The economist article he's using as reference is incredibly light on detail regarding this claim. It's a single line, doesn't even attempt to cite sources. Not even "people familiar with the matter". I can't even find the FT article he also mentions as a source. I don't think it exists.
Man this is incredibly lame and retarded. The most charitable interpretation is he believes cutting all support will make them sign an unfavorable deal but end the war. Realistically I think he just wants the good press of the war ending and better relations with Russia, no matter how hard he fucks a loyal ally.
We have no idea the source or when that pause was order, provided its actually real. The "charitable interpretation" is that they are quoting someone during the aid pause due to Trump slap fighting with Zelensky and not just making shit up.
US currently simping for AfD and other Zigzog "far-right" Euro parties so hard that they on the same side as Russia and North Korea; even China and Iran abstained.
the US voting against any sort of international court authority is standard SOP, and Trump's admin decided to add a little extra fuck you to the krauts in there at the end.
Anyway, here's the real issue with the resolution:
It spends about 2 paragraphs shitting on Russian aggression and then 12 pages calling for support of a variety of Eurofag globohomo shit like the Global Compact on Migration and Global Compact on Refugees, and the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, the Committee of Ministers to member States on equality of Roma and Traveller women and girls, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe.
Basically it does nothing - it forms a committe to consider the impact of a tribunal exploring the framework of the potential charges against russian war crime perpetrators, but makes sure developed nations are forces to take on muslims and africans and work on gender equity and further export of industry to China and the third world continues not just unabated but accelerated.
Got a source on that? all I can find is Trump casting doubt on Ukraine's seriousness at being able to buy $15 billion worth of patriot batteries, not a refusal to sell them.
Counterpoint: international order is a privilege for countries that aren't filled with slanty-eyed boxtoxed mongol rape horde offspring who get big sads that their fake gay empire crumbled 30 years ago. Play in the sandbox like a big kid without randomly beating up other less-retarded kids or else you don't get to play in the sandbox. Much like a shrieking harridan of a Russian mail-order bride I'm starting to think the only way to get them to knock it off is to bust her lip open because sadly it's the only language they understand.
Same goes for Chinks, Sandniggers, Jeets, and whoever else feels like pulling a fast one while the rest of the civilized world at least pretends to queue up in an orderly fashion to conduct business on the global stage.
Wholly correct, but one has to be cautious about such matters as the sword you use today could be at your throat the next. The same reasoning that Russia's tanker shell game hasn't been put to an end - the same arguments you use to put their floating future environmental disasters out of business not only are a chilling message but those might be used against the US as trying to strangle the US seems to be the UN's primary occupation besides writing useless letters.
Again, the real solution is to put a stop this gay ass "conflict" shit. Its a war or its not, and the UN should be enforcing that, but it is fake and gay.
US currently simping for AfD and other Zigzog "far-right" Euro parties so hard that they on the same side as Russia and North Korea; even China and Iran abstained.
Yeah, because its not like the USA doesn't have a proven track record of voting against these things on general principles, or that the resolution specifically calls for strengthened cooperation with the Council of Europe, aka the USA should go back to sucking Eurofag cock.
Last year, Putin stated the Taliban is Russia's ally in fighting terrorism. He said:
"Generally, we have to proceed from the fact that the Taliban control power in the country. In this sense, the Taliban are certainly our allies in the fight against terrorism, because any acting government is concerned with the stability of its administration and the state it governs."
Zelensky: illegitimate terrorist. The Taliban: our good ally concerned with the stability of its administration and the state it governs. Based and redpilled!
The economist article he's using as reference is incredibly light on detail regarding this claim. It's a single line, doesn't even attempt to cite sources. Not even "people familiar with the matter". I can't even find the FT article he also mentions as a source. I don't think it exists.
I doubt the claims are false given how much it aligns with US policy on Ukraine, but I have seen others commenting that this sentiment hasn't actually been widespread from US officials. Feel like it matters who those officials actually are though as I could see Hegseth's people saying something like this given they're eager to parrot whatever seems to be Trump's sentiment.
The US has also now conceded again on the aid numbers regarding Ukraine and how much it should pay back, so a mineral deal is again on the table (unless Trump changes his mind again). And we have Rubio recently commenting that they'll move on if Russia doesn't agree to a ceasefire.
“If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on,” Mr. Rubio told reporters, adding that the Trump administration will decide “in a matter of days whether or not this is doable in the next few weeks.”
“I think the U.K. and France and Germany can help us move the ball on this and then get this closer to a resolution,” Mr. Rubio told reporters at Le Bourget airport as he prepared to depart. “I thought they were very helpful and constructive with their ideas.”
Though what that even means feels up in the air given Trump is reluctant to help Ukraine at all, so may end up just meaning the US giving up having anything to do with the region other than selling arms which they could have done from the start without damaging the reputation of the US.
They asked nicely for Russia to stop invading Ukraine, but since Russia has no intention of doing that, it looks like it's time for the U.S. to "move on". Oh, and it's time to drop the existing sanctions, too.
I doubt the claims are false given how much it aligns with US policy on Ukraine, but I have seen others commenting that this sentiment hasn't actually been widespread from US officials. Feel like it matters who those officials actually are though as I could see Hegseth's people saying something like this given they're eager to parrot whatever seems to be Trump's sentiment.
I could see that. My issue is that people are taking anonymous claims on txitter as absolute truth, merely because they align with their own prejudices or beliefs. I want to see actual proof of things, because otherwise it's no different to the ziggers and their ten billion polish mercenaries, or the perennial partition-any-day-now cope.
Always assume he will and plan accordingly. The thing with Trump is, you have to appear to not be desperate for what he's offering, otherwise he'll make more demands. Read between the lines in Art of the Deal and you will know how to get move him to your position: Poke him in the ego. Tell him you don't need him. He'll give you what you want to make himself feel big again.
The interesting thing about this story is the talk of the minerals deal suddenly resuming. When you consider that along with statements Zelensky has made, and with the actions the European group in recent weeks, I think what might be playing out is what I just described above. Russia's rebuff, coupled with Ukraine and Europe all-but-saying "we don't actually need the US", has got Trump and co reorienting. Whether it will play out favourably, I'm not going to speculate, but it feels like they've found a trump whisperer and are starting to play to his weaknesses.
I could see that. My issue is that people are taking anonymous claims on txitter as absolute truth, merely because they align with their own prejudices or beliefs. I want to see actual proof of things, because otherwise it's no different to the ziggers and their ten billion polish mercenaries, or the perennial partition-any-day-now cope.
The anonymous sources reported by major outlets often are genuine, it's just a question of what their status actually is and who they may have been referring to (like were they talking to Hegseth's handpicked people?).
But it's not even as though this would be a dramatic shift for the US. You already have Vance having gone on Fox to denounce other countries wanting to offer security forces in Ukraine, Trump bristling at the idea of sending further arms, intermediaries fawning over Putin while treating Ukraine as the aggressor, and so on.
Voicing that they think there's a problem with other countries sending aid to Ukraine would really be more of the same, but just a little more blatant. What's bothersome is that there are people on the American side that would cross that line rather than knowing to act more diplomatically as it suggests the White House's position is more extreme than even previously thought (or is as bad as people thought).
They asked nicely for Russia to stop invading Ukraine, but since Russia has no intention of doing that, it looks like it's time for the U.S. to "move on". Oh, and it's time to drop the existing sanctions, too.
Got a source on that? all I can find is Trump casting doubt on Ukraine's seriousness at being able to buy $15 billion worth of patriot batteries, not a refusal to sell them.
Trump's disparaging and public refusal was made to the cameras. Given how he's repeatedly blamed Ukraine for starting the war, made a wild claim that UA owes the US $500 bn (which exaggerates it five fold, ignores the form of the aid, and most was spend in the US before transport by wildly overpriced US carriers, when UA offered to provide freight carriage) claimed Sumy was a mistake and is surrounded by shills deeply hostile to Ukraine and enamored with the turd world dump which is Russia, I think it's not unreasonable to take that as a refusal. Biden was timid and hesitant, but I cannot see any 5D strategy of discreetly backing UA, short of not revoking old aid packages and also some small scale aid agreed previously like vehicles. Now Trump could halt a lot of Euro aid which often uses US systems or systems with major US components. If Trump were agent Krasnov; he could be far more of an asshole. Hopefully Russian bad faith is clear now.
Apparently little Marco says the US might quit talks if there's no progress if an assessment suggests there's no progress. 'We've other priorities' or 'not our war'. The pro Russian trajectory of the efforts of fool of an envoy witless Wikloff suggests that'd no loss. A quoted political scientist, whatever that means, suggests a play to force progress from Russia as UA okayed the ceasefire.
Anders Puck Nielsen the Danish Naval officer and instructor talks on NATO missing the drone revolution. Former C-In-C Zalushnyi and UK Ambassador sees drones as enforcing a static almost WW1 style of war not enabling a war of manoeuvre as NATO thinks. Nielsen agrees and adds his reflections.
Apparently little Marco says the US might quit talks if there's no progress if an assessment suggests there's no progress. 'We've other priorities' or 'not our war'. The pro Russian trajectory of the efforts of fool of an envoy witless Wikloff suggests that'd no loss. A quoted political scientist, whatever that means, suggests a play to force progress from Russia as UA okayed the ceasefire.
It'd make sense to imagine this was a way of forcing progress from Russia, if there was any consequence to them not progressing. Just saying "well if Russia doesn't want to stop then when we give up" isn't much of a threat to Russia.
He didn't say no, he doubted that Ukraine would be able to fund the purchase - between Blaming Putin for starting the war and then Blaming Putin, then Biden, and then blaming Zelensky for all Ukrainian political failings, even when he wasn't president.
"I don't think you have $5000" and "No I'm not selling you my car" are two entirely different statements. its actually more like "I don't think your parents will give me $5000" since Zelensky wouldn't be able to negotiate weapons purchases by himself and would need to get Parliament involved but I digress
(Though from where and on what time line 10 full Patriot batteries would be sourced is a very important question, to say nothing of keeping the new & existing launchers fed, but I think we can agree that calculus wasn't a factor in Trump's statement at that presser, only the raw acquisition cost)
My personal opinion is that the real issue Trump would take is that the Ukrainian end of such a deal would want those systems at a discount (and with a bulk order on that level they damn well ought to get one) but they would want an "excessive" DoD-sponsored Discount.
They asked nicely for Russia to stop invading Ukraine, but since Russia has no intention of doing that, it looks like it's time for the U.S. to "move on". Oh, and it's time to drop the existing sanctions, too.
Though what that even means feels up in the air given Trump is reluctant to help Ukraine at all, so may end up just meaning the US giving up having anything to do with the region other than selling arms which they could have done from the start without damaging the reputation of the US.
It just means that Trump is going to call the current peace process a waste of time, something we've known that it would be since they started.
And Rubio is talking about a theoretical "if there was a peace deal" he's not talking about lifting sanctions on Russia outside of that context. Just that if a peace deal was in place lifting sanctiosn would be part of it, the US wouldn't be able to unilaterally lift all sanctions, and that makes negotiations difficult (aka here's why its not my fault the peace talks failed)
Treasury was recently tasked with looking at more sanctions. Ukraine is not the party gumming up the works.
I think that just means a return to status quo. I think its unlikely Trump uses draw-down authority before a US budget is hammered out due to internal US political slapfights, but now that he's been "insulted" by Russia who the fuck knows.
This is probably why the mineral deal is getting renewed attention, as the "reconstruction fund" is going to be more important with the forever war set to continue.
The anonymous sources reported by major outlets often are genuine, it's just a question of what their status actually is and who they may have been referring to (like were they talking to Hegseth's handpicked people?).
Disagree. There is tons of shit with "anonymous sources" that turns out to be bunk, misinterpretations, a serious warping of facts through reporter opinions, or just untrue.
Fact checking isn't what it was. It used to be that there was a requirement for corroboration of an anonymous source's information - something to verify their information was legit, be it another independent source, hard facts/figures, or previously missed data. But that shit takes far too long for the click bait news cycle. Reporters on both wings are generally interested in talking to people who back their world view and feed their narrative and mostly serve as something to let them write opinion pieces disguised as facts; at most editors will make sure the source is actually in a role they might have access to information they claim, weak attempts at validating a source instead of ensuring their information reflected reality.
"A source in the pentagon" might be some E-3 copier bitch who has no idea the context of the documents they put into the document feeder. A "White house staffer" might be the intern bringing coffee. These people might not even know about the subjects they are speaking on - it might just be repeating rumors as the only requirement is "Do you believe that is true? Awesome, information vetting complete"
And that's before we get into the circle jerk that is "[Other Outlet] reports that...."
Again:
The US is abandoning the worthless peacetalks with Russia that we always knew were fake and gay. It took much longer to get there than it should have, but its finally about to hit the conclusion we all knew it would reach eventually. Who knows what the next move will be, but looking back at how things have gone the answer has been "Status quo" or almost as likely "Status quo with some extra sanctions".
But please, do not allow reality to get in the way of your Orange Man Bad NPC chimp out and continue to ignore that the US' stance on Ukraine would not matter if Europe was able to defend itself.
tl;dr: A US-owned russian company, Glavprodukt, which makes mostly canned food was "temporarily seized" Seizing foreign companies and nationalizing them, just another thing a nations not at war do the economic scale would be like if the US government nationalized Hormel. but it doesn't quite map as Hormel doesn't run its own farms and Glavprodukt does. The company was seized in october, put under Russian-state management (and promptly posted its first quarterly loss in company history; where's Prigozehn when you really need him?)
Russia is accusing the company of moving money out of Russia. But looks like the plan is to use them to supply the Russian armed forces.
This has been the only US company seized this way, and it is unique in that it isn't a subsidiary or local arm as had been the case in EU business seizures - its a Russia only company just owned by American business interest.
this hits a little close to home.
At the time sanctions went in , I was working for a company with a presence in Russia. The decision was made to not just pull out but nuke any and all data currently on Russian soil. We could do a lot of stuff ourselves, but some of the final bits needed someone physically at the equipment to complete (we wanted to shred drives among other things) and turning off access control systems which would lock down the offices and equipment once done.
Where there was a lot of executive angst because on one hand, our local employees in Russia had been very good but it was no longer certain how much we could trust them - not just about nationalism, but between the very real chance of GRU compromising them and the fact we about to ask them to not just end their employment but do what the Putin government might try to turn into a crime.
So we had to ask them to do something that might set them up for a treason charge, but also couldn't completely trust them. And either way, we were going to have to fire them.
There was also talk of monetary inducement for these actions, but questions of the legality of these bonus payments came up.
In the end, I guess there one guy who knew one of the now-execs, had family in the US and as a retirement age ex-soviet gave absolutely negative fucks about Russian secret police. So local workers powered down our entire presence and validated the data wipes then this guy drove to the sites, "gained entry", used a hammer and crowbar to gain access to the equipment, pulled storage, took them to the local e-waste, got certificates of destruction, and then traveled to the next site.
For these actions his cousin was hired on as an independent contractor to "ensure data disposal" was paid a very steep sum for a few weeks of work, and provided the company with the certificates of drive disposal and the matter was concluded.
Just that if a peace deal was in place lifting sanctiosn would be part of it, the US wouldn't be able to unilaterally lift all sanctions, and that makes negotiations difficult (aka here's why its not my fault the peace talks failed)
It's already been known that Europe would likely lift sanctions if the war ended, it's nothing special regarding the negotiations which should be considering everything else related to ending the war (like what Russia is willing to give up or give in on).
It's a dumb tautological thing to get stuck on because it's like saying "the sanctions due to the war will end by ending the war".
Disagree. There is tons of shit with "anonymous sources" that turns out to be bunk, misinterpretations, a serious warping of facts through reporter opinions, or just untrue.
Just the other day we had a story the White House derided as fake news of Musk getting invited to the Pentagon to hear about plans against China. Turned out to be true enough that staff for Hegseth have been suspended and then more came out about Trump asking the fuck was Musk invited for.
We also had regular stories for years where Tucker Carlson turned out to be a popular anonymous source since he's a huge gossip.
So a lot of these stories do come from genuine people who have some insight as to what's going on, though they may have their own personal axes to grind. Often they're wanting to get their criticism out there in hopes to get the issue addressed without flat out telling everyone involved to their faces that they think they're idiots. It doesn't mean you have to take their comments as 100% truth, but it is worth taking seriously given what it says about what's happening behind the scenes.
My personal opinion is that the real issue Trump would take is that the Ukrainian end of such a deal would want those systems at a discount (and with a bulk order on that level they damn well ought to get one) but they would want an "excessive" DoD-sponsored Discount.
Ukraine surely deserves at least a traditional friendly power discount. I doubt the Shah ever paid full price on his F-14 Tomcats. In context, Trump's words seem no tending. Apropos of that, Iwonder will Merz go Scholz marshmallow despite his fighting words. The SDP are his coalition partner and Russia threatens war over the Taurus as usual. No one believes it but the Germans.
You step into the most powerful man on earth's home, asking for support, and you're wearing a fucking polo. Niggery doesn't begin to describe it. Put a suit on at least man. Show the halls you walk in some fucking respect.
That's the most important takeaway to extract from this meeting when the president of the greatest nation on Earth chimps out like an absolute mong on live TV for billions to see.
I think its unlikely Trump uses draw-down authority before a US budget is hammered out due to internal US political slapfights, but now that he's been "insulted" by Russia who the fuck knows.
The Chicago radio man can be over focussed on Hunter Biden, whose Burisma was basically a Moscow operation, but he does fine content, like here. The sound is obviously Johnny Cash and the Carter Family. It is fitting for Good Friday.
The aerial war between Russia and Ukraine is explosive in every sense. But beyond the physical dimension, it is also a battle of morale and information. Both sides are locked in a continuous back-and-forth of public statements and dramatic videos claiming hits and damage to the other side.
There’s also the question of keeping critical targets hidden — not just from the public, but from the enemy.
Information on deep strikes — targeting, hits, and the drones and missiles that carry them out — is a constant intelligence battle. One of the men fighting this battle for Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate, or HUR, is Brigadier General Yuriy Shchyhol.
Russia’s censorship machine is much more aggressive than Ukraine’s, Shchyhol tells the Kyiv Independent in an interview, making it easier to hide Ukraine’s wins.
Read the full story by Kollen Post at the link in bio.
Photos: Evgen Kotenko, Pablo Miranzo, Wolfgang Schwan / Getty Images
Watched through it, It's an interesting insight into the world of civilian life of the Ukrainians closest to the fighting. It's genuinely heart breaking seeing the playground that was hit by shrapnel be filled with toys. I think Trump wants to end the war soon and in a way that hopefully doesn't leave Ukraine high and dry. But to the people living in the heat of things I fully understand why they feel genuinely betrayed at us for wavering in support.
US currently simping for AfD and other Zigzog "far-right" Euro parties so hard that they on the same side as Russia and North Korea; even China and Iran abstained.
