07:40 Update, a few more graphs:
Since October 2023, the number of clashes has essentially increased, although it decreased somewhat during the spring of 2024, but since mid-December, it has suddenly started to decrease significantly.
Looking instead at the number of grenades, they have rather increased slightly towards the end, and it is even more evident when it comes to the use of drones (I assume FPV drones are meant, not for example Shaheds). It would have been interesting to see the equivalent for Ukraine. I guess the number of drones is steadily increasing on both sides.
The number of air strikes decreased for a period but has increased towards the end, while MLRS varies around the normal level.
Don't forget to donate, Ukraine's cause is ours! Support Ukraine!
NOTE: Those of you who do NOT want to allow automatic translation of your comments, please go to your profile page and set it.
Hover over your name at the top right, select edit profile, and you will then find the setting under the language settings heading.
“Tonight, 🇺🇦Ukrainian strike drones successfully attacked the 🇷🇺Russian Ufa oil refinery, located 1,300 km behind the front line.”
They are preparing to home-furlough the orchards.
Update from 08:00 on 03.03.2025 regarding the Russian invasion
A total of 109 combat actions were recorded in the past 24 hours.
#Kharkiv 1
#Kupyansk 3
#Lyman 15💥️↗️
#Kramatorsk 4
#Toretsk 14💥↗️
#Pokrovsk 18💥 ↘️
#Novopavlivka 5
#Orikhivsk 2
#Prydniprovskij 3
#Kursk 30💥💥️↗️
Update from 08:00 on 03.03.2025 regarding the Russian invasion
A total of 109 combat actions were recorded in the past 24 hours.
#Kharkiv 1
#Kupyansk 3
#Lyman 15💥️↗️
#Kramatorsk 4
#Toretsk 14💥↗️
#Pokrovsk 18💥 ↘️
#Novopavlivka 5
#Orikhivsk 2
#Prydniprovskij 3
#Kursk 30💥💥️↗️
In the #Kharkiv sector, a firefight took place near Vovchansk yesterday.
Three attacks from AFRF🇷🇺 occurred in the #Kupyansk sector during the past day. AFU🇺🇦 repelled attacks from AFRF🇷🇺 near Zahryzove, Petropavlivka, and Lozova.
In the #Lyman sector, the enemy launched 15💥 attacks. AFRF🇷🇺 attempted to advance near Novy, Yampolivka, and Novomykhailivka.
Four attacks took place in the #Kramatorsk sector near Chasiv Yar, Hryhorivka, and Oleksandr-Shultine yesterday.
In the #Toretsk sector, AFRF🇷🇺 carried out 14💥 attacks in the areas of Toretsk and Shcherbynivka.
In the #Pokrovsk sector, our defenders repelled 18💥 attacks from AFRF🇷🇺 on the settlements of Tarasivka, Promin, Pokrovsk, Kotlyne, Udachne, Kotlyarivka, Andriivka, Vodiane Druhe, and Ulakly.
According to preliminary estimates, Ukrainian forces killed 100 and injured 83 individuals in this sector; destroyed an armored fighting vehicle, an armored personnel carrier, seven vehicles, a motorcycle, three grenade launchers, and a cannon; one vehicle, a portable electronic warfare station, and three enemy cannons were also heavily damaged. (22:00)
In the #Novopavlivka sector, AFU🇺🇦 repelled five attacks from AFRF🇷🇺 near Kostiantynopil, Pryvilne, and Skudne.
In the #Orikhivsk sector, near Nesterianka and Novodanylivka, AFRF🇷🇺 launched two unsuccessful attacks against AFU🇺🇦 positions.
In the #Prydniprovsky sector, AFRF🇷🇺 stormed AFU🇺🇦 positions three times yesterday.
In the #Kursk sector, AFU🇺🇦 repelled 30💥💥 attacks from AFRF🇷🇺 yesterday. AFRF🇷🇺 fired 444 artillery shells, including 12 from MLRS; carried out 19 air raids and released 30 glide bombs.
Yesterday, AFRF🇷🇺 launched 1 missile attack against AFU🇺🇦’s positions and populated areas with 4 missiles, as well as 88 air strikes, including 126 glide bombs. Additionally, it carried out more than 5600 attacks, including 124 from MLRS, and used 2375 kamikaze drones.
Yesterday, missile troops and artillery of AFU🇺🇦 hit four areas with concentrations of personnel, weapons, and military equipment, a radar station, and four artillery systems belonging to AFRF🇷🇺.
👍
A bit interesting #Kursk
The General Staff’s map shows that the western flank is still held.
https://x.com/coxoxoffoxoffic/status/1896458955679060390?s=46
DeepState updated the area that was lost on March 1st:
The enemy advanced near Mykolaivo-Daryne. March 1, 2025 9:29 AM
https://deepstatemap.live/en#13/51.2296251/35.0299963
Difference in own map:
https://x.com/coxoxoffoxoffic/status/1896464078492844332?s=46
👍 Hope the general staff is right!
Now that Europe is stepping up, the question of a standing mobile EU army of, let’s say, 400,000 men should be discussed. That would be great. Some parts of the army are standing, while others can be called in and deployed at short notice. Coordination with air and naval forces…
Then I believe that universal conscription at the level of the Cold War would be desirable. At that time, only Sweden had 800,000 conscripts (military personnel)? If this were multiplied by the same level in all countries, Russia wouldn’t even consider anything.
A question that is sensitive and rarely discussed is the willingness to defend in today’s European multicultural society. It should be factored in and is probably something that speaks in favor of a standing European army.
Agree with 205.
The absence of general conscription/national service, I believe, is part of why the willingness to defend is weak (IF it actually is, for real). It has been possible to isolate oneself in one’s own bubble and believe that everyone understands what is right (according to the individual) and that peace is therefore desirable for everyone, everywhere. – Even our Uffe seems to have such tendencies, in recent days. – Shows a lack of historical awareness and denial, even though today’s reality is very tangible.
However, I hope for a typical Swedish trait, that everyone changes direction and attitude when required and mandated by the state. The group mentality and the unique(?) collectivism. However, it always comes a little too late, unfortunately…
Exactly how a multicultural society would handle mandatory service, one year or more, I do not know. However, I do know that large groups of “old” immigrants (Europeans and South Americans) would be at the forefront or be a dedicated spearhead with a very strong willingness to defend. They remember what they or their parents fled from…
Yes, the demographics in Sweden are very different today compared to during the Cold War. We probably shouldn’t be so sure about “group mentality and the unique collectivism.” We have a large diaspora that has fled war and misery and probably isn’t interested in participating, or doesn’t like it when the state and authorities tell them what to do. We do have some snowflakes and easily offended individuals who need trigger warnings for everything, who probably aren’t interested either.
We probably need to take it step by step so it doesn’t come as a shock.
All investments should be made within NATO. Building something in parallel is inefficient and time-consuming, but perhaps that was not your intention either.
Furthermore, Europe should invest in areas where we are dependent on the US, such as Starlink and satellites.
If the USA withdraws, NATO will be transformed into a European defense organization, with a focus on NATO but the possibility to continue without the USA.
“Since October 2023, the number of clashes has essentially increased, although it decreased slightly during the spring of 2024, but since mid-December, it has suddenly started to decrease significantly.
A thought, in certain areas such as Avdiivka, Bakhmut, and even the Kupyansk front line has been very winding (compared to a pocket or bulge). When these pockets are then closed, the front line becomes straighter but also shorter. How much shorter is a straight line compared to a curved section? Could it have significantly affected the number of attacks or only insignificantly? Perhaps one needs to bring out a ruler. Or use the measuring tool in DeepState and examine a section of the front before and after the closure of a pocket, like Avdiivka, for example.”
Theoretically, a circle with a diameter of 100 (flattened front) has a circumference of 314, and half of that (a circumference in the form of a semicircle) is 157.
So, there is quite a big difference in frontal area. Then, how the actual number of collisions might be assumed is harder to guess, but surely they should have some significance.
Reality seems to surpass the theory in the relationship of the front line before and after the executed operation. (exploit a motti)
Case Avdiivka: the front line on 8/1 before the executed operation was 33 km, and after the executed operation on 9/4, the front line was 11 km. 1/3.
Map with measurement of front line before and after capturing the motti
https://x.com/coxoxoffoxoffic/status/1896502716811391170?s=46
The number of attacks also seems to level off as the front line decreases (when the motti/operation is exploited/executed).
Diagram Avdiivka number of attacks 2024-01-08—2024-01-09
https://x.com/coxoxoffoxoffic/status/1896564097195684045?s=46
Map changes 8/1—9/3
https://x.com/coxoxoffoxoffic/status/1896502716811391170/video/1
Now I don’t know how johanno1 will use this in war planning…
Interesting!
Then the number of attacks is a rather loose measure, of course, when you don’t really know how many resources are involved.
If the reception is closed, you simultaneously get a more concentrated force, so an attack then may contain significantly more soldiers and more hardware than before when there were more but perhaps smaller attacks.
Theoretically, a shorter front section should benefit the defending party. However, there are so many strategic points (elevations, logistical nodes, etc.) that one must take into account. Then there is always the dream of being able to launch a counterattack, which is facilitated if you have a long frontline.
Do you remember James Bond’s car with spinning license plates? Now the Chinese have taken this innovation one step further 😆
Perhaps it works better since the world’s oceans seem to be filled with rusty Chinese cable cutters, it is more doubtful that an Aston Martin DB5 would go unnoticed just because the license plate has been changed.
😂
Innovative 🤡!
America First should not put Russia second
It’s also worth noting that nearly 70% of total Ukraine assistance is spent in the United States or on U.S. forces, according to a study by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). That creates jobs for Americans while also helping Ukraine and helping to rebuild our atrophied defense industrial base. Moreover, a different AEI study found that ceasing our support for Ukraine will be much more costly for the United States in the long run – to the tune of an additional $800 billion in defense spending if Russia overruns Ukraine.
https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/america-first-should-not-put-russia-second
America First should not put Russia second!
Moreover, a different AEI study found that ceasing our support for Ukraine will be much more costly for the United States in the long run – to the tune of an additional $800 billion in defense spending if Russia overruns Ukraine.
https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/america-first-should-not-put-russia-second
It is not free for the USA to let Russia “win” the war.
Add to that the fact that in Europe there is talk of spending large sums on defense, money that will primarily go to European companies and their expansion, which in the long run will affect the export of weapons from the USA to Europe and also compete with American weapons in the international market.
May end up costing them a lot, although the most important thing might be that Musk gets his raw materials cheaply from Russia…
“US State Department halts aid to restore Ukraine’s energy sector – NBC”
It will be an exciting week. Soon Trump will accuse the EU of wanting war and not thinking about the children.
We need more information about Starmer’s ceasefire proposal, but it doesn’t seem to apply to the frontlines?
Just the air and the water?
Anyway, RU will break it within days because they can’t police something like that. Maybe that’s the intention?
If not, Zelensky is lukewarm about it and Finland as well from what I’ve heard.
To show the American population that Putin does not keep agreements may perhaps not be underestimated and help bring the country back to Reagan’s view of the Russians.
It must boil down to a large part of the Rep. who “only” voted for Trump because he is their candidate. I mean, not everyone can be MAGA!
By the way, has anyone heard Trump criticize Putin lately for starting the war?
It almost seems to be Zelensky’s fault right now.
Apparently, Trump is supposed to meet Putin within weeks – do you think he will scold him?
With that in mind, we can probably assume that everything he does is aimed at destabilizing, including the crypto fund he is about to start now.
Try to see beyond the surface, the words that are spoken. What is the purpose, ambition, goal? How will the goals be achieved?
Of course, Trump will not bark at Putin, it doesn’t accomplish anything. – Already during Trump’s previous term, it was noted in the media that you can’t pull down the pants of someone who is already “mooning” their surroundings. – In other words, barking at Putin achieves nothing because he doesn’t care. Putin knows what Russia is up to.
If Trump and the US see an upside in cozying up to Putin, whatever it may be, it will happen. – Geopolitics on a large scale, regional security issues, economy, etc. From Trump’s perspective, the prevailing approach, sanctions and alienation, has had limited success, at the speed Trump desires. Impatience is evident, if for no other reason than that this is Trump’s final term and he is not getting any younger either. – I don’t think there is sufficient basis to assume that Trump’s goal is to benefit himself, except perhaps politically.
For me, it seems like the current purpose is actually to try to get Zelensky removed. The administration is pushing this agenda through various representatives.
The other seems to be to make Zelensky look as failed as possible, presumably to create dissatisfaction in Ukraine. This is a line that is being pushed very hard.
The success that Trump could hope for is probably that Zelensky politically dies through these statements?
How this would lead to lasting peace on Europe’s front porch if the country is thrown into chaos is unclear to me.
I have also not heard Trump strongly criticize Putin for his buildup of forces against the Baltics, so I assume that the Russian attack now in September is not a problem for him? On the contrary, he seems to be starting to withdraw troops from Europe?
It is RUMINT that MIC in the USA is starting to get really upset now.
Sounds logical because they risk losing big on this, besides Trump also talked about drastically reducing the USA’s own military budget.
Europe is going from strength to strength. As is well known, it’s not words and pretty pictures that are needed here, but…
– France and England are arguing about whether there is a plan for a peace agreement or not. Perhaps this is not how they wanted the meeting in London to end. France wants a ceasefire and has provided details, but England denies that there are any plans.
– Still no Taurus…? Germany could have shown strength here.
– Sweden will not contribute soldiers unless the USA is involved.
– Slovakia and Hungary will block all support to Ukraine.
– No major packages have been announced, and I’m talking about hundreds of billions of EUR needed to support Ukraine and build up a European defense industry.
– It’s still pocket money being given to Ukraine from the rich countries in Europe. Including Sweden.
Germany is still formally governed by a lame eel. There is talk of a new government on Friday and a German fund of 400 billion EUR to upgrade the German defense as well as an additional 500 billion for building bike lanes and some other infrastructure.
Yes, unfortunately it was probably Scholtz who traveled to London. The formation of the government could take until Easter in the worst case. I will be very disappointed if Taurus is not sent to Ukraine without restrictions after that. Then you are not in the game.
The EU has nothing to do with Starmer’s initiative fortunately so Hungary and Slovakia can protest as much as they want.
I interpret the Prime Minister’s statement as referring to Starmer’s initiative, and from that, we can probably conclude that Sweden is one of the countries that has given the green light to contribute.
Most countries that came to London have bilateral agreements with the USA, and NATO in Europe as a whole is under the US nuclear umbrella.
Security agreements are valid until a competent party in the USA terminates them, so it is quite reasonable to first propose that the USA provide guarantees to participating European countries.
The Trump administration is unlikely to sign anything that involves security guarantees, which essentially means that Starmer’s initiative will lead to Europe needing to take the next step and create its own nuclear umbrella.
Something that France has long proposed. I guess that’s how it will be, France will place willing states in Europe under the nuclear umbrella. A European NATO is born.
I guess Ukraine will continue to fight, Trump will oppose any ceasefires that come with security guarantees, and I guess Europe will eventually detach from the USA.
Even Russia succeeds sometimes and probably receives help from China with satellite surveillance. In this attack, hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers were killed and injured, even though the article below does not want to admit to a major loss. SR’s Lubna El-Shanti, who can be considered credible, reported from her contacts in Ukraine.
Ukraine has been talking about new types of drones and ballistic missiles for at least a year now, but not much is happening. It is still smaller drones attacking refineries and oil depots further into Russia. In attacks on oil depots, it is usually one or two tanks that burn out of 10-20 in total. Sometimes Ukraine manages to hit a sensitive point at a refinery, but it is of course repaired by Russia in a few months and production is back on track. It is a slow strategy due to a lack of good weapons and long-range effective drones. When will you come? Nice pictures and press conferences, but is Ukraine bluffing here? These weapons may not arrive until 2026, but are urgently needed now!
Last night, they struck at a refinery located 1300km from the border, and from the sound, it can be concluded that it was not a matter of a propeller-driven vehicle.
I must say that I am starting to wonder which side you are on, as you seem to have an almost defeatist attitude when you constantly choose to focus on the negative.
Raffet had a capacity of 20 million tons per year, for comparison, Karlshamn power plant consumes a maximum of 140 tons per hour.
Maybe a bit off topic and should be classified as useless knowledge.
Can operate 16 units year-round, roughly.
If it stands still for a year, it corresponds to approximately 9.6 billion USD in losses if we calculate based on the crude oil price, I don’t know for sure what that refinery produced, but if it’s something more high-value, it could be significantly more. Of course, it probably won’t take a year before they are up and running again, and they may not even have closed completely, but regardless, it’s really good that they managed to knock it out, especially considering the distance.
Great if Ukraine is starting to gain momentum with any of the new capabilities they claim to have in the works.
I have been following the war since 2014 and unquestionably stand on Ukraine’s side. I donate money every month and visit Sergelstorg when I am in Stockholm (which is probably more than what many others do). I have been following Cornucopia since the beginning and am glad that we have a blogger with a large audience who speaks “truths.” I am not negative and do not believe that Russia has the power or energy to make significant breakthroughs. Man, I also do not believe that Ukraine possesses that power today. I also doubt that Ukraine will have the strength to stay in Kursk where the controlled area is shrinking every day (1200 km2 -> 500 km2). I am also skeptical that the EU can make the decisions needed to help Ukraine end the war with STRENGTH.
I try to mostly balance the discussion and “dare” to raise concerns and setbacks that many seem to “avoid” on this blog. But, if one wants to be happy and believe that victory is certain and that all arrows point in the right direction, then this blog and Johan’s posts are great. That’s why I enjoy following Johan and reading this blog, which I do not see as balanced but rather as highlighting positive things. It’s good, and sometimes you need that to “find the light” again when Trump is running wild and the EU fails to step forward and do what is needed.
If you choose to see my comments as defeatist, then of course that’s up to you. I see them more as nuanced elements in the constant flow of positive news. If they don’t belong here, I will stop commenting. That’s totally fine!
Continue to comment, but remember to be somewhat balanced yourself and not just focus on the negative. I think we all want to have a somewhat accurate picture of the situation, but it doesn’t help Ukraine to spread a sense of defeat; there is a risk that it will lead to reduced support.
It was not my intention! I will tighten up!
I agree with you about the account Mats. It’s as if the person is looking for everything that can appear negative about Ukraine.
An expression of the so-called doctrine of defeat.
At the early stages of the war, there were questions over the extent that India’s (neutral) stance would prompt condemnation, particularly from the West. India’s refusal to explicitly criticize Russia could be interpreted by many European countries such as Sweden, Poland, and Nordic and Baltic countries with their own territorial concerns as tacit support for an aggressor, undermining its credibility as a moral leader.
https://www.usip.org/publications/2025/01/can-india-advance-peace-ukraine
The Indian tiger 🐅 is a little worried that the Swedish pug 🐕🦺 will bark.
Or maybe India is taking advantage of the situation with low oil prices and a Russia that is weakening every day, making it easier to blame Sweden.
I suspect that they, like Turkey, are trying to get the most out of all sides without having to get involved in the conflict themselves by taking a clear stance.
At the same time, it would be a feather in the cap for Mondi if he managed to achieve some form of peace. We’ll see if he takes the stage when Trump is voted out by the jury.
Yes, we’ll see, or if China is considering making an attempt.
Noted that neither the Green Party nor the Left Party were in the fetal position and sobbing yesterday during the debate on the Agenda when nuclear weapons were mentioned.
Are they slowly boiling the Swedish population 🐸 to make a U-turn on the issue?
Almost makes you start to believe it.
The deadline for Europe’s automotive industry to adapt to the climate goals is extended by three years.
Good, as it costs a lot of money to meet all the goals that have been set. Money that would be more useful in the defense industry.
Yes, as the situation stands, I agree, even though it means pushing the problem ahead with the risk that it will cost even more to solve it in the end. Of course, it’s only about three years away, so it hardly has any decisive significance, but the risk is that all measures are just pushed forward because it’s too difficult to address it.
Just like Europe didn’t invest heavily from the start in increasing defense spending to be able to deliver more to Ukraine. In the latter case, it’s Ukrainians who have lost their lives, with the environment, it could end up with all of us being more or less equally affected in the end.
The strategic communication coming from the USA now is extremely thoughtless and hits both high and low. For example, representatives suggest that Zelensky must resign for talks to begin.
A common thread in the past two weeks is that the USA has been very tough on Ukraine and not at all on Russia. A legitimate peace negotiator would presumably try to find some kind of balance?
The nonsense about Zelensky not wearing a suit at the meeting when Elon Musk is running around in a cap, t-shirt, and chainsaw in the same room is just ridiculous, and only one media outlet in the USA has picked up on that ball. Maybe they don’t need to leave the goal wide open.
We have already established that the USA is not our friend, and now probably 40 million Ukrainians feel that the USA is not their friend either. Biden was engaging in the same scolding, just not in front of the cameras, but he tried to balance it a bit more elegantly.
But what the USA is doing now, does it benefit the USA as a country?
I see the following downsides –
-The US defense industry will not be able to sell anything to the EU/West. Threats to ban the use of US weapons have already been made by representatives.
-The USA will face higher inflation due to the punitive tariffs.
-The USA will have difficulty selling its products once retaliatory tariffs are imposed.
-The USA will completely lose its influence in the West/EU; no one listens or cares.
-The USA loses an important market in Ukraine, despite Ukraine having exchanged those $500 billion in metals to kick out Russia.
-The EU becomes stronger, and we will have our own defense industry and other production – “EU First” ✊
-China is getting closer to the EU.
-China gains influence in Ukraine.
To be honest, I only see downsides for the USA as a country here.
But I can also see that under Biden, the USA was trying to reach the point of a cold war, which would have put a damper on the EU, and the USA could have sold weapons, products, LNG, and oil to us for another 70 years. The Cold War was good for the USA and bad for Europe.
Taking the argument further – even if the USA completely disregards the EU and Ukraine, the constant mantra is “America First.” By truly putting the USA first here, is it doing what is best for the USA?
So, if Trump’s “negotiation” currently underway does not benefit the USA – then what does it benefit, if anything?
Russia has already lost the war because the EU has taken the baton.
If this was a simple attempt by Trump to save Russia, it has failed miserably, and I think everyone understands that now.
Are there even any theories that Trump is trying to benefit China here 😀 They seem like the big winners alongside the EU.
Well written and inspiring Johan. Keep up the good work!
Churchill visited the White House in 1943 dressed in uniform, and he has a bust of himself standing in the Oval Office today. Look behind Vance’s head in the movie during the bullying scene. But these guys are not interested in history.
They have an agenda.
There are a lot of crazy things coming from Trump now. It feels like he wants to take the US out of NATO, he has also said that he wants to reduce defense spending. I interpret it all as a way to save money. He is throwing Europe under the bus and probably wants to do the same with Taiwan.
Doesn’t really indicate that he sees any upcoming conflict with China.
He probably wants to make a deal with Russia and China. Idiot.
The conclusion is that we can completely forget about help from there. All other countries in the world should beware.
Yes, the USA is unlikely to gain much from this unless it realizes the need to minimize damage, although I suspect that Trump will behave like a stubborn five-year-old. Or perhaps they have a plan that actually has little to do with the war.
The idea of Trump favoring China sounds strange, but one never knows; if he can benefit personally from it, why not.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Musk is eager to buy cheaply from both Russia and China and also access their markets. It might not be that Putin has compromising material on Trump at all; it might be as simple as Musk calling the shots in the background. After all, he has a lot of money, and Trump probably already owes him a lot.
So far, China hasn’t been much of a loser. A few threats of sanctions, but otherwise, they have become major suppliers to Russia, replacing Western companies that have left Russia, while also buying cheap oil and probably acquiring a lot of Russian gold when they needed help keeping the ruble afloat. Trade has otherwise continued as usual.
However, they risk losing out if both the US and Europe’s economies start to decline, as they would lose two of their most lucrative markets. We’ll see if they choose to play a more active role and what that might entail.
Sure, if Biden had continued, perhaps the USA would have stayed on the low-intensity path and also held back the EU.
On the other hand, the choice wasn’t between Trump and Biden but between Trump and Harris. I don’t think she would have pursued the same old man’s line at all. Women with conviction can be tough. Just look at the animal kingdom. When male lions fight over who will be the alpha male, the loser slinks away with his tail between his legs. Lionesses, on the other hand, fight to the end to protect their cubs.
Admittedly, Harris didn’t show a particularly proactive stance on Ukraine during the campaign, even though she expressed her support several times, but that might be because the election is mostly a domestic issue. It probably would have been enough for her to meet with Kallas a couple of times to decide that it was time to end the war, not through weak peace negotiations but by ensuring that Ukraine could crush Russia.
Biden/Harris had never talked about resuming trade with Russia, being part of Nord Stream, or easing any sanctions.
They definitely wouldn’t have humiliated Zelensky and almost demanded his resignation.
But of course, it’s just speculation about what they would have done.
What we see, in any case, is a catastrophic performance from Trump, for everyone except Putin (and perhaps China).
Sure, Trump seems to be waking up Europe. “Finally, one realizes that one must stand on one’s own feet and manage without the USA.” Yes, indeed, but that’s precisely because it turned out that the USA couldn’t be trusted with Trump in power, so praising Trump for that is a logical contradiction.
A bit like praising the wife abuser when, after many years, he almost kills his wife, so she finally realizes she has to leave him.
If Europe now decides to go “all in” to help Ukraine defeat Russia, it will still take time. We won’t be able to ramp up and replace US support and further increase it for Ukraine to win in just a few months.
Moreover, we now risk the USA actually obstructing by serving Russia’s interests.
It will be interesting to hear what Trump plans to talk about tomorrow night.
Maybe he has proposed to Putin and is inviting everyone to the wedding at the Kremlin on June 12?
I think I see that Trump has decided to do something about the federal budget deficit in the USA. Or that he has to. Different decisions point in that direction. The USA must hold back.
There will be a post tomorrow morning, by the way.
Trump has crossed all reasonable boundaries, he and his administration are laying minefields of statements that Zelensky is now a warmonger.
In terms of security policy, this is serious considering the war-weary citizens of Ukraine – if the country that the USA in essence 100% goes out and says that your president single-handedly managed to ruin the peace that the USA guaranteed you – then it could almost lead to a popular revolution, right?
Of course, that is the purpose, probably completely in line with what Putin wants.
Perhaps it succeeds with some, those who were already dissatisfied with him (many have not forgotten that promises were broken to free the soldiers who were stuck in Azovstal), but otherwise, I mostly see that the population supports Zelenskyy.
However, of course, if the propaganda continues for a few months, you never know how it will end.
Who listens to Moscow’s voice in Ukraine? Those who are already Putinists. The rest will probably just get angry at the former leader of the democratic West, I guess.
A bit unclear – now it was the PURPOSE of the strategic communication that was important.
UA citizens only hate the USA now, but that is not a mitigating circumstance.
Trump believes he is making America great again. Regarding Ukraine, it’s probably a combination of his head being full of crap and an intention to find excuses to end the support. Especially now when Starmer is coming up with a reasonable proposal, that Europe steps in on the ground while the US provides security guarantees (I guess mainly the umbrella is meant, the rest follows as such). Then the Trump administration must come up with something that allows them to not even discuss security guarantees with Ukraine or Europe. Since they seem to be as lowbrow as they appear, they hang it on personal prestige, which resonates with their base.
Unfortunately, I think the GOP, like the jellyfish they are, will agree to end the support and maybe start with some trade again. However, I doubt the GOP would allow him to actively work against Ukraine and Europe. That’s where I think the line may be drawn.
I also guess that Starmer and Europe understand that the “peace plan” is something Trump can never agree to, now that he has already promised the Moscow realm new territories in exchange for Ukraine paying the USA. So, I guess that France’s offer of an umbrella will be on the verge in not too long. Germany is gearing up the forges, and Europe is treating the USA as the messy backyard it has become.
Trump seems to be going after anyone who, according to him, has had any kind of relationship with Biden or who he considers to have betrayed him.
At the latest meeting in the WH, they brought up Hunter Biden’s laptop, Zelensky’s visit to Pennsylvania, a meeting that ended in disaster.
Now the mudslinging against Zelensky is starting, and I believe that Trump will not back down unless Zelensky resigns.
For Trump, it is important to show both the world and his supporters who is in charge.
He doesn’t seem to care about burning bridges to the USA’s most important allies.
Now I’m going to ask a question that will make some people upset, but I don’t care, because you have to be able to look at all issues from different angles:
If Zelensky had stepped down and a new president had taken office, who is Pro-Ukraine (for example Vitalij Klytjko), what would have happened then? I mean, no election but a reshuffle.
Would the population have liked it? Would it have brought new energy and fighting spirit, or would it have turned into a mess?
Zelensky is seen as a hero by many, but actually also a war president who is currently only associated with this war.
What would have happened in the Kremlin? In the Dirty House? In Europe?
I wonder if it would have shifted the balance and made both RU, China, and the USA uncertain.
The most important thing must be that Ukraine strictly follows its own laws. Changing the president to appease people who have decided to be loyal to Putin is meaningless if they do not switch to a “president” approved by Putin. But I would have liked to see a match between Trump and Klitschko, I admit 😉.
I agree with that, that’s why I meant that one should not hold elections as it goes against the constitution.
But I think maybe they are taking the weapon out of Trump’s hand.
Zelensky can still remain as an advisor or something similar in the background.
I don’t mean that one should comply with the demands of the USA or anyone else, but do something unexpected.
Why should Zelensky resign at all? Just because a couple of bullies on the schoolyard demand it? It has to be fair. Zelensky is in the right.
He himself has said that if that’s what is required for peace.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/zelenskyj-redo-att-avga-for-fred-i-ukraina
Once again, no choice, but a reshuffle. Only he and UA can decide this.
If Zelensky cannot fulfill his duties, the Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk will take over as interim president until elections can be held.
I have no idea but I have another suggestion.
National unity government, we have had that in Sweden when war has threatened, and didn’t Churchill also lead such a government?
Yes, that is an option.
Trump and Putin have a problem with Ukraine having a democratically elected president. A coalition government does not change that, they cannot have a lot of mouthpieces.
My theory. An explanation for Trump’s actions could be that he has seen it as his task – or that he has faced ultimatums from the Federal Reserve – to keep the federal budget deficit down. Look at DOGE. No expenses abroad like in Ukraine without corresponding income. Ukraine is just a “pawn in the game”. The USA must straighten out its economy. No more money from daddy to Ukraine. It could be like that. Then Europe will have to take care of it.
Trump wants to lower taxes to boost the economy and thereby hopes to be able to grow out of debt. But in order to lower taxes without the national debt skyrocketing, costs must be cut. I am skeptical that he will succeed but I do not have the details.
On the YouTube channel Adam Mockler, I recently saw that what is claimed about being able to save on DOGE is only theoretical. They also do not take into account the costs associated with reducing employees, etc.
It feels like they have just pulled numbers out of thin air and not understood the consequences.
Well, I think it’s possible to save some on DOGE, but it’s probably mostly about accessing the ideology production in Washington.
But shouldn’t there be larger savings that can be made at the state level? Where Trump and Elon can’t reach?
Swedish weapons unleashed hell on Russian aviation!
https://youtu.be/pxxDtzfEqFI?si=4YRCWTW37QWyilo8
Now one feels like a proud Swede.
The American economy is plummeting, GDP has gone from +2% to -2.8% in a week.
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow
All the world’s thinkers these days are busy trying to understand what plan and underlying intentions are behind Trump’s actions. Some stubbornly cling to the idea that Trump is actually a masterful negotiator who, through various skillful maneuvers, gets the three parties where he wants them: Russia obediently withdraws its troops so that Trump becomes a historic peacemaker, Europe takes full responsibility for its own security so that the US can reduce its military spending, and Ukraine quietly transitions to rebuilding its country with the support and help of the West.
But can there still be anyone who has seen Trump and Vance sitting there gaping like two bench park drunks, without the slightest hint of shame, yet still hold on to the belief that there is some plan or thought that extends further another step? Perhaps it’s as simple as the guy is just as stupid as he looks? It’s probably a total waste of time to try to discern any form of intelligence behind the actions, for the simple reason that it’s completely random. Trump has probably long believed that this war is easy to solve with the same old gangster methods that work so damn well when dealing with Brooklyn slum landlords. It has probably never occurred to Trump that it might actually take more than a day to negotiate a peace agreement, that Ukraine won’t happily give away all its natural resources after a few threatening hints, or that the Western alliance won’t just meekly adapt when the US suddenly decides that the global world order is actually a business deal that can be negotiated.
The figure Americans have chosen as president is apparently in the process of driving their country into the ground. Confidence in the USA has been completely shattered among the world’s free countries and developed economies in a short period of time, but he doesn’t seem to understand it at all. He just keeps bragging about his own greatness while threatening those who, for the US’s own good, should be cooperating, and he grovels to those he should be standing up to. Soon enough, the USA’s only friend in the world will be Russia. A person who abandons allied democratic and economically strong countries in favor of an economically and morally bankrupt country cannot have a single correct thought in his mind. The man must simply be incredibly stupid.
There are so many obstacles with intelligent people that one must overcome just to even be considered for the presidency, so it’s incredible if an unintelligent person could make it all the way to the top.
There are a number of factors behind behavior; personality, motivation, values, abilities, and environment to name a few, as well as morality where Trump obviously has certain shortcomings, especially in his view of women and freedom to choose gender, etc.
We find it difficult to understand him and what he does, and even more difficult to understand what he plans to do.
Sure, it may be easier to dismiss him as you do in your head and then join in saying that he is stupid among the others in the mob.
I prefer to listen to these thinkers and pick up a little here and there.
The descriptions that best fit the man can be debated, and “dumb in the head” may not be entirely appropriate. But I find it very difficult to see that there is any plan that extends beyond one step behind his actions. Raw exercise of power where there is a possibility to achieve an effect is the means, and everything indicates that it is also the goal in itself – where it then leads in the next step, he seems incapable of thinking about before it happens. Whether this should be called stupid or something else can be debated. Perhaps an entirely new adjective is needed for the orange-colored man?