The War in Ukraine

[Good2Golf]

If you mean Chernobyl, it's occupied by RUS troops, where RUS says UKR is endangering by shooting at it, and UKR says RUS says vice versa

No.

You’re thinking of Zaporizhzhya NPP, currently held by Russian soldiers.

Chernobyl is north of Kyiv, and under full control of Ukraine…although Russia attacked it with a drone 6 hours ago…

Chernobyl radiation shield hit by Russian drone, Ukraine says - BBC News

There has been no increase in radiation levels at the plant, Ukraine's president says.

www.bbc.com

 

[Skysix]

We (Canada) need to pivot, get our head out of our ass and learn to think long-term strategically.

100% - and regain our arctic fighting capability as well as 'harden' our economy against trade wars ond manipulation by foreign owned/managed corporations.

And educate the population on how to critically read 'news' and sort out fiction from fantasy

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm starting to wonder if having nuclear weapons should be an option for us.....if the 'New World Order' is being burned to the ground by Trump and its back to pre-1914, then we (Canada) need to pivot, get our head out of our ass and learn to think long-term strategically.

Might be an idea, start the policy discussions and ask the military to prepare a plan for storage, deployment and use. Put out some tenders for interest in missile systems and warhead. Send a team to France to study their nuclear force. That should generate a interesting discussion with Washington. Frame it as "Time for us to take defense seriously from all threats"

By the time the Orange dude is gone, the committee will just be finishing their report.

 

[The Bread Guy]

No.

You’re thinking of Zaporizhzhya NPP, currently held by Russian soldiers.

Chernobyl is north of Kyiv, and under full control of Ukraine…although Russia attacked it with a drone 6 hours ago…

Chernobyl radiation shield hit by Russian drone, Ukraine says - BBC News

There has been no increase in radiation levels at the plant, Ukraine's president says.

www.bbc.com

My mistake - thx! I need to hit the books harder.

 

[RangerRay]

A not too complimentary look at Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg.

Now its Kellogg’s turn

No, not the breakfast cereal, but still soggy

wesleywark.substack.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

The truth will out...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891141753580732769

 

[Kirkhill]

Looks kind of like a "put up or shut up" missive to the Europeans.

What are the Europeans willing to offer Ukraine?
How big a force?
For how long?
And what do you anticipate doing if the Russians attack the Europeans?


Once you have stepped into the frontline and secured the ground what additional support do you need from us, the US?


Personally, I think those are all fair questions.

The US isn't abandoning Ukraine or Europe. It is willing to backstop Europe if Europe is willing to act.

To be honest, that is a legitimate position.

And more in line with the old Cold War standard where Americans were on the ground WITH the Europeans and not in stead of them.

U.S. asks Europeans what they need for Ukraine security guarantees, document shows​

The United States has asked its European allies what they would need from Washington to participate in Ukraine security arrangements, according to a document seen by Reuters.

The diplomatic demarche sent last week, consisting of six points and questions, also asks which countries could contribute to the guarantees, which would be willing to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement, and what the size of any European-led force might be.

U.S. President Donald Trump shocked European allies this week by calling Russian President Vladimir Putin – whose forces invaded Ukraine three years ago – without consulting them or Kyiv, and declaring an immediate start to peace talks.

News outlets including Reuters reported on Saturday that the U.S. had sent a document asking European governments what they could contribute to security guarantees, but the full text obtained by Reuters shows the U.S. is also asking what they would need from Washington to be able to contribute.

That element will be welcomed by many European governments, who have made clear they could only provide security guarantees with U.S. backing.

“What, if any, U.S. support requirements would your government consider necessary for its participation in these security arrangements? Specifically, which short-term and long-term resources do you think will be required from the U. S.?,” one of the questions asked.

Two European diplomats said there was still a debate on how European capitals would respond, but some believed it should be a collective answer.

Some European leaders, including those of Britain and Germany, will meet in Paris on Monday for an emergency Ukraine summit.

The document also asks which European and/or third countries they believed could or would participate in such an arrangement, and whether their country would be willing to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement.

“If third Country military forces were to be deployed to Ukraine as part of a peace arrangement, what would you consider to be the necessary size of such a European-led force? How and where would these forces be deployed, and for how long?,” the document showed.

Countries were also asked what actions the U.S., allies and partners need to be prepared to take if Russia attacked these forces.

“What additional capabilities, equipment and maintenance sustainment options is your Government prepared to provide to Ukraine to improve its negotiating hand and increase pressure on Russia?", the questionnaire asked.

It also asks what governments would be prepared to do to increase sanctions on Russia, including more strictly enforcing existing ones.

U.S. asks Europeans what they need for Ukraine security guarantees, document shows

The diplomatic demarche sent last week, consisting of six points and questions, also asks which countries could contribute to the guarantees

www.theglobeandmail.com

And it has got them thinking

Europe strengthens its stance as U.S. plots mediation to help end Russia’s war in Ukraine

French President Emmanuel Macron is rallying European leaders, holding an emergency ‘working meeting’ on Ukraine’s next steps after recent U.S. announcements

www.theglobeandmail.com

Just like his tariffs have

Brussels bureaucrats are living in 1970s fantasy world

The idea that the bloc still has the economic clout to force Trump to the negotiating table is delusional

www.telegraph.co.uk

The timing could hardly have been more provocative. Earlier this week, Germany’s statistical office announced that the country’s trade surplus with the United States hit an all-time record of €70bn (£58bn) last year, easily beating the €63bn surplus racked up in 2023. It isn’t going to last.

The EU’s overall surplus with the US has reached $235bn (£186bn) annually, and it rose by $20bn last year alone. One way or another, Trump is determined to wipe that out.

Tariffs will be levied, and quotas imposed until trade is brought back into balance. Unfortunately for the eurozone, it simply can’t afford to lose that $235bn.

The bureaucrats in Brussels, led by the hopeless Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, are still living in a 1970s fantasy world where the bloc has the economic clout to force the Americans to the negotiating table, assuming the threat of reciprocal tariffs will fix the whole issue.

None of that is going to happen. The surplus is only going to vanish one way – by reducing output by $200bn or more.

That will crush Europe’s economy. Germany is already flirting with a deep recession, struggling with soaring energy costs and the inevitable obsolescence of its auto and chemicals industries.

France has given up on any pretence of reform, and is set on punishing tax rises, and huge deficits for the foreseeable future.

The UK has slipped into a doom loop of rising taxes and stagnant output. Italy looks on track to complete its third decade in a row without any form of economic growth, and while Spain has managed to grow most of that can be explained away by higher immigration.

The European economy was already in woeful condition. Losing the $235bn surplus with the US will send it spinning into depression – with consequences that no one can yet foresee.

 

[dapaterson]

The truth will out...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891141753580732769

"You are using too many weapons to defend yourselves" is an interesting flex...

 

[brihard]

The truth will out...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891141753580732769

Alternatively, the Brits have no modern experience in a conventional peer conflict and Ukraine does; they have to fight it with the army they have, and sometimes really excellent kit will be lost or abandoned in the fluidity of battle. Sometimes it will be spent profligately to win a fight. This should if anything help teach Britain that they need a considerable inventory of weapons that can be thusly used, accepting that sometimes a £100k system ends up being a consumable.

 

[Kirkhill]

Alternatively, the Brits have no modern experience in a conventional peer conflict and Ukraine does; they have to fight it with the army they have, and sometimes really excellent kit will be lost or abandoned in the fluidity of battle. Sometimes it will be spent profligately to win a fight. This should if anything help teach Britain that they need a considerable inventory of weapons that can be thusly used, accepting that sometimes a £100k system ends up being a consumable.

And secrets, as in high tech, won't stay secret for long. You have to keep running faster than the other guy.

 

[daftandbarmy]

At least they're running

UK military too 'run down' to lead Ukraine peace mission - ex-Army chief​

The UK military is "so run down" it could not lead any future peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, the former head of the Army has said.

Lord Dannatt told the BBC that up to 40,000 UK troops would be needed for such a mission and "we just haven't got that number available".

It comes after Sir Keir Starmer said the UK would "play its part" in guaranteeing Ukraine's security after the prime minister was asked this week if he was open to sending British troops as peacekeepers.

US President Donald Trump earlier this week announced he had had a lengthy conversation with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, and that negotiations to stop the "ridiculous war" in Ukraine would begin "immediately".

Trump then "informed" Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, of his plan.

Lord Dannatt - who was head of the Army from 2006 to 2009 - agreed that a force to keep the peace would require about 100,000 troops.

However he said the UK would have to supply "quite a proportion of that and we really couldn't do it".

"Our military is so run down at the present moment, numerically and as far as capability and equipment is concerned, it would potentially be quite embarrassing," he told BBC Radio 4's The Week in Westminster.

"I mean, if we were to deploy 10,000 troops, each rotation for six months, that would effectively tie up 30,000 or 40,000 troops and we just haven't got that number available.

"So there are some big issues here that today's politicians won't really have considered."

It comes as Britain's foreign and defence secretaries called on the UK and Europe to "do more" to "share the burden" of regional security in a joint article for the Daily Telegraph on Saturday.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said he was "very encouraged" by his talks on Ukraine with US Vice-President JD Vance on Friday, on the first day of the Munich Security Conference.

"We share the view that there has to be an enduring peace," Lammy told Reuters news agency following the meeting.

"There was an agreement that Zelensky and the Ukrainians have to be part of that negotiated deal."

The talks came after Vance gave a speech at the conference, in which he was expected to address possible talks to end the war but instead attacked European democracies.

UK military too 'run down' to lead Ukraine peace mission, says ex-Army chief

Lord Dannatt says up to 40,000 UK troops would be needed for such a mission and "we just haven't got that number available".

www.bbc.com

 

[Remius]

At least they're running

UK military too 'run down' to lead Ukraine peace mission - ex-Army chief​

The UK military is "so run down" it could not lead any future peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, the former head of the Army has said.

Lord Dannatt told the BBC that up to 40,000 UK troops would be needed for such a mission and "we just haven't got that number available".

It comes after Sir Keir Starmer said the UK would "play its part" in guaranteeing Ukraine's security after the prime minister was asked this week if he was open to sending British troops as peacekeepers.

US President Donald Trump earlier this week announced he had had a lengthy conversation with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, and that negotiations to stop the "ridiculous war" in Ukraine would begin "immediately".

Trump then "informed" Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, of his plan.

Lord Dannatt - who was head of the Army from 2006 to 2009 - agreed that a force to keep the peace would require about 100,000 troops.

However he said the UK would have to supply "quite a proportion of that and we really couldn't do it".

"Our military is so run down at the present moment, numerically and as far as capability and equipment is concerned, it would potentially be quite embarrassing," he told BBC Radio 4's The Week in Westminster.

"I mean, if we were to deploy 10,000 troops, each rotation for six months, that would effectively tie up 30,000 or 40,000 troops and we just haven't got that number available.

"So there are some big issues here that today's politicians won't really have considered."

It comes as Britain's foreign and defence secretaries called on the UK and Europe to "do more" to "share the burden" of regional security in a joint article for the Daily Telegraph on Saturday.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said he was "very encouraged" by his talks on Ukraine with US Vice-President JD Vance on Friday, on the first day of the Munich Security Conference.

"We share the view that there has to be an enduring peace," Lammy told Reuters news agency following the meeting.

"There was an agreement that Zelensky and the Ukrainians have to be part of that negotiated deal."

The talks came after Vance gave a speech at the conference, in which he was expected to address possible talks to end the war but instead attacked European democracies.

UK military too 'run down' to lead Ukraine peace mission, says ex-Army chief

Lord Dannatt says up to 40,000 UK troops would be needed for such a mission and "we just haven't got that number available".

www.bbc.com

Maybe a good time to propose a commonwealth Anglo sphere military pact.

 

[Kilted]

Maybe a good time to propose a commonwealth Anglo sphere military pact.

You mean CANZUK?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Maybe a good time to propose a commonwealth Anglo sphere military pact.

If we hadn't been shovelling billions in weapons and ammo to Ukraine it might work, but we're clearly not seen as neutral by all sides.

I see a great business opportunity for the right kind of PMC

 

[Remius]

You mean CANZUK?

I believe CANZUKmis the free movement free trade thing but same concept yes.

 

[Remius]

At least they're running

UK military too 'run down' to lead Ukraine peace mission - ex-Army chief​

The UK military is "so run down" it could not lead any future peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, the former head of the Army has said.

Lord Dannatt told the BBC that up to 40,000 UK troops would be needed for such a mission and "we just haven't got that number available".

It comes after Sir Keir Starmer said the UK would "play its part" in guaranteeing Ukraine's security after the prime minister was asked this week if he was open to sending British troops as peacekeepers.

US President Donald Trump earlier this week announced he had had a lengthy conversation with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, and that negotiations to stop the "ridiculous war" in Ukraine would begin "immediately".

Trump then "informed" Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, of his plan.

Lord Dannatt - who was head of the Army from 2006 to 2009 - agreed that a force to keep the peace would require about 100,000 troops.

However he said the UK would have to supply "quite a proportion of that and we really couldn't do it".

"Our military is so run down at the present moment, numerically and as far as capability and equipment is concerned, it would potentially be quite embarrassing," he told BBC Radio 4's The Week in Westminster.

"I mean, if we were to deploy 10,000 troops, each rotation for six months, that would effectively tie up 30,000 or 40,000 troops and we just haven't got that number available.

"So there are some big issues here that today's politicians won't really have considered."

It comes as Britain's foreign and defence secretaries called on the UK and Europe to "do more" to "share the burden" of regional security in a joint article for the Daily Telegraph on Saturday.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said he was "very encouraged" by his talks on Ukraine with US Vice-President JD Vance on Friday, on the first day of the Munich Security Conference.

"We share the view that there has to be an enduring peace," Lammy told Reuters news agency following the meeting.

"There was an agreement that Zelensky and the Ukrainians have to be part of that negotiated deal."

The talks came after Vance gave a speech at the conference, in which he was expected to address possible talks to end the war but instead attacked European democracies.

UK military too 'run down' to lead Ukraine peace mission, says ex-Army chief

Lord Dannatt says up to 40,000 UK troops would be needed for such a mission and "we just haven't got that number available".

www.bbc.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891249003909587041

Seems to be a competing narrative

 

[brihard]

In a hypothetical peacekeeping mission within Ukraine, would it make sense to re-role our Op Reassurance commitment?

 

[Kirkhill]

So Danatt anticipates 10,000 on the ground with 4 rotations of six months.

First rotation comes from existing "stocks". Could the second rotation be mananged by plumping the rotation up with reserves? Third and fouth rotation - new entries? Older troops getting leaned on again?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

In a hypothetical peacekeeping mission within Ukraine, would it make sense to re-role our Op Reassurance commitment?

Hell no.

We would be foolish to move any kind of Forward Located Forces meant for deterring Russia towards a Ukrainian PSO. I can see this being part of the trap Putin is setting by drawing European troops out of the Baltics.

If Canada puts anything to Ukraine, I can see it being a separate contribution, maybe GRTF.

 

[FJAG]

In a hypothetical peacekeeping mission within Ukraine, would it make sense to re-role our Op Reassurance commitment?

Are you suggesting to weaken the left flank to secure the right?

IMHO, Reassurance needs to stay put. This needs to be a new commitment from NATO. . . unless we can find a way for the UN to step up.