Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[Steve Browning]

I see that he proposes US ownership of Ukraines power infrastructure. What a great guy!

[merello]

On 03/02/2025 at 17:24, Al Krow said:

Nah. There will be fewer American kids dying of Fentanyl OD pretty soon.

 

Mexico have just folded and are sending 10,000 extra troops to patrol the border with immediate effect. Funny how easy that was for them to do, when faced with tariffs? 

The extra security was part of a deal Biden made before. A bit like Trump announcing a great, great deal before in his first term with Canada and Mexico then decrying it in his second term.

[merello]

Just now, Steve Browning said:

I see that he proposes US ownership of Ukraines power infrastructure. What a great guy!

He’s a gangster.

EU, UK, Canada and Mexico should make a common trade deal.

[Downunderwonder]

4 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

Does anybody else think the only way to get Putin into serious negotiations is for Trump and Europe to promise Ukraine all the weapons they want?

That will work only when Europe also stops buying any oil or gas off the Muthaclucker. Both needed to happen on day 1 but he got away with Red Lining everyone for a year and a half. Muthaclucker.

[Downunderwonder]

2 hours ago, TimR said:

do something that will expose him and get him impeached

That already fell short. As I under it the Supreme Court already indicated the King Principle, aka If President (Trump) does it then it is legal, was supported by the Constitution. It beggars belief, so please tell me I am wrong!

[Misdee]

1 hour ago, edstraker123 said:

I think that's the stark reality, the choice is to make concessions and end the war, continue it in its current format until Ukraine runs out of soldiers and more civilian lives are lost or for Europe to intervene and take us closer to WW3. All terrible options but I like the one with the fewest deaths.

As I pointed out a while ago on another thread, much to other people's chagrin, once Russia had committed itself to a boots-on-the-ground conventional war in the Ukraine there was only ever going to be one outcome. It's just a question of when and how Russia achieved it's aims, and how costly the attrition is upon it's military.

 

Russia were never going to tolerate Ukraine becoming part of NATO any more than the USA would accept a  Russian military presence in Canada or Mexico. For all the eccentricity of the Trump administration, their approach has been productive. They aren't prepared to throw good money after bad in pursuit of a lost cause. 

 

For all their evangelical proselytizing about protecting freedom, in private other countries know that too.Including Britain. They're probably a bit relieved, although they could never publicly admit it.

 

Let me put it another way, is Russia annexing territory in Ukraine really that much worse than North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam as victors in 1975? It's not a direct parallel, but it was always going to happen after America withdrew following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Nixon and the USA were pariahs at the time for ordering unrestricted bombing of the North to pressurize them into agreeing terms with the USA, but history has vindicated his approach. He succeeded in bringing American involvement to an end when it had previously seemed an intractable problem.  I cannot help but think that Trump might be similarly exonerated in his radical approach to the war in Ukraine.

[Misdee]

1 hour ago, edstraker123 said:

Will there be an America after Trump ?

Yes, but it's already changed forever.

[peteb]

1 hour ago, Misdee said:

As I pointed out a while ago on another thread, much to other people's chagrin, once Russia had committed itself to a boots-on-the-ground conventional war in the Ukraine there was only ever going to be one outcome. It's just a question of when and how Russia achieved it's aims, and how costly the attrition is upon it's military.

 

 

I don't think that is necessarily true. Putin expected to overrun Ukraine in a number of days, yet was forced back and has made little progress in three years. If America and Europe had not been so cautious about supplying arms to Ukraine and allowing them to use as they wanted, then Russia would have been forced to sue for peace a while ago. 

 

We know what is going to happen now, there will a 'peace' agreement that sells out Ukraine and that Europe will feel threatened by. Russia will look to see if it can reclaim more of its Soviet era empire and there will be a subsequent arms race with Russia on one side and Germany, France and the UK on the other. Essentially, we will be replaying the 19th Century geopolitics of Europe, with the great powers of the region actively plotting against each other and preparing for war (but with Russia taking on the role of Germany).

 

Of course, we all know how that ended, with two world wars and I can't see why things will be different this time around. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a major war in Europe in the next twenty years. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 23:50 by peteb

[mcnach]

On 18/03/2025 at 21:50, TimR said:

Things will very quickly gather critical mass.

 

Federal judges are ruling against him and Musk on various policies. 

 

It's going to become very hard for him soon. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/mar/18/donald-trump-venezuela-deportations-white-house-immigration-us-politics-live

 

 

 

That's what's really worrying. They cannot NOT have anticipated push back... so what's their plan? What else are they doing that we do  not yet know?

[Misdee]

11 minutes ago, peteb said:

 

I don't think that is necessarily true. Putin expected to overrun Ukraine in a number of days, yet was forced back and has made little progress in three years. If America and Europe had not been so cautious about supplying arms to Ukraine and allowing them to use as they wanted, then Russia would have been forced to sue for peace a while ago. 

 

We know what is going to happen now, there will a 'peace' agreement that destroy Ukraine and that Europe will be angered by. Russia will look to see if it can reclaim more of its Soviet era empire and there will be a subsequent arms race with Russia on one side and Germany, France and the UK on the other. Essentially, we will be replaying the 19th Century geopolitics of Europe, with the great powers of the region actively plotting against each other and preparing for war (but with Russia taking on the role of Germany).

 

Of course, we all know how that ended and I can't see why things will be different this time around. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a major war in Europe in the next twenty years. 

 

I don't disagree with most of what you say Pete, but failure is traditionally the Russian way of waging war. Time after time they suffer ignominious defeat but use their huge manpower and resources to grind out eventual victory. 

 

You could point to them giving up in Afghanistan, but that was more to do with changing domestic politics within the USSR rather than military defeat by the Mujahedeen.

Edited Wednesday at 22:42 by Misdee

[mcnach]

5 hours ago, tegs07 said:

I don’t think serious negotiations will happen. Best case give up Dombas, Crimea etc, promise no NATO or EU membership but IMO even that would not be enough. Putin would still not accept a western military presence in Ukraine which just leaves the current situation. Ukraine either runs out of soldiers or Russia runs out of cash.

 

Yup.

Putin needs to go before anything really changes for the better. However, he needs to be deposed by his own people.

[mcnach]

1 hour ago, Steve Browning said:

I see that he proposes US ownership of Ukraines power infrastructure. What a great guy!

 

It's almost as if he had learnt that he can say whatever he wants to without any significant consequences, eh?

[mcnach]

2 hours ago, edstraker123 said:

I think that's the stark reality, the choice is to make concessions and end the war, continue it in its current format until Ukraine runs out of soldiers and more civilian lives are lost or for Europe to intervene and take us closer to WW3. All terrible options but I like the one with the fewest deaths.

 

 

I like the one where we don't have to keep revisiting the same situation again and again. 

 

 

[peteb]

1 hour ago, Misdee said:

I don't disagree with most of what you say Pete, but failure is traditionally the Russian way of waging war. Time after time they suffer ignominious defeat but use their huge manpower and resources to grind out eventual victory. 

 

 

While history is threatening to repeat itself, certain things have changed. Germany is committed to becoming a major military force again and with them and a militarised Poland more or less on the Russian border, how will they react? Even as America moves to lift sanctions, Russia will maintain a war economy and attempt to rearm. France is asserting itself and threatening to use its nuclear deterrent to protect other European nations. Of course no one knows how a post-Trump America will react, or indeed how China may react (or not). 

 

Russia have fallen back on their usual tactics of trying to win wars by overwhelming enemies at the cost of tens of thousands of Russian lives. It hasn't been decisively successful in Ukraine and it won't stand a chance against better equipped German, Polish and French, etc forces. Germany isn't going to march on Moscow in the mid-winter again, it will just flatten it. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 23:52 by peteb

[peteb]

2 hours ago, edstraker123 said:

I think that's the stark reality, the choice is to make concessions and end the war, continue it in its current format until Ukraine runs out of soldiers and more civilian lives are lost or for Europe to intervene and take us closer to WW3. All terrible options but I like the one with the fewest deaths.

 

I would suggest that we are far closer to WW3 if we don't make a stand now. 

 

[tegs07]

1 hour ago, Misdee said:

You could point to them giving up in Afghanistan, but that was more to do with changing domestic politics within the USSR rather than military defeat by the Mujahedeen.

The USSR simply ran out of cash. To wage war over the course of many years you need to be an economic superpower.

 

Russia had a lot of reserves, but it isn’t an economic powerhouse and it’s economy is in trouble. Another year of funding the current war will really take its toll. The outcome of the Ukraine war is more likely to be determined by Ukraine running out of men and equipment or Russia running out of money.

[edstraker123]

8 hours ago, peteb said:

Russia have fallen back on their usual tactics of trying to win wars by overwhelming enemies at the cost of tens of thousands of Russian lives. It hasn't been decisively successful in Ukraine and it won't stand a chance against better equipped German, Polish and French, etc forces. Germany isn't going to march on Moscow in the mid-winter again, it will just flatten it. 

But surely it would all go nuclear before it ever got to that point.

[edstraker123]

8 hours ago, mcnach said:

I like the one where we don't have to keep revisiting the same situation again and again. 

I like being alive to be able to revisit it

[tegs07]

13 minutes ago, edstraker123 said:

But surely it would all go nuclear before it ever got to that point.

This is Putin’s biggest threat. However it is a zero sum game. Their existence vs the rest of the world. France, the UK and the USA have nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to use them as there is no winning. I very much doubt the countries that are Russias economic lifeline (China and India) would permit Russia to use them either.

 

Im not sure if letting this kind of leverage dictate foreign policy or security is sensible. TBH the way I see things the situation in the middle east and the brewing conflict in the south china seas is far more of an imminent threat to world war than Ukraine at the moment. Russian imperialism is a very big threat and should be dealt with via a mix of diplomacy and a European arms race. If it were up to me I would throw some EU countries out of the Union and back into Russian influence as appeasement. Starting with Hungary.

 

[Steve Browning]

Irrespective of whatever the inhabitants want? That doesn't seem very democratic. 

[tegs07]

4 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Irrespective of whatever the inhabitants want? That doesn't seem very democratic. 

It’s barely a democracy and is a satellite state of Russia under its current political system anyway. Constantly voting against the EU banning LQBT+ marches. There are terms for membership (other than economic) which Hungary consistently violates. 

I actually agree with Putin about a number of issues with regard to NATO expansion into former USSR territory. This is breaking agreements. I don’t think NATO has any security threat to Russia at all. However the EU pushing ever closer to Moscow is a threat. I never bought the biggest peacetime narrative. The EU was destined for conflict with Russia (and with its own population) when it began expanding into the former USSR. It was inevitable .

[Burns-bass]

5 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

It’s barely a democracy and is a satellite state of Russia under its current political system anyway. Constantly voting against the EU banning LQBT+ marches. There are terms for membership (other than economic) which Hungary consistently violates. 

I actually agree with Putin about a number of issues with regard to NATO expansion into former USSR territory. This is breaking agreements. I don’t think NATO has any security threat to Russia at all. However the EU pushing ever closer to Moscow is a threat. I never bought the biggest peacetime narrative. The EU was destined for conflict with Russia (and with its own population) when it began expanding into the former USSR. It was inevitable .

Ukraine has been squeezed between EU/US expansionism and a bolder and stronger Russia. Admitting this - which no politician will - provides an explanation (not an excuse) why Russia has invaded Ukraine.
 

But your points here are wrong. Despite the media reporting, the EU isn’t in conflict with Russia, Ukraine is (which is neither part of the EU or NATO - and won’t be part of either in the near future).

 

We are not at war and we should actively do anything to avoid this. The first step a foreign troop takes into Russia will see an escalation that would end in nuclear war. Probably start with tactical battlefield weapons and move on from there.

 

 

[tegs07]

54 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Ukraine has been squeezed between EU/US expansionism and a bolder and stronger Russia. Admitting this - which no politician will - provides an explanation (not an excuse) why Russia has invaded Ukraine.
 

But your points here are wrong. Despite the media reporting, the EU isn’t in conflict with Russia, Ukraine is (which is neither part of the EU or NATO - and won’t be part of either in the near future).

 

We are not at war and we should actively do anything to avoid this. The first step a foreign troop takes into Russia will see an escalation that would end in nuclear war. Probably start with tactical battlefield weapons and move on from there.

 

 

Replace NATO expansion with EU and I think we can understand Putin a little better. Russian spheres of influence, internal markets, sources of trade and raw materials are moving towards the west. The summer uprising in Ukraine and its pivot towards EU membership would never have been tolerated by Putin.

 

Military threat is just a smokescreen. Ukraine was never a military threat to Russia. It is however a huge market. It provides nuclear energy, gas and oil transit infrastructure, rare earths and a cheap supply of food. Ukraine is also symbolic for Putin and a warning for other former USSR countries. Desert us and we will destroy you.

 

As for war. We are at war with Russia. It’s a hybrid war that involves economic dominance, Cyber attacks, state sponsored terror, disinformation, propaganda, assassinations, daily acts of provocation. 

 

The move away from fossil fuels is another catalyst. This is the main driver for the Russian economy and the source of it’s leaders personal wealth. Do you honestly think that this chimes with the EU green agenda and conditions for membership?

 

War is not just confined to trenches. If you continue to wait for Russian troops in westminster then the war will have been lost long ago.

 

Edit: The EU either needs to abandon its push into the Baltics and other parts of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine,  or face continued Russian aggression. Call this aggression whatever you like if war isn’t comfortable. IMO disinformation, election interference, economic pressure through artificial manipulation of the energy sector (war in soft targets does this very nicely) are all far more effective than missiles. 

Edited Thursday at 08:52 by tegs07

[TimR]

9 hours ago, mcnach said:

 

 

That's what's really worrying. They cannot NOT have anticipated push back... so what's their plan? What else are they doing that we do  not yet know?

 

Nothing. Don't credit them with an ounce of forethought. They're just blinded by their arrogance. 

 

This whole Canada 51st state thing is just Trump throwing his weight around with some misguided belief that everyone will fall at his feet. 

 

It's like his Golf, everyone is just humouring him. The only person who thinks he's won, is Trump. 

 

Carney was funny the other day when asked about USA, he basically dismissed them all. 

[TimR]

10 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

That already fell short. As I under it the Supreme Court already indicated the King Principle, aka If President (Trump) does it then it is legal, was supported by the Constitution. It beggars belief, so please tell me I am wrong!

 

He can still be impeached and removed from office. He has immunity from prosecution for acts that he carries out as part of his presidential duties. Just means he can't be prosecuted. 

 

The courts still have power over the rest of the government and will continue to block his Presidential Acts. They can still prosecute and fine heads of departments.