Europe will not be part of Ukraine-Russia peace talks, US envoy says
Europe will not be part of Ukraine-Russia peace talks, US envoy says
French president Emmanuel Macron calls for urgent talks in Paris on Sunday amid fears US leader is sidelining allies
You're viewing a single thread.
So what happens if Zelensky sides with Europe on this one? How does the US apply its peace plan if it's been negotiated solely with Russia? The only way I see this working is the US sending troops to fight along with Russia...
Neither Zelensky nor Europe have any agency here. The U.S. has decided that neither have a place at the table. Instead, Russia and the US will hash out the details while Europe is left to graciously foot the bill and shut up. Kellogg suggested that European leaders stop whining about being sidelined and instead offer concrete solutions, and the reality is there are no solutions Europe can offer. US priorities are to extricate themselves from the war and make sure Europe pays for it all. The message to Europe to keep quiet, and pray the grown-ups in Washington and Moscow don’t decide to trade your future for a handshake.
Zelensky can see the writing on the wall, and he's pleading for a European army in Munich. It's a desperate Hail Mary to avoid becoming a sacrificial pawn in America’s geopolitical chess game. Meanwhile, European leaders are trembling at the prospect of a US-Russia deal that screws them over. The reality is that Europe simply lacks the industrial capacity to keep up with Russia militarily, hence why the war ends when US pulls the plug on it.
If the real war is between them two, what business would Ukraine or Europe have in negotiations for ending the "battle"?
That's the thing, they don't have any leverage in negotiating the battle because Russia is now visibly winning militarily. Ukraine is out of manpower, and Europe cannot fill the gaps on its own.
NATO was fighting a proxy war against Russia and against anyone willing to stand on its side, maybe a test. By keeping Russia busy NATO/ISIS can wrap up Syria, provoke Iran to engage, Israel got a piece of Syria and most likely Lebanon, and it is about time Palestinians vacate Israel, handed to the Israelis by the UK with no conditions to keep the Arabs. Any place the UK has "vacated" has left a chaos of civil wars and antagonism behind. Roman rule surviving in 21st century with all the refinements of the UK.
Would this happen if Russia wasn't busy fighting in Ukraine? Would Turkey/Azerbaijan be able to kill and bomb Armenians if Russia wasn't that busy?
NATO engaged, EU supplies have run out, most committed to spending little for defense now they have nothing. But Russia didn't lose, so any proposal for peace agreement is an effort to save up part of Ukraine for later NATO use, and to accept defeat. Nobody will ask Ukrainians what they want, nobody asked people in Donetsk Luhansk fighting for autonomy and independence what they wanted either.
When Trump says he will reduce defense spending that means he will see it that the EU will take up the slack of the US defense industry welfare system. Either they pay or Russia will start chewing them up like pacman dots. See GDP % to defense budgets of NATO members to understand how large the gap is and for whom are the bells ringing.
I'd argue that Syria ended up working in Russian favor in the end. Russia no longer has any obligations to prop it up, but the regime in charge doesn't appear to be keep on breaking relations with Russia. On top of that, it's become very unstable with many different factions fighting each other. This will inevitably create problems for Turkey and Israel who are backing different factions. Volatility in the region doesn't really benefit the west, and it's a huge concern for Europe where refugees will inevitably flee if a regional war breaks out. Meanwhile, Armenia signed its own death warrant by pulling out of CSTO. That's what allowed Azerbaijan to start making territorial claims.
My expectation is that we might see the end of NATO here. The rift between Europe and the US is getting wider by the day, and Americans are telling Europe in no uncertain terms that they don't see it as their primary concern now. It's also worth noting that the economic situation in Europe is very dire which is already creating political instability. Further austerity that would be necessitated by higher military spending will only make this worse. It's highly likely that countries like Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania might simply flip over to BRICS in a few years.
Turkey and Israel who are backing different factions
They are not backing factions, they have illegally entered Syria and occupied parts of it. Europe is not, has never been, and will never be one thing, especially under the boot of the German pseudo-state. EU is basically Europe, and NATO in a way is the same +US/UK, but some states pay an arm and a leg to contribute to what NATO is and some states think they are smart by not paying (and paying means buying from the US mil.industry). This is the object. The US is using Russia to force insecurity to some weak states, like Finland and Sweden, to pay if they want to ever be defended. So Russia is playing the bad guy because it is not left with an option of avoiding being the bad guy.
So those that pay less than 2-2.5% will have to come up with their own defense plan, and the day after they are dropped off protectionism, their products going or coming from across the world will be attacked by pirates and there will be nobody to defend them. Piracy is booming near most large passages, and it is the US fleets that sell protection to whoever is buying.
So go back and see again Europe, who is paying protection, who needs it the most, who has the most to lose, who is more dependent on energy and other resources to support their social stability and economy, it is pin pointing one pseudo-country. One that never passed a resolution that is not under occupation and control of another due to losing THE WAR!
No? You want to build Mercedes in China and sell them to New Zealand? Who will protect your ships? You want to depend on cheap energy from Russia but you want to have a say on what Russia will or will not do? Pay! Stingy ... Homie don't play dat!
The article you cite talks about military spending, not industrial capacity. Russia is running on a war economy, Europe isn't; this large difference in spending is to be expected. Surely Europe realises it cannot rely on the US for defense anymore, so there's a possibility they choose to dramatically increase its defense spending. If Ukraine loses the war, a lot of European countries won't have too much trouble convincing their citizens it needs to be done. The reason Europe has no "concrete solution", like you said, is because they won't accept the kind of compromise Putin would want. Now that the US decided not to be an ally anymore, I don't think they'll just stay there doing nothing.
There are plenty of articles directly discussing industrial capacity as well. Here are a couple:
- https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
- https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
It's also worth noting that Russian military industry is state owned which makes it inherently cheaper than privatized European industry. Also, Russia is absolutely not running a war economy. People who keep repeating this have no clue what a war economy is. Military spending in Russia is around 7% GDP. A war economy was what US ran in WW2 with 40% GDP being the military spending.
The Europe may realize that it can't rely on US anymore, but the reality is that Europe is largely deindustrialized and lacks energy independence. Production of things like steel is very energy intensive, hence why the UK is no longer able to produce steel, or much of anything physical domestically at this point. Other European countries don't fare much better. This was perfectly illustrated by Europe failing to meaningfully ramp up artillery shell production over the past three years. If Europe can't even make basic things like artillery shells, it's in no position to contest Russia militarily.
All this makes what Europe will or will not accept completely utterly irrelevant. Europe will be dictated to. It seems like Europeans are still suffering from delusions of grandeur, but the reality of the situation will start sinking in soon enough. Rhetoric alone gets you only so far.
To do so Europeans will either shop for US weapons or leave NATO and seek their own defense systems. As the late members quickly found out, and their populations don't like it, much of their existing military is obsolete, and the expense of complying with NATO membership will severely diminish their "traditional" welfare state, who has been more the target of US policy than Russian blockade from the markets. That is for Fins and Swedes good bye socialized health care and education, hello insurance and industrial indoctrination.
Germany doesn't even count on anything, it is still an occupied territory of the US, its health system reflects this satellite US in Europe territory, Last Germans to react and resist this occupation died in prison in white isolation rooms (Still in love with Ulrike despite of ideological separation - dreaded vanguardism).
If people can't understand history they will never understand moments and still pictures from it. The US still, since the 30s, is fighting communism in the very narrow minded way it perceives it. The US is just a mean barking dog of the global industrial/banking cartel. Not much more than that, sad but wonderful people serving that dog and keeping it alive.
So what happens if Zelensky sides with Europe on this one?
- Does Europe even have a unified position on which to side?
- Maybe things changed overnight, but last I heard Ukraine will not be part of the peace talks either.
.
The only way I see this working is the US sending troops to fight along with Russia…
wat
Right now I can't find any reason to exclude this possibility honestly
I can only imagine that years of nonstop BlueAnon conspiracy propaganda brought you to imagine it as a possibility.
If 3 years ago someone told you that Trump would give Elon Musk the mandate to dismantle the US government and RFK would be secretary of health, you would have called him a lunatic.
I couldn’t have seen the RFK one coming, but I’ve been following the dark enlightenment fascist tech oligarchs and their theorists for over a decade. They’ve had a vision for the future and plans to execute it for years. It wasn’t even secret. The tech oligarchs at Trump’s inauguration who bought this election have an over one trillion dollar net worth.
Silicon Valley's Playbook and the AI Coup
'Reboot' Revealed: Elon Musk's CEO-Dictator Playbook
The Point: In 2022, one of Peter Thiel's favorite thinkers envisioned a second Trump Administration in which the federal government would be run by a “CEO” who was not Trump and laid out a playbook for how it might work. Elon Musk is following it.
The Back Story: In 2012, Curtis Yarvin — Peter Thiel’s “house philosopher”—called for something he dubbed RAGE: Retire All Government Employees. The idea: Take over the United States government and gut the federal bureaucracy. Then, replace civil servants with political loyalists who would answer to a CEO-type leader Yarvin likened to a dictator.
“If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia,” he said.
Yarvin, a software programmer, framed this as a “reboot” of government.
Elon Musk’s DOGE is just a rebranded version of RAGE. He demands mass resignations, locks career employees out of their offices, threatens to delete entire departments, and seizes total control of sensitive government systems and programs. DOGE = RAGE, masked in the bland language of “efficiency.”
Interesting read, thanks!
Zelensky as the president expired a year ago. Since then he's been officially nothing.