelling incapable of correctly mapping the data derived climate reality of the years after the models’ construction. That is unsurprising since all models are wrong. To deprive Britain of its conventional deterrent in pursuit of some quixotic dream of windmill power is, frankly, profoundly stupid and, with war once more on Continental Europe, extremely rash, if not completely mad.
I love Matt Monroe, a great singer. Absolutely amazing
Why not just build nuclear power plants problem solved
Nuclear is part of the mix, but it’s through life cost is utterly fucking brutal and we still don’t have a deep geological disposable site for UK nuclear waste.. essentially it requires a a 200-1000 meter deep tunnel system will fill physical barriers in place from the outside world that is geological stable enough to maintain its integrity over 100,000 years… so as an example the Uk is looking for a site to manage waste from its civilian and military nuclear power programs from when the first started a 70 years ago and for the next 100 years.. that’s going to cost between 50-60 billion over its operational life and size depends on usage… also your average nuclear power plant runs for 50 years.. then using a deferred dismantling you seal it up and wait 30-100 years before dismantling and burying the lot in your deep geological disposal site..where it can brew for the next 100,000 years… so unless we want to litter our landscaping with reactor tombs we need to use just enough so we can go through that 50-100 year decommissioning cycle…alway being aware what we use now will be decommissioned by future generations.
Also nuclear is firm load as it very hard to turn off.. and the UK firm load will probably be about 30% of its total need moving forward… so 2050 firm load need will be about 40GW with about 100-120GW as flexible load..
So we will never ever need more than 40GW of Nuclear… but essentially the government has settled on 24GW or nuclear as a reasonable compromise of not utterly fucking our grandchildren with the cost of decommissioned to many reactors.
Tidal barriers on the other hand have a potential lifespan of “ all eternity “ as long as you maintain them.. build 20GW of nuclear power stations and your grandchildren will have nothing but billion on billions of decommissioning costs and the need to also spend billions on building another 20GW of power stations.. build 20GW of tidal barrier power stations and your grandchildren will still be using it.. just as aside if 70 years ago someone had built a Severn tidal barrier.. it would still be producing 8-9 GW of power.. our present nuclear capability is about the same.
👍
Wrong.
“Imports of Russian gas dropped from 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2021 to 52 bcm in 2024 – with the share of Russian gas imports falling from 45% to 19%.”
EU Directorate-General for Energy, May 2025
Compare 2022 to 2024, not 2021.
The US shouldn’t spend a dollar defending the EU from Russia as long as the EU keeps buying even a cent of Russian gas. It’s an asinine expectation.
They wouldn’t be defending the EU they would be defending NATO Allies.
You have to compare it with 2021 as that was pre-invasion. Otherwise the debate is nonsensical given that most of the reduction in gas imports was in 2022.
The US isn’t spending a cent “defending the EU from Russia”.
• The US is getting paid by Europe for all the US manufactured weapons going to Russia.
• The US has forces stationed in Europe, as well as Japan, etc, etc, because it prefers to fight its enemies in other countries rather than its own.
• Europe/NATO backed the US under Article 5 on 9/11 and fought in its ‘war in terror’. So the US owes Europe.
Johnathan, I couldn’t agree more with your comment. I wonder how long the so called 3 day negotiation was spent discussing the capitulation of Ukraine compared to identifying the so called commercial deals between the Trump business’s and Putin.
At least now when history professors are giving lectures on appeasement, they’ve got extra material to work with. Poor old Neville Chamberlain didn’t have a book about Neville Chamberlain to guide him in his decision making.
To be fair to poor old Neville, there is an argument (which I don’t _entirely_ hold with) that his appeasement at Munich bought time for Britain to continue its massive rearmament programme. Sadly I don’t think that will apply here..
I actually think that based on the information he had on hand at that particular moment in time he was 100% correct in his decision to buy more time for us to rearm.
But German propaganda was very effective as fact is France and GB could have hammered Germany in 1938, it was all a massive bluff !
Not sure how a pre-emptive war against Germany could have been sold to the British public, though! I am also under the impression that a major part of the hesitation was the need to avoid the risk of simultaneous conflict with Germany, Italy and Japan until the RN’s rearmament plan came to fruition in 1942.
Yes, but Chamberline also wanted to offer Hitler peace terms after battle of France was lost.
Thank goodness for Churchill
Matt, in 1935 Chamberlain, recognising Hitler’s potential ambitions became a massive convert to rearmament, particularly advocating recapitalisation of the RAF as Chancellor. It is largely thanks to him that we had Spitfires and Hurricans at the start of the Battle of Britain.
The difference with chamberlain was that he knew what he was doing and made a strategic decision to delay the war that was coming because he did not think the UK was ready for it.. all the while he was signing peace treaties and waffling on about peace in our time he was pushing the UK through a crash rearmament..
Correct but he was wrong, Germany at that time was a gate waiting to be kicked in !
Indeed but at least he knew he was actually getting ready for a war, he just with hindsight and intelligence he did not have made the wrong choice.
Jonathan, true. Chamberlain delayed our entry into the war by a full 12 months, time enough to get Spitfires and Hurricanes into service with front line squadrons in some quantity. We would have otherwise have lost the Battle of Britain, and may well have been invaded.
Maybe. But the ‘Battle of Britain’ was largely irrelevant, a fairy tale cooked up as wartime propaganda and successfully exploited by the RAF ever since. Britain had the most sophisticated air defence system in the world in 1940, by a country mile. There was no risk of invasion that year or at any other time, due to the lack of German shipping and the overwhelming superiority of the Royal Navy. But it was important for the war effort that the public believed there was.
What you say is mostly true, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. But you forget that there was another player in the game, namely Germany. Who after the fall of France believed Britain were on the ropes and would be a push over, who’d with a little push would sue for peace. Germany’s initial plan was to destroy “what was left of the RAF”, then threaten them with invasion. The German Navy after their mauling in Norway, knew very well the risks involved.
German intelligence had no idea of the Dowding system or the actual number of fighters the RAF actually had. The majority of German intelligence on the RAF was made up. A good example is the performance of the Hurricane. German intelligence believed it was an obsolete fighter and would be easy meat for the Bf109. They got that part very wrong.
Churchill was adamant that not one German soldier would set foot on our hallowed turf. At this point early in the war, the Enigma code had not been broken, so we were overly reliant on human intelligence from agents, as well as photo intelligence from the fledgling photo reconnaissance unit. Which clearly showed the build up of forces around the Calais area. The Navy weren’t sure on the Kriegsmarine’s deposition. Plus there was the German paratrooper and Blitzkrieg fear. British Forces saw how effective they had been against the French forts on the Maginot Line and how easily they had been encircled to force them out of France. The fear of invasion was very real at the time!
Land defences were put in place, bomber command and the RN attacked French and Belgique ports massing “invasion” barges. However, there were others within the Army and Navy, who wanted to let them try the invasion. As they believed they could trap a large amount of German forces on the Romney Marshes, which was seen as the most likely landing area. The Navy had plans on using destroyers to cut off logistical supplies and close the trap on the troops who had landed. But Churchill vetoed the plan, as he believed the RAF, who said they could stop the Luftwaffe.
The Dowding System and Keith Park’s implementation of it, won the battle of Britain. Also aided by the pilot training scheme, the rotation of front line squadrons and our substantial industrial aircraft production. All of which significantly overmatched the Luftwaffe. ##
Trump hasn’t the slightest interest in Ukraine other than it’s mineral wealth. Does the Ukraine have a choice with trumps plan… in reality probably not. Tens/hundreds of thousands of military aged Ukrainian men left the country, when Zelensky relaxed laws allowing them to leave.
So if Ukrainians will not fight for their own lands, why should anyone? Frankly they have no choice now, other than to give up territory to the Russian git.
The US and NATO should hang their heads in shame, for failing to ‘fix the Russia issue’, once and for all. This failure to stand up to tyranny, clears a path for other despots and nut jobs to take land from anyone, any-time, anywhere.
Its not all over just yet but well said above.
Exactly, lets see what european leaders say. It sounds like Ukraine is prepared to force the issue with Trump, if it comes down to it. I cannot see anyone in Europe allowing a Russian take over of Ukraine
If Ukraine falls then the Baltic states would be next which would mean direct war with NATO. Alot of people can’t see that for some reason in the West. (Not saying you can’t, just in general).
Some people dont understand that ruzzia losing, and losing badly, would be a good step towards world peace. They would be weaker, heck maybe the artificial country would finally break up and the republics can get their countries back.
But sadly NATO has used Ukraine to weaken ruzzia but not enough. We haven’t given Ukraine enough and we were way too slow. History is literally repeating itself and we are doing bugger all about it.
Hope to God Ukraine does not fall. All those men, women, children that have given or lost their lives because of one monstrous man. F…k, it only takes one man. God help Ukraine 🇺🇦. Strength to them. Hope they can muster with UK & Europe’s help a massive counter offensive to flush Russian forces out of their country and shut the gate. Stop throwing too much valuable stuff over the fence when the Barbarians are in the front garden!
How much bullying and humiliation does Europe need to finally have enough and stand up.
Some Will keep buying F35, they kind of pay to be hurt…
Trump, as we’ve long known is a Russian shill. He is destroying America and the Western world from the inside.
The 45th/47th President is arguably the most unpleasant person in American history; iealous, petty and greedy, an unforgiving narcissist; a vindictive ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic; homophobic racist; a serial liar, a serial predator and proud of it, an Islamophobic, sociopathic, megalomaniacal, demagogue, a capricious bully and self-serving repulsive con artist without a shred of conscience.
You great yet America?
In reality Europe is jealous that it doesn’t have the leadership to stand up for its own interests.
Only the delusional think Trump is standing up for American interests. His naked corruption serves only his own. And Putin’s.
He really does make Nixon look half-decent as a president 🤷🏻♂️
Posse, yet nearly half of America agrees with everything he does or says. Just look at all GOP defending his Miss Piggy insult
It’s great since 2022 we have given pontificated and given away all our junk and hoped it would help Ukraine and replaced absolutely nothing for ourselves, not 1 MBT, not 1 SPG not 1 anything ! Quite honestly we deserve to be invaded and subservient to Putin as we don’t deserve to be an independent Nation anymore.
Just talk and bull shit and no substance !
To be quite honest we should be ashamed, our forefathers disown us, and we hold our heads in shame !
Ukraine isn’t perfect, in fact far from, nor are we but it deserves to be allowed to be Garbage on its own terms.
It’s time to tell Trump to go and do one !
We got 14 Arhcers, that will keep us going 😀
Half the problem is the army constantly complains how s**t all its stuff is like Challenger two and AS90 and they need to buy something shinny and new from Germany then the equipment gets to Ukraine and performs brilliantly, same thing in 1991.
Colonel Crawford can give you chapter and verse about how terrible the challenger two is and if they had only listed to him we have lovely Leopard II’s and Challenger 3 is terrible and should be replaced by shinny new drones blah blah blah.
The UK is a nation largely inhabited with whingers and this is the result. An army with no equipment and dozens of four letter acronyms programs to buy something new.
People can blame politicans but most of them spend less than a year at the MoD and barely have enough time to their name on an office door.
The UK armed forces and far better resourced than almost any other major military.
The short comings lie entirely with the brass.
Trump has shown that the US under his leadership are no longer a reliable member of NATO. Going for Venezuela whilst appeasing Russia he’s shown himself to be a coward
OT – but related.
Matthew Whitaker, the US ambassador to NATO, wants Germany to take command of all NATO in Europe as the US exits the stage.
Not only have the US abandonned Ukraine, they are now ready to see a 4th Reich in Europe, as AFD is gaining ground in Germany
Trump is focused on the Nobel peace prize, he has not listened to the words spoken by the Nobel commitee.
He won’t get it for forcing capitulation on Ukraine.
The supply of weapons from the US has all but dried up accept those being bought by Europe and donated to Ukraine.
The question is how much cutting off US intelligence will hurt the Ukraine defensive efforts and how much Europe can fill the gap.
Putin’s word on an agreement is worthless , he will break it without seconds thought.
Can they trust Trump’s word, I doubt it, America and the U.K. also promised security guarantees in exchange for Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons. Was that honoured?
It should be made clear to Trump that is he does cut off intelligence sharing there will be severe consequences. And maybe Just maybe the other 31 countries in NATO will finally realise the US cannot be relied upon and to start with urgency to fill in the capability gaps the US will leave.
Either way it is time for Europe to step up and properly help Ukraine instead of talking big and delivering small. Ukraines war IS Europes war.
Could be more “Nobbling” the Peace. He can have a prize for that. Only a few weeks back he was offer cruising missiles now offering chunks of Ukraine. No bigger flip flop than that. Who do these men think they represent when bypassing Ukraine, Europe and the UK with secret negotiations with Russia? Pretty crass manoeuvring.
If we have any clout at all and any real commitment to peace “in our time” we must stand firm for and with Ukraine. we have had weak leaders recently but they have all said that Ukraine should be free. Let’s hope they stand by that.
Lesson for Europe. Don’t trust America.
There needs to be a long term plan for Europe to stop buying American military weapons and equipment.
Long term develop a nuclear missile system with UK/France/Poland/Sweden and Germany
Long term Trump has caused immense damage to America – if it kicks off with China don’t come looking for European assistance
Hope the UK and Europe stand up here and come out a stronger bloc now. We remember it was recently said “we stand with Ukraine however long”.
JJ, yes, long term he has cracked the foundation of society. Will the nation even survive? Or break up?
Maybe we’ll start restoring our own manufacturing industries rather than getting most things from our natural enemy, Communist China. Mind you, it will be more AI rather than British workers getting a living wage.
🌮🏳️
The plan as proposed is reflective of the US administration (sic) weaknesses and simple (transactional) thinking; which comes as no surprise as those involved are simple (transactional in mind) lacking righteousness. Idiots 🙄
.
.
Reeks of the Munich Agreement and where that led. The only logical and existential outcome will be that Ukraine and like-minded countries. is: No thanks/ get stuffed (profanity replacement 🙃).
.
.
Facetiously expect us NATO membership thereby enabling formally joining the darkside/east/naughty list 🙃
What happened to the Edit button?
Correction:
Facetiously expect us NATO membership to be next, thereby enabling formally joining the darkside/east/naughty list 🙃
UK & Europe doesn’t need to be against the US but sure needs to stand up to the US leadership on Ukraine. The behind the scenes dealings is unbelievable arrogance on both sides. Both trouble makers should bugger off.
One would like to think so, but with the orange oompah and the (maga) like, I don’t think you could set that in stone.
.
.
The fact the us don’t have problem with the aggressor russians speak volumes, especially when trump speaks of the thousands dying on both sides (when who cares about the bad side losses).
.
.
It is shocking the US (I will include from Obama onwards) and co (who signed* the 1994 Budapest Memorandum) 1. didn’t back up their signatures and/ or 2. ensure Ukraine had more weapon systems than they needed to pound them back over the fence (it was a golden opportunity to erode putin’s power/ military not taken) and force a peace on them on their terms.
.
.
On the plus, Europe is awakening been reminded that america is not the superpower it once was and it’s word, especially the current maga tripe cannot be trusted (.) and is appearing to have more similarities with those states in the east.
.
.
I hope more than anything, Europes mobilisation of it’s military complex is able to delivery volumes to Ukraine to win and force a just peace on the aggressors, while also saying those with similar mindsets elsewhere (whoever they are), you will not win.
.
.
[lowercase lack of respects intentional … I should have put that in my original post].
.
.
* of course I exclude china from that expectation
Unfortunately we’re at the stage where no deal Ukraine signs is ever going to be a good one. That’s just the reality. Ukraine can’t make serious demands anymore due to a variety of reasons such as:
Corruption is still a major problem
Significant losses on the ground with clear, widespread manpower issues
Global attention has completely drifted. You only need to notice how rarely Ukraine even makes headlines now to see how much of the world has stopped paying attention.
Complete betrayal from what was supposed to be the global leader of Western and democratic values thanks to the Putin appeaser Donald.
This particular deal is terrible no argument there. But even a realistic deal which would have to be grounded in the reality that the situation in ukraine isn’t good. At best it’ll just be the least bad option on offer.
All this confirms is what we already know. The USA is no longer and ally which can be relied on and its just more of a reason Europe and this useless gov need to ramp up defence spending.
AB, yes, well written, vg points. And Ukraine has no choice any more. No more better offer. All is lost, and could get worse this winter.
Russia is lossing 30-40,0000 casualties a month and for that has gained about 1% of ukriane over the last… year it also cannot win at present. Whichever side gets more international support will probably grind down the other…
I agree with most of the comments here. I grudgingly give Trump some credit for some of his domestic policies even if they are just accidentally good or by default, but his hand in Ukraine is pure evil and we must again ask the question-what has the sinister Putin got on the US President to allow his support of the Russian dictator? Never has there been such a stark contrast between the dedicated, not perfect but decent, brave, intelligent Zelensky and Putin, the vile killer of men, women and children on both sides of the line! He will rot in hell!
Trump is an utter traitor, still trying to railroad UKR into defeat & submission to Putins tyranny & further genocide.
How would the USA have liked it if in 1941/2 “Allies” had demanded the USA recognise defeat & allow the Japs to dictate terms?
He’d have been demanding the British surrender to Hitler etc.
Fight on. Better to die in battle than in a Russian prison.
Turn the conflict into a long term insurgency war both within the occupied parts of Ukraine but into Russia as well. Turn Ukraine into a Russian Vietnam
Maintain the long range missile attack capability
As for Russia rejoining the international G20 organisation – that’s for the rest of the G20 to decide – that is not the decision of America/Russia/Ukraine.
Likewise with the lifting of trade sanction etc imposed by Europe
As others have said its time for the rest of NATO/European countries to stand up to Trump to tell him his dumb ideas over Ukraine are in no way acceptable
I feel and share your emotions as a German. However, this whole war in fact did buy us time. Just look at Rheinmetall. Loads and Loads of Ammunition from the New Unterlüß plant are emerging. The Germans just got their first New Leopard 2A8.
We are slow but Arms production in Nato is starting to exceed russian. Rebuilding the defence supply chain takes and tool time but kicked off full gear now.
What is needed now is a strategy from Europe that isnt purely defensive anymore. Hybrid counterattacks are something to be considered.
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.’ – To Neville Chamberlain”
― Winston Churchill
So the meaning there that’s relevant is the imposition of a dishonourable agreement, much as was imposed on Edvard Beneš, without him being there to negotiate if I recall. The Sudeten crisis also saw the abandonment/betrayl of the Czechs by the Western guarantor powers of the day – looking at the US-Russia 28 points, is a similar abandonment in these or is continued US involvement implied?
And most of us can see that a Ukraine without its fortress belt and with a smaller army (still in the 28 points?) will be easier to invade a third time, which history suggests will occur afterward.
We can see that protection agreements in words or paper mean little, see 1994 agreement.
We can also see the new form of power in this world is that a major power can invade a small/middle power and be rewarded for it. Venezuela, Taiwan, Ukraine, the Baltics… This has grave implications as it will encourage more conquest. For Australia, where I am, we better hope the US has enough selfish interest in keeping our territory in their sphere – I believe they do, as our landmass controls access to both Pacific and Indian oceans and offers defence in depth, on top of all the rare earth minerals that are all the rage. We will see.
Was never said.
But would have been a great line if he had!
The only good that could come of this complete betrayal is that the UK and Europe finally get organised Politically, economically and militarily. I fear that that the next one is coming, Moldova, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Suwalki gap, hybrid at first and then a substantial attack on their “Number 1 enemy, UK” In Estonia.
This is another 1938 moment. Chamberlain’s deal with the Axis to sell out Czechoslovakia. Although Chamberlain had severe doubts about the UK’s ability to defend itself against air attack (only 4 squadrons of Hurricanes and Hone Chain radar still far operational) so he was in a weak position and knew it, the reselt was still a terrible betrayal.
The West is in a similar position with Europe scrambling to rearm, or at least some countries are scrambling to rearm, and the US leaning into an America first policy where every move is driven by how much $$$$ they can squeeze out of a situation. The up shot is we are in a weakened condition trying to buy time but failing to take the opportunity to properly rearm.
The trouble is we now face a threat that include China, the second biggest economy on the planet and the fastest growing military power supported by a new AXIS of aggressive states, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It is a dangerous cocktail and we are need to react with far more determination and urgency.
CR
1938 or perhaps 1948. What would have happened if the US had not committed to the Berlin air lift? The US has said it wants the NATO supreme allied commander in Europe to be a German. Putin is within an ace of achieving Russia’s post WW2 ambition to split the West.
The Russian/Ukraine war is reaching a key point, now that America has given its version of a one-sided peace plan to Ukraine, with the expectation that President Zelenski will say yes – only proves that President Trump has a narrow minded view on world events. The sacrifice that Ukraine has experienced over the past 11 years, of which 3 years of fighting Russia directly, has proved that their survival as a country matters above all else. Firstly without doubt Ukraine now deserves to become a full member of NATO, this needs to be part of further negotiations to settle the overall peace terms for their future. At present the deal that America presents is stacked towards Russia that’s totally unfair. The alternative terms should be Russia pays to compensate for all the rebuilding of the infrastructure in Ukraine – Automatic membership in NATO for Ukraine – the Ukraine armed forces to be reduced to 400,000 personnel. This will only happen if America insists that the Dombass needs to be relinquished by Ukraine, then they will need to commit to underwriting NATO membership alongside European leaders for Ukraine.
With the US befitting from the frozen assists and Europe footing the rebuild bill !! what a great deal
Zelensky is right that it is a difficult decision because Russia is getting too strong and verging on advancing. This winter it could be very bad for Ukraine. Europe has not much time to help. Everything could be worse next year.