Sharlkbok
Shitspreading is easy or you and comes natuarally has the top scientific an econmic exoertsa in his team and he known exatly what e ats and will get it, He wants propert trade a greements and has gven the EU and t he EU to meet and arrnage for the copletion of proper trade agreements in place. Unlike the Biden sh it knws exactl how to fix the declining and collapsing US economy,
"Oh what a surprise, you can't answer the question."
I did, you just didn't like the answer.
Stav, are you in any Cryptos?
You seem like you would be.
Stav, note that Squeaky Toy (aka Draad) isn't the shiniest coin in the fountain.
Rooidrol...I'm still smarter than you lefties...not that that's a feat...
I did, you just didn't like the answer.
Did I ask you if he understands more than me?. I asked why you think he has a better understanding than other businessmen and economists and by that I mean the overwhelming majority of them who think Trump's tariff plan is extremely bad for both the US and world economy in general.
I'm going take the fact you evaded by answering a different question as confirmation that you only said that he's someone who actually understands what's going on because he offered a take that aligns with what you want to believe.
Stav, are you in any Cryptos?
You seem like you would be.
Nope. Not my thing.
"Nope. Not my thing."
Must say, I'm surprised.
Not even interested in the technology?
Crypto is a pyramid scheme. The way to make money from it is to short sell.
As the crash happens, sell it all.
Then, when Crypto hits rock bottom, use 50% of your earnings to buy more.
Rinse and repeat...
Although the crash happens so suddenly, it is more likely the inside traders will be the ones who benefit the most.
Must say, I'm surprised.
Not even interested in the technology?
To be honest I've never looked into it in any depth, never really understood the point of it and it did come across as sounding like a scam to me, so I just tuned out. Did the same when I heard about NFT's.
I know was Cryto mining boom drove up the price of GPU's like crazy a few years back when I was looking to buy one but it balanced it out by the fact I was able to sell my old GPU for well above its normal value.
I heard some recent suggestions that part of Trump's economic theory is that he wants to de-value the dollar to make American exports more competitive but doesn't want other countries to spend all their dollars they have got from selling to the US buying other currency and potentially seeing the dollar lose its reserve currency status and that he was trying to push them into instead buying various crypto currencies which are then backstopped by a so called stable coin which is backed by the US dollar. A sort of have his cake and eat it approach I've no idea how credible any of those suggestions were.
"Did I ask you if he understands more than me?. I asked why you think he has a better understanding than other businessmen and economists and by that I mean the overwhelming majority of them who think Trump's tariff plan is extremely bad for both the US and world economy in general."
How many of the other economists and businessmen aires? And did you even bother to listen the whole thing or did you just assume he was for tariffs because I posted the video?...which he was not...what in particular of what he said do you not agree with?
The point of Crypto is a distributed ledger allowing for faster and more secure transactions...eradicating the double-spend problem.
EG, I can transact anything with you, with little to no need for any middle-man.
TLDR - Be your own bank.
Of course, secure transactions don't refer only to monetary matters. Contract signing, data security, communications...blockchain solves a ridiculous amount of problems.
Hence my surprise that you're not interested in the technology.
One thing I'm sure you'll find interesting is D-Pin.
"Dpin (short for Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks) refers to a type of distributed computing framework where computing resources (like storage, processing power, or internet access) are provided by individuals or companies and coordinated via a blockchain.
In this model:
Dpin turns physical infrastructure into an open, permissionless marketplace, allowing decentralized alternatives to cloud giants like AWS or Azure. Projects like Akash Network (decentralized cloud compute), Helium (decentralized wireless), and Filecoin (decentralized storage) are key examples.
In essence: Dpin = Uber or Airbnb for physical infrastructure, run by code on blockchain."
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits,"
Albert Einstein
Indeed.
It is incredible. The Trump administration has been bailing out its own plan in a very spectacular way that leaves no doubt about its quality. It shows how much liberal minds are bent to being administrated, they are addicted to the statu apparatus and can not figure things out by themselves unless they receive a state note that a situation is such. The Trump administration wanted to bully the world, they threatened the world, had to withdraw their threats by themselves and now as it is not enough, the Trump adminstration is conceding.
The Trump adminsitration has been dismantling their own lies one after the other. You do not even have to understand economics to see it, all it take is to check how the US have been acting and see how they fail to apply what they imply.
Globalization has been very bad to the US so they say. A big lie as the US have been the big winners of globalization as it has allowed them in the american way of life and their high level of consumption. Trump removed the tarriffs on phones and computers. US citizens flocking on TV screens to say it is a relief, they are going to be able to consume as much as they used to. There is nothing to be added.
They are bailing out of their failed plan.
It has never been about tariffs, never been about globaliazation being bad with the US. it has been about the high level of consumption the US have been allowed thanks to globalization and how the US are now afraid it will end sooner than later. If they were that interested in the trade deficit they had, thinking it empowerished them instead of enriched them, they just have to consume less to decrease the trade deficit. It is the core issue.
Interesting perspective by somebody actually understanding what's going on...pity the lefties won't have the stomach to watch it.
It takes indeed a lot of guts and time to be wasted on listening to him. For the minutes that were allocated to his musings, this guy does not speak of the situation as it is but instead, prefers to speak of an imaginory situation, a situation that does not exist. Like liberals, he fails to edress the situation as it is, he prefers something else. And he also sounds like a lefite, with its infrastructure thing, his affordable housing, his well paid vocational paid jobs etc There is nothin in it.
‘But trade experts say the economic relationship between Europe and China is rooted in a decades-old reality: a Chinese marketplace that is effectively closed to many European companies because of regulatory burdens and the Communist Party’s buttressing of Chinese companies. The European trade deficit with China was nearly $332 billion (€292 billion) in 2023.
The E.U. leadership describes China as a “a systemic rival,” and relations with the Asian nation have soured in recent years for a host of reasons, including China’s support of Russia as it wages war on Ukraine.
……
So America is the bad actor, but we have provided substantial support for the Ukraine, more of a European issue. And we run a $ 160 billion trade deficit with Europe, offset by a $70 billion services surplus. Let alone our huge investment in NATO which protects mainly Europe.
China is supporting Russia in it’s Ukraine adventure and has a $330 billion surplus with Europe.
And yet, ‘the Yanks’ are the bad guys and those nice Communist leaders are so much more acceptable. The human mind has an amazing capacity to delude itself.
If the tariffs aren’t settled, Europe’s relationship with China will rapidly become more disruptive.
Liberals know about delusion. NATO is meant to protect first and foremest the US's interests. Many of the wars waged under the umbrealla of NATO were to serve the US's best interests first, quite often lately at the expense of european nations as the US destabilized areas close to the European nations that felt the price of them directly. The massive waves of migration pushed by US wars moved first toward Europe before hitting the US, the war on drugs that organized countries like Afgahnaistan etc
Second point, there has been a change in leadership. No matter the support China provided to Russia (which is more alike to a non opposition to Russia than support, just as so much of the rest of the world), the current change in direction in the US leadership is more effective at supporting Russia than China has been. It is the goal by the way as the US want to rally Russia in their war against China.
The Trade deficit is another byproduct of the unconditional support the EU has provided the US with, without having the monopoly of emitting the world currency. The current reaction of the US about the trade deficitis that it is dissolving the monopoly they had on the world currency, many countries around the world were able to capture large amount of the US flow as the US flooded the world with it. It means they are now in a position to keep a USD based economy running for some time without relying on the US to supply them with it. Which is bad news. The tariff farce has pushed the entire world to acknowledge the situation, a large segment of humanity will be better off iwhen they trade less and less with the US. That is by the way what the US want to avoid. Tackling their trade deficit has a direct and efficient solution: reducing their trade with the rest of the world. If they do this, the US will provide the rsst of the world with the room the rest of the world want to get.
TheTraditionalistSenior player
3,281 posts
Apr 14, 2025, 17:04
Liberals know about delusion. NATO is meant to protect first and foremest the US's interests. Many of the wars waged under the umbrealla of NATO were to serve the US's best interests first, quite often lately at the expense of european nations as the US destabilized areas close to the European nations that felt the price of them directly.
……
Give us some examples of where NATO (not just the US) did this
There is no example as they are already known and therefore denied.
NATO strategic means moving eastwards despite promises they would not move past a certain limit. That move made Russia feel insecure as the words they had secured were bashed over and over again. It came with a couple of wars in order to advance NATO strategic means eastwards, closer to Russia's borders.
So America is the bad actor, but we have provided substantial support for the Ukraine, more of a European issue
Yes provided substantial aid under a previous administration. The current administration has no interest in providing additional aid, it appears more interested in extorting Ukraine and pushing for a settlement that is not in Ukraine's interests and compromises it's and by extension Europe's security.
. And we run a $ 160 billion trade deficit with Europe, offset by a $70 billion services surplus
For the umpteenth time a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. If there is imbalances then try to work them out diplomatically first before and if you're still unable to make progress maybe then consider economic pressure, not just go straight for lobbing economic nuclear missiles.
Let alone our huge investment in NATO which protects mainly Europe
The US freely chooses to spend more on its military to maintain it's military dominance. The vast majority of the US's militarily asset's are located in the US and the has double the military presence in South East Asia than it does in Europe.
Europe has spent $1.4 Trillion over the last 10 years buying US military equipment and America has on several occasions in the past push back at Europe pushing for greater military autonomy and independence. It feared loosing influence.
China is supporting Russia in it’s Ukraine adventure and has a $330 billion surplus with Europe.
And yet, ‘the Yanks’ are the bad guys and those nice Communist leaders are so much more acceptable.
You do understand it's possible to have more than one bad actor right? Even Japan and South Korea have spoken about working with China. But that doesn't mean they or the EU are going in with their eyes blind. The EU has already said it's set up a task force to monitor for dumping while the Chinese have said they may be willing to agree on minimum pricing on electric cars, something the EU has wanted for a long time.
The human mind has an amazing capacity to delude itself.
Like a delusion that starting a massive trade war would have no negative consequences or pushback from those attacked and that everyone would just cave.
If the tariffs aren’t settled, Europe’s relationship with China will rapidly become more disruptive.
Trump needs to drop this batshit tariff plan before he puts the entire world into a recession.
Go ahead then Traditional….name the wars NATO has waged which were entirely in US interest.
……
The United States maintains a significant military presence in Europe, with approximately 100,000 U.S. troops stationed across the continent as of 2025. This deployment has increased notably since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and is considered vital for NATO's deterrence posture and rapid response capabilities. ?AP News
While exact figures for the total cost of maintaining U.S. forces in Europe are not publicly disclosed, estimates from previous years provide some insight. In 2018, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) estimated that U.S. defense expenditures in Europe ranged between $30.7 billion and $36.0 billion, accounting for approximately 5.1% to 5.5% of the total U.S. defense budget at that time. Given the increased troop levels and heightened operational activities in recent years, current expenditures are likely higher.?IISS
A significant portion of this funding is allocated through the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), a program designed to enhance U.S. military readiness and infrastructure in Europe. The EDI focuses on five key areas: increased presence, exercises and training, enhanced prepositioning, improved infrastructure, and building partnership capacity. Since its inception in 2014, the EDI's budget has grown from $1 billion to over $3.4 billion by 2017, reflecting the U.S. commitment to European security. ?Wikipedia+1Department of Defense+1
Despite discussions within the U.S. administration about potential troop reductions, bipartisan consensus in Congress supports maintaining current force levels in Europe. Lawmakers emphasize that a robust U.S. military presence is crucial for deterring aggression and ensuring the security of NATO allies. ?AP News+1The Guardian+1
In summary, while precise current costs are not publicly available, maintaining U.S. forces in Europe represents a substantial investment, likely exceeding previous estimates, and remains a cornerstone of U.S. and NATO defense strategy in the region.?
Sources
Chronic trade deficits between developed nations should be resolved over time by both the surplus and deficit countries. That’s standard economic theory along with the theory of comparative advantage.
So give us some examples of efforts Europe has made prior to 2025, to narrow the trade balance. Quote a few European leaders stressing the importance of doing so.
And FFS:
’It feared loosing influence.’
For the umpteenth time it’s ‘losing’ influence. How many times do I have to tell you this.
Why don't you take legal action against everyone who makes a spelling mistake, Moffie? You can be the "plaintive" (sic).
LMAO!
Don't go slipping on a banana "peal" (sic) again, you ignorant hypocrite.
Yes nothing we didn't know. With the exception of aid provide to Ukraine during Trump's first term which did prove useful in the opening few weeks of the full scale war in 2022 all other aid was approved by the Biden administration, including a package that was delayed by Republican's at Trump's beckoning.
The bulk of the last aid approved aid package approved by Biden was already dispatched to Ukraine. Trump initially allowed the remaining portion of it to be sent, then blocked it, then resumed it.
Just today Trump has said he doesn't even want to sell weapons to Ukraine.
In summary, while precise current costs are not publicly available, maintaining U.S. forces in Europe represents a substantial investment, likely exceeding previous estimates, and remains a cornerstone of U.S. and NATO defense strategy in the region.?
That so called cornerstone is now strongly being called into question. Europe is already under attack, and the US under the Trump administration has effectively said good luck lads, you're on your own.
Chronic trade deficits between developed nations should be resolved over time by both the surplus and deficit countries. That’s standard economic theory along with the theory of comparative advantage.
So give us some examples of efforts Europe has made prior to 2025, to narrow the trade balance. Quote a few European leaders stressing the importance of doing so.
Resolved over time...maybe someone should of told Trump that. And maybe tell him he doesn't need to put tariffs on countries that the US had a trade surplus with.
Why should it be up to Europe to fix America's problems. If they have a problem, then negotiate with countries and then maybe it can be resolved over time, if not you can gradually ramp up pressure in targeted ways.
For the umpteenth time it’s ‘losing’ influence. How many times do I have to tell you this.
You can always tell Moz is doesn't have an argument when he goes all spelling Nazi.
Be my guest, if you want to go on using ‘loosing’ instead of losing. You do it often. As for your rebuttals, they aren’t convincing. The US has provided and continues to provide substantial aid to the Ukraine. And NATO probably preserved Europe when the Soviet Union was dominating eastern Europe all the way to Berlin.
Why should Europe be involved in fixing the deficits, well I use the term collectively, each individual country in Europe should be doing that….it’s a basic of free trade. I can think of no serious effort to do that,
David Shimer
Putin is planning for this war to continue. That leaves two key questions for Ukraine’s European allies
Mon 14 Apr 2025 13.00 BST
The war between Russia and Ukraine is approaching a historic turning point: unless the Trump administration adjusts course, US military aid for Ukraine is about to cease.
In the months before leaving office, Joe Biden made a series of decisions to augment Ukraine’s stockpiles of vital munitions. Toward the end of 2024, the Department of Defense surged hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds, thousands of rockets and hundreds of armored vehicles to Ukraine, and that December, he approved an additional $1.25bn security assistance package for Ukraine, which has enabled the continued flow of US arms ever since (with the exception of the damaging pause ordered by Donald Trump in March).
These decisions bought Ukraine time, but that time is running out. Ukraine is depleting its stockpiles of US munitions. The $1.25bn aid package will soon be exhausted. The United States still possesses several billion dollars in drawdown authority, which could be used to send Ukraine additional security assistance. But since taking office, Trump has not approved a single military aid package for Ukraine. Even if Trump were to reverse course and utilize this remaining drawdown authority, the amount available is insufficient to sustain US support for Ukraine over time. To do that, Congress would need to approve additional Ukraine funding, which will not happen while the Republican party controls both chambers and the White House. As a result, the era of US military aid to Ukraine is approaching its end.
Trump was ‘the candidate of peace’. Now he’s fanning the flames of war
Vladimir Putin is stalling the Trump administration’s ineffective pursuit of a ceasefire as he waits for Biden-era military aid deliveries to run dry. Over the weekend, shortly after the Russian president met with the US representative Steve Witkoff, the Russian military launched a horrifying ballistic missile attack in Sumy that killed dozens of Ukrainian civilians. Putin is biding his time, eager to see whether the Ukrainian army will buckle in the absence of US military aid. As he said recently: “There are reasons to believe that we will finish them off.” Even if Russia is unable to capture much more territory, Putin will still wait for Ukraine’s position to become significantly more desperate before making any serious decisions about an end to this war. As US military aid for Ukraine winds down, North Korea, Iran and China are likely to continue, and could decide to increase, their support for Russia.
Putin is planning for this war to continue for at least months longer. Russia faces its own challenges: Ukrainian forces continue to fight effectively and to impose extraordinary costs on the Russian military, and falling oil prices will place further strain on the Russian economy. Even so, Grigory Karasin, Russia’s representative in talks with the Trump administration, has indicated publicly that ceasefire negotiations will progress slowly over the course of this year. The US should be seeking to adjust Putin’s calculus – and to push him to engage in meaningful negotiations – by surging security assistance to Ukraine and intensifying sanctions against Russia. But regrettably, the Trump administration has done neither of those things, opting instead to pressure Volodomyr Zelenskyy and to make unilateral concessions to Russia.
European leaders have stepped up in recent months to try to help Ukraine survive in the absence of US leadership. European discussions about a postwar reassurance force are important, but the actual war is still ongoing, and further planning is needed to deal with the impending loss of US material support.
The key questions for Ukraine’s European backers are twofold: how can Ukraine persist with a combination of its own domestic production of weapons, European security assistance, and US intelligence sharing?; and what is the most viable pathway to finance this support?
As a baseline, European countries should accept more risk tolerance in donating their own military equipment to Ukraine. Many European governments maintain significant stockpiles of artillery, rockets and air defense; given the stakes of this war, more of those capabilities should be provided to Ukraine. Meanwhile, these same European countries should increase defense spending to replenish their depleted weapons stockpiles over the longer term.
Second, Europe should direct more resources into Ukraine’s innovative defense industrial base. Ukraine is producing cutting-edge drones, munitions and air defense capabilities that are reducing, though not eliminating, its reliance on external security assistance. Now is the time to finance Ukraine’s indigenous production of weapons, which are helping to blunt Russian assaults across the front.
Third, the United Kingdom and France – as leaders in their support for Ukraine – should try to strike a deal with the Trump administration to secure additional air defense missiles for Ukraine. During the Biden administration, the United States diverted its air defense exports so that they would go to Ukraine first. A coalition of European governments led by France and the UK should attempt to negotiate an agreement with the White House to continue this policy – with the understanding that the Europeans will foot the bill. Under this arrangement, participating European countries would purchase AMRAAM and Patriot missiles for Ukraine off US production lines, and the Department of Defense would prioritize those purchases given Ukraine’s acute and ongoing air defense requirements. Trump may refuse this offer, but there is no downside to making the pitch, which, if successful, could be broadened to cover additional US defense exports that Ukraine needs.
Fourth, the European countries supporting Ukraine will need to decide how to pay for all of this. One option is to dig into their own budgets. The other, more sustainable option is for Europe to seize the approximately $300bn in Russian sovereign assets currently immobilized in their jurisdictions. Those assets can be used to finance Ukraine’s defense industry, procure weapons from the US and around the world, and support the Ukrainian economy for years to come. Strategically, those assets would provide Zelenskyy with a durable source of non-US assistance, which would reduce Zelenskyy’s dependency on the US and increase his leverage in any negotiations to end the war. Many legal and policy experts have put forward strong arguments to justify seizure and to mitigate associated risks to the European economy. The costs of inaction today far outweigh the manageable risks of asset seizure.
The realities of our current moment are both clear and regrettable: Putin has shown no indication that he will agree to a ceasefire, so this war will continue, and the end of US security assistance is approaching. Europe should move quickly to pursue the above steps and help save Ukraine from the coming storm.
Tell you what Blob, if the US cuts off military aid to the Ukraine despite their willingness to settle, I’ll join your criticism. But I don’t think there is a chance of that happening….if Russia tries to exploit the situation, my guess is Trump will increase the support for the Ukraine.
I'll say this sincerely, I hope you're right while I disagree. Thus far Putin has shown that he's a master poker player, he's politely refused to come to the party, ignored all of Trump's niceties and hasn't conceded anything. I'm not convinced he's interested in peace or seeking peace.
I believe Putin is going to sit this out hoping the USA will cut all support to Ukraine. The only thing that will stop Putin is if Trump gives Ukraine it's full military support.
The problem is dealing with a dictator who only respects fear.
Trump needs to win this one on behalf of Ukraine so as to gain the respect of the free world as well as sending a signal to China, North Korea and Iran, I hate to think the outcome if he doesn't.
There's a much bigger play at stake than just Ukraine.
And again, I hope you're right.
Trump can't give Ukraine full military support, hothead Zelensky will attack Russia directly...which is his right, since Russia invaded him, but Russia might do something stupid in retaliation...this has no easy fix.
Go ahead then Traditional….name the wars NATO has waged which were entirely in US interest.
Ah, the expected change in tune. NATO operations that were triggered for the US'best interests must be entirely in US interests. Which includes an exclusion hard to sustain because in anything, people may find a minor interest.
NATO operations have been limited so instead of naming one operation that was driven by US best interests, since most of them if not all were made in the US best interests, what about naming one operation that was not made in the US best inteests... It is the question to be asked, which one of them is not made in the US best interests....
As for your rebuttals, they aren’t convincing. The US has provided and continues to provide substantial aid to the Ukraine.
Again the substantial aid was approved by the previous administration, the current administration is merely allowing what is left of what was already approved to be sent to Ukraine.
It also continues to provide intelligence which is arguable more important than material aid at this point. Trump briefly cut some of the intelligence off, there is no guarantee if a ceasefire is not achieved that Trump doesn't reduce or cut off that intelligence.
At this point there is two things Ukraine needs from America. That intelligence and Patriot missiles and launchers. The former doesn't actually cost the US that much, considering the satellites are already in place and the latter Zelensky is willing to pay for.
Ultimately those are probably the reasons that Ukraine and Europe have indulged Trump's attempt at getting a ceasefire for so long, they know it's pretty much doomed to fail, but they don't want to antagonize Trump that he cut's them off from even purchasing US military aid in a fit of rage.
And NATO probably preserved Europe when the Soviet Union was dominating eastern Europe all the way to Berlin.
That's another one of those thing's that impossible to prove either way. The Soviet Union did have plans to aggressively advance into central Europe if they were attacked first but I'm not aware of them having any plans to preemptively doing it. I suppose you could argue if no US troops were based in Europe that might have changed, but you could also argue the British and French having nuclear bombs by the early 1960's could have been a sufficient deterrent.
Why should Europe be involved in fixing the deficits, well I use the term collectively, each individual country in Europe should be doing that….it’s a basic of free trade. I can think of no serious effort to do that,
What exactly do you want European countries to do. Reconfigure their entire economies over time to suit the US. Everyone aims to buy and sell roughly the same to America. So Germany imports 400,100 cares from America...what does that do...well they either sit in lots in Germany because their isn't a demand for American cars or the German's do sell them and put Germany's own car industry which is already struggling badly under even more pressure and potentially out of business. Do they buy more US pharmaceuticals...does Germany need to buy in $21.5 billion dollars of pharmaceuticals from the US, is their demand for that. Or do Germany stop buying pharmaceuticals from other countries to buy from the US, but how does that affect the balance of trade to that other country.
Does say Germany or other European countries with a trade surplus to the US shift to buying all its energy requirements from the US. Where does leave Europe's other energy suppliers like Norway, or some of the African countries. If say we shift from buying Middle East energy to America, does that drive up costs as it has to come from further away...does it create potential scenario that those Middle East countries then have to seek out new markets and will by welcomed open armed into China's sphere of influence etc. Then you have to ask the question could Europe risk creating an energy dependency on the US after it already got burned with the Russians.
And then what about countries the US has a surplus with. Take Ireland, when factoring in services the US has $93 billion surplus with Ireland. So what the US is to somehow find $93 billions worth of stuff to buy from us. Even if the US wanted to do that, we don't have the capacity to sell you that much stuff. We can't produce $93 billion worth of butter, whiskey or potatoes. We can't magically make more pharmaceuticals over night.
I'm sure there is some easier wins that are more manageable for both the US and Europe that could be done relatively quickly and that would reduce the deficit by a few billions, but what Trump seems to want, if its even viable would take decades to do. Countries would need to be given time to gradually re-balance while not destroying their economies in the process, not just whacked with stonking great big tariffs.
if Russia tries to exploit the situation, my guess is Trump will increase the support for the Ukraine.
They already are. Take the energy infrastructure ceasefire. Russia has attacked Ukrainian energy infrastructure in Kharkiv despite there being a supposed ceasefire. The Russian's are say there is a ceasefire but only a ceasefire with missiles and drones, not with tubed artillery so they are free to attack it with artillery. They did this way because they know Ukraine can't attack their energy infrastructure with artillery as its simply too far away.
Likewise a ceasefire in the Black Sea would benefit Russia more, Ukraine and Russia are already able to get their cargo ships in out of the black sea, but a ceasefire would allow the Russian's to more easily resupply Crimea.
Trump can't give Ukraine full military support, hothead Zelensky will attack Russia directly...which is his right, since Russia invaded him, but Russia might do something stupid in retaliation...this has no easy fix.
Zelensky does not want full military support, he wants defensive missiles. He is not a hothead either he's actually a rather collected individual, what happened in the Oval office is an absolute damning indictment of the Trump administration, not him. As for attacking Russia, Ukraine already has in various ways, using its own methods, including thousands of drone attacks and actually sending forces into Russia itself, but Ukraine has always abided by the restrictions place on it by its western partners when it came to using the weapons they provided.
Glad you agree there is no easy fix. It's why Trump should never have said he would stop the war in a day or 100 days, it puts pressure on himself to reach an agreement.
Stavan gar believe all he shit The Guardian provides to him and add his ownbefuddled B S to make it sound real. He as zero info of any factual situation in Ukraine at all. Neither does he knw what the outcome of the present situation ibn Ukaine si - nor dioes he know what is a hppening woldwide where isntability is the norm. The Biden Asministration caused the present situation and Trump is blamed for the hatred of he USA caused by the Democrats,
Te shit sis cear from he start of this thread/ The story that Trump suspended he taris on some dictaorship is total BS - Trump suspened all tariffs bar China - for 90 days to get trade reaties in place during that period and Government delegations aare streaqming to the USA for the purose of negitation of trade treaties - but the BSters only mentioned 4 rogue countries that has been suspended - but the restritions on their trade will remain in any event, Thya re alread undr sanctions and their imports and deals with the USA is miniscule, So what si the point of the whole story in he emdia - it si just further brainwashing of IDIOTS workdwide.
The fact stategically is Ukraine is a minor country and Zelenskyy not the President or dictator of the world whose every instrution or wish must be obeyed,
The American consumers love to consume, so they consume a lot— like locusts.
Maybe Americans should just consume less.
People buy what they want to buy, and trying to force them into a deal to buy inferior products (American cars) is bullshit. I would rather say just trade less with America, and become more self-sufficient.
Trump wants the EU not to charge VAT for American products- while America has an equivalent Income tax (federal and state). Coprorate tax may be higher in the US as well, if companies have operations in the US.
All while Big Tech get away with paying little to no corporate tax in the EU
Maybe Americans should just consume less.
The masses won't consume less when they're being bombarded with calls to consume every day in all forms of media, when possession of goods is equated to better quality of life and prestige. Something as stupid as a cellphone is now a status symbol. It takes a conscious effort and awareness to move out of that mindset.
‘Ultimately those are probably the reasons that Ukraine and Europe have indulged Trump's attempt at getting a ceasefire for so long, they know it's pretty much doomed to fail, but they don't want to antagonize Trump that he cut's them off from even purchasing US military aid in a fit of rage’.
…….
So according to you Europe and the Ukraine think this war will go on until one side breaks, or they both stop from sheer exhaustion. But wouldn’t the side that has a tenth of the manpower and whose infrastructure is being destroyed ‘get exhausted’ first.
And if Trump has a bad round of golf he might try to stop the Ukraine from even buying military equipment? Seriously?
……..
Putin has a strong hand and is not negotiating in good faith. He never was. But this is not a popular war in Russia and the precipitous fall in oil prices is going to have its own effect. It’s a messy business and the desire to punish Putin is understandable.
But the negotiations are the only hope for avoiding even more tragedy. Both Europe and the US should be pushing for peace and using all the tools in the toolbox to try to make that happen,
There is no magical better outcome for the Ukraine in never ending war.
As for the trade deficits, the deficit with Germany is $84 billion, almost a tenth of the total deficit and more than 25% of the Chinese deficit. The deficit with Ireland was $87 billion in 2024, even larger than Germany.
Crazy is one’s first reaction. Then you discover it’s being driven by Pharma located in Ireland because of Ireland’s tax haven advantages. Zepbound the blockbuster drug for fatties is made in Ireland. It’s hilarious glutinous Yanks are creating a trade deficit with a third world style tax haven.
if that’s not a classic case for bringing back manufacturing to the US I don’t know what is.
They can take Facebook back with them, as well as Mcdonalds, StarBucks and Burger King, Visa, Mastercard, Paypal. The Americans operate with their own numbers, most of which are lies promoted by Trump.
It is too dangerous to allow the data products in Europe these days, especially with Trump back leading the Great Americans