Archive through March 05, 2025
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Real-World Military:
Archive through March 05, 2025
SVC, "Zelensky might have done better if he showed up at the meeting and said: "I know you want a peace deal right now, but I want a peace deal that lasts a generation. I think any deal Putin would take right now just leads to a new war with the next US election. Could we discuss why I think your approach may not work the way you think it will?"
You don't think Russian desceitfulness has been pointed out to Trump by leaders of the free world and diplomats since his first term in office? I find that unlikely.
millions for defense. Not one cent for tribute...
I am a huge Ukraine supporter, but I think the US may be served by stopping CASH support. Not least to cut off the whining about how much is stolen.
So send F16s as they are retired from USAF squadrons. Pull M1s from the boneyard; not the newest ones, the old ones. etc.
It would be hard to grift a trainload of tanks. Besides, we could just drop an "airtag" into some crevice and track them.
And lets say $180 billion is the number for arguments sake. How much of that is actually transfer of stuff we no longer use, spent in the US (contributing to US GDP), etc.
IMHO, we are getting a bargain in deterrence; with Russia fully engaged now, we can concentrate on China.
Personally, I think Russia, if it had even a reasonably competent & honest government, could be wealthy. As it stands now it is just a kleptocracy.
Colonel Strong, I pose a question to you: How much are US interests served by not emboldening Russia/ China/ NK and Iran?
Ukraine certainly has its issues, but it has shown a willingness to attack corruption.
Other than the "Adoption" of Russian children which went south just after 2010....
Still have never heard anything that explains the rift that occurred with Obama and Putin....
It's worth nothing that Zelenskyy most assuredly did state, during the meeting, on camera, that Russia has broken every treaty they've signed with Ukraine. Indeed, it was at this point that V.P. Vance interjected and everything went off the rails. No, he did not add the "could we discuss why you think it's different this time" part; then again, he's not a native English speaker, and Ukrainian (as well as many other Eastern European languages) does not lean as heavily into pleasantries as does English.
In other news, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has announced that he will cut off electricity exports to the U.S. This will hit (in addition to, you know, tens of millions of citizens, businesses, etc.) a number of military bases in the Northeast. This cut-off is in response to the 25% tariffs that went into effect against Canadian products just under eight hours ago. Those same tariffs include a 10% tariff on all energy imports from Canada (e.g., oil), which will impact additional bases in the Northeast, Midwest, and northern Great Plains (as oil distribution in those regions calculate a certain amount of Canadian oil in the mix).
Regarding Ukraine's rare earth and other mineral deposits, it's worth remembering that the current maps of said deposits are over thirty years old, dating back to the Soviet Union. The accuracy of said maps has always been questionable; new surveys would be required, and doing them properly is the sort of thing that takes several years at the very least.
Bolo: U.S.-Russian relations have been in decline since the mid-2000s. The U.S. was clearly against Russian aggression in Georgia, Russia (or more accurately, Putin) decided that democracy was a Trojan horse, and despite various efforts over the past twenty years, the relationship has steadily gotten worse...
...right up until about two weeks ago, when it started to become apparent that the new U.S. administration has, as the Kremlin joyfully announced on Sunday, a world view that "largely coincides with [Russia's] vision". I.e., they know that the new administration is simply going to give Russia what it wants, rather than make any pesky stands on or support for western democracy.
OK, we finally have an explanation on the discrepancy on numbers for U.S. assistance to Ukraine, between the $182 billion figure given by the Pentagon inspector general and the $350 billion figure given by the president.
The White House spokeswoman argued that there were tens of billions more in indirect costs, which she said included lost trade with Russia because of economic sanctions as well as the war’s inflationary impact.
Mind, I don't say that it's a great explanation (it's not), but it's apparently the one we're going to get.
Jessica,
Aggression has always been frowned upon...
Though going from . "Obama Tells Russia's Medvedev More Flexibility After Election."
To an outright break in relations, is a totally different thing...
As I've said, no explanation on that one.....
Bolo: that may have something to do with the end of Medvedev's term and restart of Putin's term in 2012. Putin immediately abandoned the so-called "Medvedev Doctrine" on resuming office.
Jessica: I do believe I said a week ago that obviously Trump was counting something no one else was counting, not fibbing. Turns out my guess was right. Lost trade is not esoteric. If supporting you in your lawsuit with Rare Earth Inc. means they refuse to sell ADB the Selenium we need to create addictive F&E counters, and we'll have to buy Selenium from China for a higher cost, that is still a "cost of supporting Jessica" which this company has to account for in deciding if we would back you or not. It may not be writing a check, it may not be a boatload of missiles, but it is an amount of real dollars that did not appear in our bank account as expected.
I should also note that the EU loaned money to Ukraine while the US gave money to Ukraine, which was clearly a mistake by the previous administration.
So all of you who accused him of making up numbers or outright lies owe the man an apology and in future need to be much slower on that trigger.
Turns out that Zelensky had the same conversation with Secretary of State Rubio a few days earlier, and got the same result.
Trump's "creative theory" is that if the US owns valuable rare earth mines in Ukraine, Russia will know better than to try to snap it up as the US would respond. He's using "business interests" to replace "boots on the ground" on the not entirely unrealistic theory that a future president could easily order the boots back to Germany or the US but it would be much harder for any future president to abandon a megabuck titanium mining operation.
On the theory that "Russia will know better than to try and snap it up as the US would respond".
Why might people in Ukraine think that's not a very good guarantee? Well, according to a 2024 analysis by Reuters of Western companies filed financial reports, Western companies wrote off $107 billion in lost Russian assets. That was a nice oil field you had a partnership in Chevron, tell you what, the Russian government is going to take it and give you nothing, oh, no, actually we'll give you this outstanding tax bill if you ever return. Same thing for hotels, investments in McDonalds, factories, etc. Now maybe as part of the negotiations President Trump is demanding a payment to refund US companies, we don't know those details now. But on the face of it with known info today, the Russians won't face any consequences for causing significant damage to US business interests.
So given that any investment in mines in Ukraine will take 5+ years to build up enough value that this enterprise might be worth more $20 or $30 billion. For a few facts, the entire mining industry in the US is valued about $50 billion, the value of the entire Canadian mining industry is about $200 billion. Which should just go to show the pie in the sky estimates of Ukrainian mining being worth half a trillion (well maybe in highly inflated 2080 $'s).
So if Americans can't remember to be offended about the loss of $100+ billion (granted half of that was probably European companies), why should people believe they'll be offended enough to really do something serious in two or three years about $10 billion.
>> Well on simple reflection the EU has been impacted an order of magnitude greater than the US
Well, then it makes perfect sense for the EU to pay for all of the defense of Ukraine.
--Mike
I have seen a couple videos of people discussing the WH event....
One thing came out, someone with a Ukrainian/Russian language that lip reads might catch it...
They pointed out, the second before Trump went off on him, Zelenskyy muttered under his breath, some say loud enough for the camera to catch it
"Bitch"......
>> if the US owns valuable rare earth mines in Ukraine, Russia will know better than to try to snap it up
It appears that President Trump views the EU as an economic competitor. So then, having some kind of mineral contract between Ukraine and the US directly would potentially limit the ability of the EU to financially benefit from those minerals.
--Mike
Cool it, guys, back away from the personal attacks. They won't be tolerated. You have your explanation and if you don't like it, that still doesn't make it invalid. Anything further on that issue will be deleted as the matter is settled.
Trump addressed Congress.
One of the items concerned Panama and the canal.
National Security Issue.
Radical thought, why not work with Mexico to build a new canal… ideally charge far less for traffic to use the canal and under cut Panama.
If no one used the panama canal, Pansma won’t have the money to maintain it… eventually things break. Problem solved.
A canal through Mexico would still need to cross a mountain range of some sort; a "Continental Divide." Panama had been selected a century and a half ago (roughly 
) specifically because the mountain range through there had a low enough point to make building the canal there something feasible.
AFAIK, the entirety of central Mexico has one heck of a mountain range, so I'd expect building a canal across that country is likely to be an unworkable prospect.
That said, it is thinking outside the box, and that is how great ideas come to light.
On a similar note, I read something a long time ago about a potential canal through northern Columbia. This was several decades ago, now; long before I'd even thought of studying topography, so I know NOTHING about ANY validity of the plan, but from what little I know of the mountains there, my best guess at this time is that it was never a serious plan from anyone.
However, I could be wrong.
Several books on the Panama canal emphasized that one major reason the United States chose to complete the french started canal was the political situation in Panama.
Please remember that the United States intervened in Mexico just before WW1 due to insurgent’s attacks on U.S. citizens and communities near the border.
given the current circumstances vis s vis United States and Mexico and tariffs and border security , there might not be a lot of interest in Mexico in cooperating with the current administration… but the idea of huge transit fees for ships crossing central America might attract some interest.
I know the Nicaragua solution is probably outdated these days, but terrain wise, still seems to be the easiest route....
Either way, 10 years of prep, then 10 years to build...
Not really something most of us should fret over....
I've been avoiding this topic for fear of alligators, but...
Quote:... but the idea of huge transit fees for ships crossing central America might attract some interest.
Jeff, the problem with these huge transit fees is that in your prior post you stated
Quote:... why not work with Mexico to build a new canal… ideally charge far less for traffic to use the canal and under cut Panama.
So... charging far less while collecting huge transit fees. I'm not completely sold on the viability of this idea...
Alan, Idid not make myself clear.
Trump and the U.S. want low fees.
Indigenous peoples in whatever country such a canal gets built in, might well want to charge more…
But two canals, is by definition, competition.
Once The panama canal goes bankrupt, one canal is a monopoly on cross continental travel between oceans.
Monopolies exist, and they generally tend to raise prices to maximize revenue.
So, two things can be true (low fees to bankrupt the competitors) and (huge fee increases to maximize revenue).
To be fair, it is unlikely to have both events happen at the same time, but sequentially? Of a period of many months or years?
Such a thing could happen… eventually.
Nicaragua was always a better route. The Panama supporters tricked Congress by having a Nicaraguan stamp, printed in the US, modified to show an active volcano, convince Congress that the route there was dangerous.