ok, lets pretend, you are right and Zelensky is incompetent and the way forward is to replace him with someone competent. hm, how do you that? there is this pecky thing called election to have. election need campaing. campaing takes time. bad things are said during the campaing. bad blood is created. how can you be sure, that the election will result in a new competent leader to replace zelensky? or you believe any new leader will be better than Zelensky? really? it is easy to rant about need to replace Zelensky like you do, but to rant you have to say how to make the change happen otherwise your rant is as irelavant as all the other pundits and analytics flooding the zone with their rants. i am afraid, we are back to square one and we have to find solution to this situation with Zelensky remaining the leader.
I sometimes wonder if what Tom wants is for Zelenskyi to get his political head out of his ass and do what's necessary, rather than what Yermak and his entourage want. He's heavily reliant on Yermak for all the non-war governing, to the point where Yermak wields far too much power over military matters.
Yermak and Syrskyi need to go, it is incompetent to keep them around when they can't deliver what's needed (and that's on Zelenskyi), they often stand in the way of reforms. Not sure SecDef Umerov is the right person either. All in all far too much politicking going on in time of war.
Yeah, I've got it so easy to rant. So much so, can tell you I'm receiving e-mails from 'colleagues' (journalists) expressing their 'jealousy' at how freely I can rant, and they cannot.
(And yes: that's serious.)
But, meh... I never said it's 'easy'.
I've never stepped down from any similar positions (see 'management'), no matter what kind of problems I've faced. Instead, I've sought for new ideas.
New ideas require new advisors. So, gauging from my own experience, I would say, OK, then he needs not stepping down: 'just' firing all/most/some of his 'advisors'. Almost certainly starting with Yermak. Because its for years they're providing BS, no advice.
I did quit when I grew dead tired of the 'system' in question, though. At least two times (these are those I can recall). Thus, if he's tired (and he does appear as exhausted, at least to me), then he should step down. Then it's not on him to pick a successor, but on Ukrainians to do so: gauging by 'development' (or, rather: 'retardation') of the last year (or so), pick, literally, any Ukrainian from the street and he or she is going to do better. Because (and contrary to what Zelensky obviously thinks about the 'Ukrainian public'), 'the people' are not stupid.
(That's serious, too. Why not picking you, Roman?)
Of course, there are other alternatives. Especially for a politician in his position. For example: invite opposition into the government: share the power, share the burden - and get fresh ideas.
Bottom line: 'anything' is better but the 'no way out'-desperation in which he's manoeuvred himself (probably thanks to Yermak).
In reality, it is not Zelensky who runs the country, but the oligarchs who put him in the presidential chair. And the mechanism for legally removing Zelensky from power is now regularly voiced on TikTok - an imaginary illness incompatible with the performance of the duties of the President and replacing him with Stefanchuk, which is in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine.
You are wrong. It would be true if Zelensky still be a legal president, but he is not, his presidential mandate has expired already, he is not a president anymore, just an ordinary citizen like anyone else in Ukraine.
Ukraine should run the election regardless of Zelensky, what he thinks or what he says. Zelensky seized the power illegally in Ukraine.
Article 83 of the constitution extends legal authorityuntil after Martial Law ends, and Article 19 of the On The Legal Regime of Martial Law legislation expressly forbids elections.
So, you couldn't find any article in constitution which prohibits the elections? Then I'm making the conclusion you are a kremlin troll which promotes democracy failure in Ukraine under the cover of war.
Art. 83 of Ukrainian constitution forbids only parliament election during martial law, which should have been imposed before the invasion, but not president election, as you claimed.
During a wartime after the invasion, according to art. 106 of UA consitution in the country shall be imposed a State of war, not the martial law, which allows all types of elections.
As the president is a supreme commander in chief of armed forces therefore should be relected in timely manner even during a martial law or state of war.
Strictly speaking Kholomoyskyi is in prison and sanctioned, not sure he's running Zelenskyi 🤔 He's the one who backed his run. Stepanchuk doesn't seem like a great idea.
And doesn't deposing a democratically elected president kinda confirm Kremlin propaganda about Ukraine and coups?
What signal does it send? I don't see any masses rising up against him, until they do any nefarious schemes will backfired spectacularly.
If the people like you or the ruzzian pupets again will conduct elections in Ukraine, you are right, there will be no competent leader to replace zelensky. You just pick another kremlin pupet and put him in bulletin, then blame the Ukrainians - "what the BS they have elected, Ukraine is a failed state, their politicians are all incompetent and corrupted and that Ukraine is a part of ruzzia"
While your argument is well founded, and Zelensky should get himself open to constructive critique, on point 5) his answer was I believe to a question about Lindsey Graham's infamous press conference after the Oval Office meeting and Graham's argument that Zelensky should resign. In that case I think his answer was OK, can't have a foreign official telling your head of state should resign. Became a citizen then voice your opinion on that.
That old drunkard has played at being Ukraine's best friend for years, then turns around and attacks Zelenskyi - he's a turncoat, always have been. It wasn't the most diplomatic answer tho.
Here's the video of the exchange I saw that refers to Graham. Now, I'm not excluding he said something of the sort also in answer to some analyst's statement, but it's the first thing that crossed my mind since it was recent: https://x.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1896324794166951992
I did not vote for Zelensky and I agree with your criticism but what can he or somebody else do to substitute weapons only USA can provide? And surely Trump is not only incompetent but he is evidently absolutely immoral and an ally of Putler in fact. What can Zelensky do in such situation?
The US production of Patriots can't be increased before 2027.
The European is meanwhile ramping up, and yes: there are systems in production that are even longer-ranged than the Patriot.
Besides, who said Patriots are so 'super-turbo-great'? Sure, they're regularly, but by far not always, intercepting ballistic missiles coming their way. But, for counter-air ops: so far, there are next to no confirmed kills (except for PSU's claims, the mass of which remains unconfirmed). With other words: except for latest variants, they're 'so-so'. Definitely better than old S-300s, and even more so: better than nothing.
The issue is 'merely' to kick assess around Europe and get the zombie idiots to send better, more modern stuff to Ukraine (see Aster-30; Ukraine is already operating the Aster-15, which it's received as SAMP-T, from Italy, the last year).
As written above, it can be managed by Zelensky, too - but with a new administration behind him.
From what I get to hear form Kyiv, it's Yermak who's screwing up all the time (including the today's 'apology'), and Zelensky can't ... erm... 'tie his shoelaces without Yermak's permission'. Moreover, Yermak has positioned his favourites in all the important positions. So, even if he would be fired 'right away' it would take time to 'clear the deck'.
Let me provide an alternative point of view on Yermak. I know very little about Yermak per se, I never specifically researched him, but what I can say is: Yermak is a person who is a professional politician, he is a part of political elite since, I think, 2010 at least. Ideologically he is likely (likely because Ukraine is not a country where people have clear and conscious ideologies) a slightly right-wing, pro-european, pro-US, pro-business person. He is more pro-business than nationalist, ideologically.
He knows how things done. He is, again, a professional. He worked politics when Zelensky was not even thinking about anything political.
He knows how to collect an expert group, set a task before them and get their opinion on a current problem - Zelensky doesn't. He knows how to get in contact with functionaries of foreign powers and discuss the issues behind the scenes, making grounds for eventual agreements - Zelensky has no clue. He knows how to build alliances inside Ukrainian internal political landscape and how to influence and force, say, regional elites to follow common strategy - Zelensky has no idea.
Before you say "well anyone can do that" - no. Those are very rare qualities and skills and most people in Ukrainian politics lack them.
Is he corrupt? Yes. Every Ukrainian professional politician is corrupt, there are no exceptions, it's the only way to do politics in Ukraine, at least in the past 30 years. If you want to do anything, anything at all, in Ukrainian political landscape, you need to add a bit of grease behind the scenes, or nothing will be done. I think you know "Italian strike" - anyone trying to govern Ukraine without corruption would meet tremendous resistance. And to add the grease you need to collect the grease first.
Can he be replaced? Sure. Can he be replaced with non-corrupt person? Yes, but that person would be completely clueless and ineffective. Can he be replaced with professional and effective person? Sure, but that person would be at the very least similarly corrupt and Zelensky will not even know his motivations or be accustomed to him and his ways.
I would be greatly interested in a person Ukrainians think would be able to replace Yermak as a practical, powerful, skilful, experienced, uncorrupt, professional political functionary in a functioning political cabinet. Holding my breath, so to say.
Again, as with Zelensky, do I think Yermak is good? No. For starters, his backstage diplomatic deals are often shiat and he can't, for the life of him, synchronise what he can get in the deal with what Zelensky wants from the deal, which results in Zelensky trying to re-negotiate the deal on the signing spot, which causes justifiable, hm, misunderstandings, let's call it that.
Do I know a single person who would get a better deal or control Zelensky better? No, I don't. Somebody has to run the state when head of state is being all fancy, charismatic and political. I have no idea who would do it well. In the perfect Ukraine, the one that follows its own constitution and has a functioning parliament, it would be prime minister, chosen and controlled by parliament - it's his job. Ukraine doesn't do that.
Thanks Tom. As far as I remember, in 2019, Trump also stopped the transfer of Javelins to Ukraine after Zelensky refused to hand over incriminating materials against Biden's son. So, in addition to the political component, there are also Trump's personal claims against Zelensky, which, unfortunately, are reflected throughout Ukraine.
"The issue is 'merely' to kick assess around Europe and get the zombie idiots to send better, more modern stuff to Ukraine (see Aster-30; Ukraine is already operating the Aster-15, which it's received as SAMP-T, from Italy, the last year)."
(1) Can the Europeans who manufacture these weapon systems and missiles produce sufficient quantities that can be supplied to Ukraine and that can replace what may end up being a lack of missiles for Ukraine's current Patriot missile systems?
When I was a drilling Naval Reservist in the 1980s I was assigned to an Engineering Duty officer reserve unit. Our C.O. at the time was the civilian the Patriot Missile project officer for White Sands Missile Range. The Patriot Missile System was in its testing stages prior to deployment to the U.S. Army and showed great promise. On one of our "away weekends" our unit received a classified tour of the White Sands Naval Weapons Station and the White Sands (Army) Patriot Missile Systems. This was in the early 1980s. The missile system obviously was not the upgraded version of today.
That system is now an old system even though upgraded. I would expect that newer European designed and produced anti-air missile systems should be more effective interceptors of aircraft and missiles than the current Patriot missile system. (2) Are they?
We don't know. There is very little data and even less data we can trust. There are, supposedly, study centres where European and American specialists supposedly receive data from Ukrainian specialists and learn the lessons of war and equipment, but we don't know what happens in those centres.
For example I still can't decide for myself if I believe the data that Russian glided bombs became less accurate, which was described with this week's report with such assuredness. I try to chase the reports to its sources and it all ends up somewhere in the void of "repeating anonymous source" or "citing Russian declaration", which is the epitome of reliability.
As the CEO Thales explained just today, they simply need ORDERS from the politics.
....not that Moron took care to react, of course...
I do wonder, though, what happens once Merz takes over? If his word is worth anything, even the orders for US-Israeli ABM/SAMs for the Sky Shield Project would be all cancelled... and, probably, replaced by Astra-30-derivatives.
Indeed, Zelensky should forget about Putin's psychotic and narcissistic Orange puppet. And by all means, quit with the submissive displays that only weaken him. The Orange feeds on weakness. Instead, Z should get his own house in order (re: his advisors and military reform) and rely on Europe and Ukraine's own domestic production.
>> That answer was in style of (from memory): the person in question can come to live in Ukraine, take Ukrainian citizenship and then Zelensky is going to listen to him…
- I believe that interview was in Ukrainain and involved a pun as we have the same word for "voice" and "vote". The meaning would be something like "if he wants his voice to matter, he can become a citizen of Ukraine to vote" IIRC.
I suspect it's more along the lines of giving people a real feel for what's going on.
Prime ministers and other ministers from across Europe has been and seen and felt, many of them have had to go into shelters due to attacks by Russia.
It's quite something to experience vs watching a youtube video or listening to some right wing propagandist online. Vance is openly hostile to Ukraine and has learned, according to him, by 'watching the videos of what you do' - ie hasn't got a clue.
There's another country that does this as routine.
No state or official visit to Israel can get underway until there's been a visit to the Holocaust museum. I say this not to belittle or denigrate the Holocaust and its evils, nor Israel, merely pointing out that 'seeing is believing'. There is power in seeing first hand the remnants and belongings of the murdered. You can read that ten million people were killed, but this is an abstract number for a human brain, we're not equipped to understand that in real terms, we are however able to process what we see.
In my country teenagers in school visit concentration camps as part of their education, to show them what happened, and can happen, when the guardrails come off.
The movie A Real Pain that just won Kieran McKulkin an Oscar, was partially filmed in a concentration camp, when you see the stores full of someone's shoes, knowing what happened to those people, when you see the ovens, that's visceral in a way no amount of reading can prepare you for.
The reason for inviting politicians to visit Kyiv, and give them the opportunity (they're invited, but who would say no?) to see Bucha or Irpin, is to enable them to empathize with Ukrainians, to experience the country under siege, and to see with their own eyes what the Russians have done.
Those same politicians also get to see how the day to day lives of people in Kyiv are, get to see first hand how the country's leaders go about their day.
For sure it's part of the political work they do, but that's the day to day work of any country - part and parcel of diplomacy, the politicians that visit know this.
You can call it propaganda, as Vance did, but isn't all government messaging propaganda when it comes down to it? There's no lie in what the Ukrainian government is doing, unlike the Russian or American messaging.
As to shared physical danger, it can create a powerful connection, but there's _no_ shared danger if someone like Vance visits - it's all coordinated, the Americans tell the Russians so and so is coming, no attacks on Kyiv today 'or else'. The Russians have no desire to kill a US politician or some European head of state.
This is also part of why the Ukrainians want heads of state or powerful politicians to visit, they function as shields, during the visits they can expect some quiet from the never ending Russian attacks.
You must visit Ukraine before you talk. But if you visit Russia or Crimeea your are a traitor or assasin. Grossi is always a black sheep în Ukraine.
So you can discuss Ukraine only if you visit Ukraine and if you don't criticise Ukraine. Because any critique will hurt the Ukrainian morale or show some vulnerability for the Russians.
So communications with Ukraine must be în the form of kow-tows delivered în person în Kyiv.
So because he called out Vances total ignorance it's an obsession?
And yes, if anyone illegally visits occupied Ukraine, thereby de facto, if not de jure, acknowledges russian control, that is something Kyiv takes very seriously. It's been illegal since Poroshenko.
There is no visit before you talk rule, that's something you've inferred.
Sure they want people to visit, for the reasons I laid out.
And sure, sometimes a lack of a visit is pointed out, usually when someone is talking gibberish about something they don't know our understand. Come to Kyiv and see for yourself.
Nothing wrong with that, you know the old saying 'walk a mile in their shoes'.
If someone knows nothing but what some propagandist told them then yes, a visit may disabuse them of their ignorance.
There is no rule yet this visit argument is repeated continuosly.
And if Vance mentions real issues with Ukrainian conscription than they are gibberish. Because you can not criticise Ukrainian recruiters who kidnap and beat-up civilians.
Yes, Vance and Trump want to throw Ukraine unde the bus. And Trump wants to pay back and humiliate Zelenski. And Trumps really likes Putin.
But Trump and Vance don't lie about Ukraine. What they say is true and well known except the 350 billion thing.
I don't like it when you're right about appeasement, but I agree.
I am not sure I agree that Zelenskyi went there to sign the serfdom papers unaltered, I think he hoped, or was led to believe, there was wiggle room to add in 'something', and I don't believe he he had any choice.
Had he not gone 47 would have used that too, the result was a foregone conclusion. The US reaction would have been the same, but now at least Europe sees 47 and Vance more clearly.
Whoever advised him to go, without translators, without strong prep, should be fired, if the goal was to gain something from the US.
The problem is that it may well have been Macron or Starmer who told him to go - to 'mend ties' as it were. 'Go and charm him, he may still come around' - I can well believe they'd be that naive.
They're both hopelessly lost up their own asses, still believe a deal can be made. It boggles the mind that our politicians, after so many years, can't see the plainly obvious.
The translator issue may have been arrogance by Zelenskyi or poor advise, or maybe Trump doesn't like translators, I don't know - it was ill advised nonetheless.
The train wreck truly got underway when 47 corrected Zelenskyi on when Russia first invaded (47 said 2015, Zelenskyi should have kept quiet) - his diplomats and advisors should have warned him about ever correcting 47 and Vance.
For all his charm and boyishness, Zelenskyi doesn't appear to have learned the art of diplomacy and sucking up to the powerful. Or maybe three years of full scale war has taken away his tolerance of bullshit - if that's so he should have been advised to not go.
It's led to a shakeout, and I wonder how we'll look back at this in ten years time, if we're going to be talking about it as refugees in northern Africa or Turkie, or in the comfort of our own homes.
Macron & Starmer have been utterly naive. Starmer even advised UK parliament that Trump would not pull support from Ukraine just hours before he did exactly that.
I don't know... they seem to be pushing against our understanding of current realities in such a stark way that I fear they know something we don't... possibly about nuclear deterrence? Merz might be the one that is ignorantly courageous. But I hope not.
Yes. The "plainly obvious" is that the US president was always going to abandon Ukraine and sell out the US to Putin. Europe has only one rational choice, begin to rearm and support Ukraine with military kit to the maximum extent possible and then some. You can't make a deal with the Russians until they are facing catastrophic defeat. It's not all; that complicated.
Trump is very much like Putin in that they, along with their syncophants, really only want one thing. To remain in power forever, with impunity. They are so transparent that it is astonishing that so many seemingly intelligent people remain blind. Nothing they commit to is honored if it interferes with what they want. They do this over and over and over. I do not understand, or do not want to understand why, so many people do not notice this! Lord of the Flies is a terrifying example of this phenomena and, if there is no cure, we are truely fucked.
One has to ask, how much of the estimation of mineral wealth was done during Soviet time when "good news" was the only news? Could be much ado about nothing.
There was an article in NYP that it was Ermak who insisted on visiting US and Zelensky signing the deal with Trump as opposed to just Rubio and Sebiha. I agree 100% with your opinion re Zelensky but I dont really know what could be done here, my best plan is to Virgin Mary to come to Ermak in the dreams and change his mind to a proper ways, or maybe alien invasion, other than that I dont really see how to change the way things go.
Oh, wouldn't be surprised if it was Yermak. People 'within circles' of Kyiv say, Zelensky can't... well, lets say 'tie his shoelaces without Yermak's permission'.
There's an obvious offramp here, throw Yermak under the bus, blame the entire debacle on him, could work in the US, and at home where he's not popular. With the silver lining of getting his hands off the military. But the entire Presidents Office is manned by Yermak acolytes from what I understand. Don't think they have enough time to do that tho, and I'm not sure 47 has the temperament to accept such an offering.
If the putative “coalition of the willing” (why oh why has this drivel resurfaced?) wants to do something effective for Ukraine, what's required is a plausible THREAT to Putin. How a disparate collection of self-interested politicians might accomplish that is beyond me. They're still trying to formulate a mode of capitulation that President Krasnov might accept.
As for Zelensky, none of my Ukrainian friends voted for him but I don't see that a savage critique contributes much. The immediate problem is how to supply Ukraine with sufficient resources to survive. And I don't even see how this can be achieved organisationally, even if there's a consensus on what to do. Expelling USA, Hungary and Slovakia from NATO might work.... a pity that without US resources the whole structure would disintegrate.
The current minimum requirement is a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
How about enough with empty promises, and actually doing something?
How about increasing taxes for super-rich (and seriously combating tax-evasion), so to have enough money to contract the 'defence sector' to (seriously) ramp up its production, construct new factories, create millions of new jobs (thus start earning yet more from taxes), and then deliver all or most of that to Ukraine?
I'd go one further and cap wealth entirely. No more billionaires.
If you have more than 20 million or so the tax code will simply collect the surplus wealth for redistribution.
There is no point to having someone have that much power. No point at all. These people are leeches, they are using their money only to actively hurt everyone else. They could have solved poverty decades ago. The fact that they didn't implies that they are not keeping their end of the bargain and allowing them such control over resources is detrimental.
I just have to add, before we have started full-blown Marxist-Leninist revolution right here, that I am definitely not a fan of left-wing ideology like capping of wealth and so on. While I'm definitely far to the left of, say, US political spectrum, you, people, are too left even for me. :) I consider even you to be "extreme", while "Law As Code" seems positively Stalinist for me. :)
Just a friendly reminder that people, while having similar views in one are, may differ in others, and in particular left-wing ideas are not yet the norm even here. :)
Yes, can perfectly understand that I do come over as a 'Leftist'.
Actually, I'm not the least one: I consider myself 'a sober, Central-European centrist'. Capitalism is perfectly fine with me - as long as carefully controlled.
Leaving aside Zelensky and Trump, the real idiots are the European “heads” of states busy preparing a peace plan! Much a do about nothing … and their “peace plan” is to tell Zelensky/Ukraine to accept in a polite manner Trump’s plan so they can save first and foremost their faces.
Trumps plan was to make Ukraine the bad guy that does not want peace. The European peace plan is a plan that Putin will not accept, and then they play the ball back at Trump and gain some time to figure out what to do.
Let's say one works 100s of hours, days, weeks, months, to come up with a fix to a problem. They explain that fix. Most people aren't interested. The few that are interested say, "Yes, I think you're onto something!" Then what? Other people, with less of an interest, or less knowledge about the situation, look at the fix and criticize it, or say it is just wrong. So you try to educated them about the pieces they don't understand. But they disappear. That gets tiring.
I'm not talking down to you, I'm telling you MY problem. If I get emotional about people calling me wrong I begin to play tennis on their level, so to speak. I use words like "desperate" without explaining specifically what the person is desperate for. I call people incompetent, without have a full window into the problems they're dealing with.
I've taken the cowards way out I guess by writing less. You guys continue to write. So again, I'm not saying you're wrong or you should do things this way or that.
I just read Keynes "Consequences of the Treaty..." He explained why WWII would result from an onerous treaty. Many people read the book at the time. There were people who understand. Just like there are many people who understand what you've been explaining.
Why do you believe this time is different? That your explanation will be adopted and WW3 averted?
Zele had to go to d.c and see what comes of it .. he got his answer and now he know their position and can take decisions based on this . Yes he was ill prepared for that meeting only needed to meditate a bit before and let the clowns bable but he had to go and see where he is... he is not perfect and do believe he has the power to adapt and evolve just its not going to happen in 1 day ... still think that without him in feb 22 ukrainians would scatter and capitulate , he gave them unity and hope , they are still in this because of him. And ok the situation has gotten way over his head but future is impredictable and humans have some amazing capacity for adversity ... so fuck trump fuck maga and elon and musk .. this idiost will remain in history for the clowns that they are
Thanks Tom. I’m a fan and still “happy” to read your assessments, even if they are tough to take at times.
As for Zelenskyi, I think he was left in a no-win position. To go placed him in an unenviable position of either accepting a shitty deal or being the target of the take down we all saw. (I reckon that Trumps team would see a “win” either way so we’re happy to wing it.
The rest of the Europeans have similar tough choices. They want to buy as much time either way US support to rebuild whatever defences they haven’t over the last several years. The likely cost will be courting an aggressive US government that feels comfortable about interfering in elections, those in power and will rescind agreements at will.
At some point soon, they all need to swallow the bitter pill and fight back!
I hear you, i see yiur frustration. i cant see how Ukrainian resistance is improved by changing leadership right now, and, bejng pragmatic \ realist, Putin would be almost certain to iinstall a puppet, the risk is VERY high, more than 50% i would have thought.
the only solution i see is MORE, BETTER, FASTER military aid from everyone whi remains supporters.
and this aid nees to have ZERO restrictions on use. ZERO.
its ridiculous that non US NATO countries have stocks of stuff that is even considered. for example, storm shadow, how many have UK sent? 50? 100 max? we built 937 of them, and, i read somewhere that a lot of them are due to reach expury date soon.
these weapons are already PAID for. they already need to be be replaced, and the budgets for this exist already. the only excuse for not sending them is weakness.
As far as I know, plenty of them have reached the point where they are more or less useless without refurbishing. But it's hardly very important. The problem with Storm Shadows is not the numbers, but what would Ukraine use them against?
They are supposed to be used against heavily fortified targets. Ukraine has used them against Russian naval headquarters, but other than that... They are useless against infantry of mech corps. They could be used against heavily fortified ammo dumps but Russians don't do heavy fortifications and drone would do fine here. They are useful against command bunkers which Russians generally have none; it is usually a common building used as headquarters so why use expensive missiles?
Storm Shadow susceptible to interception so they are used together with lots of drones to soften Russian anti-air defence... but if you have already softened it and have lots of drones, why waste a Storm Shadow where cheap drone will do?
That said, I would certainly not be against more missiles sent to Ukraine, but it would hardly change anything.
Most Ukrainian losses happens, from what I can tell, from close infantry combat, and the way to change it is 1) better command and control structure 2) more infantry on the ground, for obvious reasons 3) better multilayered defence lines. None of it can be fixed by more weapons.
i simply used storm shadow as an example of weapons stored up and already due for replacement, and, that there are many if them about to go into recycling.
eu and Uk need to make more of everything, we know that, but, the weapons we have will be of no use in 2, 3, 4 years time, they are about to expire anyway.
these weapons \ ammunition where made for the purpose of defending against RU anyway.
Challenger 2 is neing replaced with challenger 3. we have lots of them left. again, this isnt really extra expenditure.
It is absolutely true that EU and UK need to make more of everything. Even more important, mil-industry complex have to be developed more; but it is very hard for a single country to develop mil-ind, it is much more reasonable to develop capabilities for everyone, but you need common military procurement for it, and that means pretty much common military, and it is impossible in the current structure of EU.
Thus we need, kind of... imperialise... To have separate countries to lose a bit of sovereignty. But UK is not going to do it, is it? Brexit and shiat. :(
As for Challenger 2/3 specifically, I'm not sure about it at all. So far, Challenger 3 deliveries are only planned for 2025. And only 125 tanks are ordered, and it is not said over what period - if it's 125 tanks till 2030, than those 20 Challenger 3 that would be incorporated into UK army in 2025 will not free all that many Challenger 2 tanks.
I am pessimistic about any Challenger 2 tank leaving UK service in 2025.
nesscessity is the driver of action, strategy is words.
UK can make things happen if need is agreed by most MPs etc, and, im absolutely certain the current USA shitshow has more than highlighted 'the need'.
plus, challenger is a good seller internationally... commercial output always drives investment in tooling etc. I guess it depends how long the waiting list is for leopards, as, i doubt many non USA countries will be staying dependent upon the US long term.
i think this applies to every type of kit, not just challenger \ tanks.
can we fly F35s without USA input \ computing power and data for targetting?
I think it would be extremely hard to fully realize the potential of F35 without US.
That shows the problems with military procurement. There is no chance in hell UK may create a similar plane by itself, or even the united Europe. And yet if you can't rely on a country, you can't use its production for your military...
As a complete outsider with little knowledge of the internal machinations of Ukraine society and polity, it's hard to see what alternative there might be presently to the conundrum Ukraine faces. I am quite sure that Zelenskyy could find a way to step down without triggering an election - which is constitutionally banned in wartime - but who would replace him? Syrsky? Yermak? Plus ça change...
IF the recent cringing photo-ops mean the Allies (OK, Zombie Idiots) start getting their act together and producing more of the matériel Ukraine specifically needs, send it in a timely fashion, and keep agitating for structural reform of the armed forces, then Ukraine might just hang on till Thiel and his ilk inform their beloved leader just how much cash the US is losing by not supplying Ukraine. Especially if the Europeans manage to find a way to make their own stuff to send rather than relying on American bits...
Oh look...there's a squadron of flying pigs...and fairies at the bottom of my garden...
Not really. In art. 83 it says about the prolongation of power of current Parliament until new Parliament is reelected after the end of pre-war time only, but not for president election (art. 103), which shall be conducted in a timely manner regardless of war or pre-war time.
Pre-war time is martial law, war time is state of war, according to art. 106 of constitution of UA.
Article 83 of the constitution proscribes that the powers of the Verkhovna Rada remain until the first session of the newly elected representatives after martial law has ended.
Martial Law _specifically_ prohibits presidential elections.
Article 19 specifically prohibits:
Changing the constitution of Ukraine and Krym
Holding elections in Ukraine for Verkhovna Rada, president, local elections, plebicites, including in Krym and any other devolved areas.
Prescribes that new elections be held no later than 90 days after Martial Law ends if elections were due to be held during Martial Law.
I mean it's specific wording, it's not vague or open to interpretation.
Martial Law applies, therefore no elections can legally be held.
Article 103 does not speak about wartime elections at all, simply defines how the president is elected. Section V where this article is defines the presidential role. Article 106 #20 and #21 defines the presidents power to declare Martial Law. and state of emergency.
There is no definition of pre-war and war-time in the constitution, on the contrary, article 106 specifically mentions that the president shall impose martial law in the event of aggression:
"..adopt a decision, in accordance with law, on the general or partial mobilisation and the introduction of martial law in Ukraine or its particular territories in the event of a threat of aggression or danger to the independence of Ukraine"
I don't know where you get this idea of pre-war vs war from, it's not in the constitution of Ukraine as far as I can tell. Definitely not in article 106. The President can declare a state of war, yes, that doesn't change Martial Law - in a full out war or an invasion you will always have Martial Law for obvious reasons.
In Ukraine there is Martial Law, as defined in the law governing Martial Law, requested by the President and approved by the Verkhovna Rada. This is indisputable. Martial Law applies throughout Ukraine.
I wonder is this is a case of lost in translation, in English it's Martial Law, which could sound like it's somehow milder that Military Law - but that's what it means.
In Ukrainian it's named воєнного стану - Military Law
I can repeat. The constitution directly obliges the president with parliament to declare the State of war or Martial law in specific events.
As you cited above,
Martial law in event of threat of aggression, which is pre-war time,
State of war in the event of armed aggression - war time.
Obviously the Martial law in the war time is illegal.
If constitution says I shall run the election, but the law or code says I shall not, I will fulfill the constitution demand since it has the highest force. It's simple as that.
Martial Law is entirely legal, as spelled out directly in the Constitution, your focus on pre-war vs war is unfounded in this situation. No war has been declared.
You are interpreting the text wrong, and misquoting, I suspect because it doesn't fit your definition:
20) adopt a decision, in accordance with law, on the general or partial mobilisation and the introduction of martial law in Ukraine or its particular territories in the event of a threat of aggression or danger to the independence of Ukraine;
"or danger to the independence of Ukraine"
But it's besides the point, if you declare war you also declare a state of Martial Law. It's just that there is no specific law on state of war.
If the constitution says you should run elections, except when the law prohibits elections, you should follow that.
Which is what Ukraine is doing, this is not controversial, Poroshenko is not asking for elections, no-one in Ukraine is asking for elections, soldiers warn of the dangers that the front line will fall, only Putin and his henchmen in the US are asking for elections.
Article 19(1) of the Law of Ukraine expressly forbids elections for the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada under martial law. The Electoral Code of Ukraine also calls for the suspension of any electoral activity once martial law is declared.
Nevertheless, this could easily be amended by statutory law, so it's by no means impossible that elections might be held. Certainly some NATO countries have been pushing for this for a while, so it's not only a Kremlin propaganda ploy.
All the above is as far as I can ascertain: I am no international legal expert, as I assume you to be.
You are corect mostly, but with one remark. The law of martial law and electoral code are directly contrdicts constitution regarding elections suspension. In art. 8 the constitution says that its classes have direct acting force and have the highest force even higher than any law or code. The constitution will prevail in any case.
I'm beginning to think you are interpreting the verbiage, and what a Constitution is, wrong.
For example Martial Law - Martial Law is by definition the suspension of civil law, in Ukraine the Constitution does two things regarding Martial Law:
1 - it grants the president the right to declare Martial Law (with the approval of the Verkhovna Rada)
2 - it specifically directs that Martial Law be governed by enacted law, in Article 92 # 19.
"The following shall be determined exclusively by laws of Ukraine"
19) the legal regime of martial law and a state of emergency, zones of ecological emergency situations
Thus the Constitution explicitly grants the powers as defined in the law on Martial Law.
If you read the Constitution you will see that this is all in the context of power devolved to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, in Section IV - VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE
Article 85
Article 85. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall have the following powers:
3) adopting laws;
Martial Law is defined by a law adopted by the Verkhovna Rada, which the Constitution explicitly empower it to do.
Yes the Constitution is the highest law, but, as all constitutions, it delegates power to create laws to the the people, in Ukraine that's the Verkhovna Rada, it delegates executive power to the President.
I don't understand why you think laws enacted are not valid?
I do have to wonder how much of the present "minerals deal" will redound the benefit of Tesla and the share portfolio of Elon Musk.
Michael Kofman thinks this putative Franco-British plan is a go'er. Putative in that it excludes Putin. Kind of like the Franco-British partnership in the Crimean War. (A famously desperate affair.) But as Stalin said of the Pope, "how many divisions does he have?" Well Starmer has one or two more divisions than the Pope, and much less political legitimacy. Which brings me to another problem, which is that if the EU thinks it can find scores of billions for defense spending by squeezing the public spending in other areas, it is doing Putin's work by other means, because what you'll see as a direct consequence are parties like Reform, FN and AfD making yet more leaps and bounds.
They are all corrupt bastards and I increasingly don't see them having of a hope of organizing to beat Russia in a war of attrition on the borders of Russia.
No, Europe has the power and the means, it just lacks a unified politic will at the moment with some of the bigger states beginning to wake up. It will be a close race.
Ah the biggest irony is the story about those minerals. The USA has more of enough for themself, but it is too expensive for them to exploit their own deposits.
Not even speaking that there are pretty much no reliable information about minerals in Ukraine. There were NO geological surveys. None. Zero. Nada. For all we know there are no actual deposits which are in any way profitable to develop. I, at least, am a firm believer in "there are no actual deposits in Ukraine".
All that story about minerals was Ukrainians in preparations of US elections trying to find a way to offer something attractive to US conservatives to explain why they should spend money defending Ukraine. Because we have minerals you need to be paid back! Rare earths!! (I wouldn't even start on US public, but for some reason NOT industry specialists' obsession with rare earths. I wonder what the reason is, ha. Like, starting with "how much China actually earns for its rare earths and why no other country gives enough shiats to develop them, even though they aren't particularly, you know, rare?" The answer would likely not be what you expect.)
The agreement also specified natural resources such as hydrocarbons (any extractable natural resource, could be gravel and sand for that matter), and all related infrastructure, like ports and pipelines.
Yeah, which was probably inserted there by someone who actually knew that an idea that you can get even 5 billions of profits, not even speaking about 500 billions, from rare earth metals is ridiculous. If I was Zelensky, I would sign a deal giving ownership over every single bit of rare-earth ores in Ukrainian soil to Trump personally and laughed all the way home. At least with ports and pipelines you could actually get some money.
That said, it was not exactly a contract, but, rather, a memorandum. There were no details, everything was "for the future additional agreements". Trump doesn't need actual money, what he needs is a paper he can declare "a big win", like billions and billions of "DOGE savings". The fact that such an agreement may be very quietly denunciated at a later date, say, in 5-6 years, by Ukrainian Rada would be of no interest for Trump - after all, how US public will even learn about it?
Re Ukrainian 'mineral wealth': that's what official Kyiv claims. AFAIK, based on research by some Soviet-times geologist, and never confirmed by any independent instance.
How reliable is that...? Well, with Yermak behind every of Zelensky's moves, it's like in Lotto: 'everything is possible'...
******
The EU has the money and the industry.
As the CEO Thales said today, it needs politicians to place their fucking orders, so the industry can start manufacturing.
Essentially: the situation is exactly like with Rheinmetall for most of the last three years... and with Moron & Sartirical busy celebrating their PR-party in London, that's unlikely to change any time soon...
I have an unpleasant analogy. The flagship of the American Merchant Marine, SS United States is being towed to the Gulf of America to be sunk as a fish and diving reef. This is like the nation itself being towed by maga, veering this way, then that, losing steam, and without a rudder. Europe and Ukraine keep clear of this tow, and set your own course!
ok, lets pretend, you are right and Zelensky is incompetent and the way forward is to replace him with someone competent. hm, how do you that? there is this pecky thing called election to have. election need campaing. campaing takes time. bad things are said during the campaing. bad blood is created. how can you be sure, that the election will result in a new competent leader to replace zelensky? or you believe any new leader will be better than Zelensky? really? it is easy to rant about need to replace Zelensky like you do, but to rant you have to say how to make the change happen otherwise your rant is as irelavant as all the other pundits and analytics flooding the zone with their rants. i am afraid, we are back to square one and we have to find solution to this situation with Zelensky remaining the leader.
I sometimes wonder if what Tom wants is for Zelenskyi to get his political head out of his ass and do what's necessary, rather than what Yermak and his entourage want. He's heavily reliant on Yermak for all the non-war governing, to the point where Yermak wields far too much power over military matters.
Yermak and Syrskyi need to go, it is incompetent to keep them around when they can't deliver what's needed (and that's on Zelenskyi), they often stand in the way of reforms. Not sure SecDef Umerov is the right person either. All in all far too much politicking going on in time of war.
Yeah, I've got it so easy to rant. So much so, can tell you I'm receiving e-mails from 'colleagues' (journalists) expressing their 'jealousy' at how freely I can rant, and they cannot.
(And yes: that's serious.)
But, meh... I never said it's 'easy'.
I've never stepped down from any similar positions (see 'management'), no matter what kind of problems I've faced. Instead, I've sought for new ideas.
New ideas require new advisors. So, gauging from my own experience, I would say, OK, then he needs not stepping down: 'just' firing all/most/some of his 'advisors'. Almost certainly starting with Yermak. Because its for years they're providing BS, no advice.
I did quit when I grew dead tired of the 'system' in question, though. At least two times (these are those I can recall). Thus, if he's tired (and he does appear as exhausted, at least to me), then he should step down. Then it's not on him to pick a successor, but on Ukrainians to do so: gauging by 'development' (or, rather: 'retardation') of the last year (or so), pick, literally, any Ukrainian from the street and he or she is going to do better. Because (and contrary to what Zelensky obviously thinks about the 'Ukrainian public'), 'the people' are not stupid.
(That's serious, too. Why not picking you, Roman?)
Of course, there are other alternatives. Especially for a politician in his position. For example: invite opposition into the government: share the power, share the burden - and get fresh ideas.
Bottom line: 'anything' is better but the 'no way out'-desperation in which he's manoeuvred himself (probably thanks to Yermak).
In reality, it is not Zelensky who runs the country, but the oligarchs who put him in the presidential chair. And the mechanism for legally removing Zelensky from power is now regularly voiced on TikTok - an imaginary illness incompatible with the performance of the duties of the President and replacing him with Stefanchuk, which is in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine.
And Stefanchuk would be such a great improvement over Zelensky.
You are wrong. It would be true if Zelensky still be a legal president, but he is not, his presidential mandate has expired already, he is not a president anymore, just an ordinary citizen like anyone else in Ukraine.
Ukraine should run the election regardless of Zelensky, what he thinks or what he says. Zelensky seized the power illegally in Ukraine.
Not by Ukrainian law he's not. Ukraine can't run elections, it's specifically prohibited by their constitution.
Don't you mind to name the article of Ukrainian constitution to assert your position?
Article 83 of the constitution extends legal authorityuntil after Martial Law ends, and Article 19 of the On The Legal Regime of Martial Law legislation expressly forbids elections.
So, you couldn't find any article in constitution which prohibits the elections? Then I'm making the conclusion you are a kremlin troll which promotes democracy failure in Ukraine under the cover of war.
Art. 83 of Ukrainian constitution forbids only parliament election during martial law, which should have been imposed before the invasion, but not president election, as you claimed.
During a wartime after the invasion, according to art. 106 of UA consitution in the country shall be imposed a State of war, not the martial law, which allows all types of elections.
As the president is a supreme commander in chief of armed forces therefore should be relected in timely manner even during a martial law or state of war.
Strictly speaking Kholomoyskyi is in prison and sanctioned, not sure he's running Zelenskyi 🤔 He's the one who backed his run. Stepanchuk doesn't seem like a great idea.
And doesn't deposing a democratically elected president kinda confirm Kremlin propaganda about Ukraine and coups?
What signal does it send? I don't see any masses rising up against him, until they do any nefarious schemes will backfired spectacularly.
If the people like you or the ruzzian pupets again will conduct elections in Ukraine, you are right, there will be no competent leader to replace zelensky. You just pick another kremlin pupet and put him in bulletin, then blame the Ukrainians - "what the BS they have elected, Ukraine is a failed state, their politicians are all incompetent and corrupted and that Ukraine is a part of ruzzia"
Lincoln had elections during the Civil War. The front was something like 100 km from Washington. And his contender was his previous Super General.
While your argument is well founded, and Zelensky should get himself open to constructive critique, on point 5) his answer was I believe to a question about Lindsey Graham's infamous press conference after the Oval Office meeting and Graham's argument that Zelensky should resign. In that case I think his answer was OK, can't have a foreign official telling your head of state should resign. Became a citizen then voice your opinion on that.
That old drunkard has played at being Ukraine's best friend for years, then turns around and attacks Zelenskyi - he's a turncoat, always have been. It wasn't the most diplomatic answer tho.
I do hope I've misread something.
Here's the video of the exchange I saw that refers to Graham. Now, I'm not excluding he said something of the sort also in answer to some analyst's statement, but it's the first thing that crossed my mind since it was recent: https://x.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1896324794166951992
I did not vote for Zelensky and I agree with your criticism but what can he or somebody else do to substitute weapons only USA can provide? And surely Trump is not only incompetent but he is evidently absolutely immoral and an ally of Putler in fact. What can Zelensky do in such situation?
Re. about what to do: both Don and me, and Benjamin too, are trying to explain this for months already.
Something like 'the list of starting points' is available here for weeks already:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-155236610
And what about Patriots and missiles?
The US production of Patriots can't be increased before 2027.
The European is meanwhile ramping up, and yes: there are systems in production that are even longer-ranged than the Patriot.
Besides, who said Patriots are so 'super-turbo-great'? Sure, they're regularly, but by far not always, intercepting ballistic missiles coming their way. But, for counter-air ops: so far, there are next to no confirmed kills (except for PSU's claims, the mass of which remains unconfirmed). With other words: except for latest variants, they're 'so-so'. Definitely better than old S-300s, and even more so: better than nothing.
The issue is 'merely' to kick assess around Europe and get the zombie idiots to send better, more modern stuff to Ukraine (see Aster-30; Ukraine is already operating the Aster-15, which it's received as SAMP-T, from Italy, the last year).
According to you the situation can be managed in general. But not by Zelensky's administration.
Are you Elena Zelensky or just want to replace her?)
As written above, it can be managed by Zelensky, too - but with a new administration behind him.
From what I get to hear form Kyiv, it's Yermak who's screwing up all the time (including the today's 'apology'), and Zelensky can't ... erm... 'tie his shoelaces without Yermak's permission'. Moreover, Yermak has positioned his favourites in all the important positions. So, even if he would be fired 'right away' it would take time to 'clear the deck'.
Let me provide an alternative point of view on Yermak. I know very little about Yermak per se, I never specifically researched him, but what I can say is: Yermak is a person who is a professional politician, he is a part of political elite since, I think, 2010 at least. Ideologically he is likely (likely because Ukraine is not a country where people have clear and conscious ideologies) a slightly right-wing, pro-european, pro-US, pro-business person. He is more pro-business than nationalist, ideologically.
He knows how things done. He is, again, a professional. He worked politics when Zelensky was not even thinking about anything political.
He knows how to collect an expert group, set a task before them and get their opinion on a current problem - Zelensky doesn't. He knows how to get in contact with functionaries of foreign powers and discuss the issues behind the scenes, making grounds for eventual agreements - Zelensky has no clue. He knows how to build alliances inside Ukrainian internal political landscape and how to influence and force, say, regional elites to follow common strategy - Zelensky has no idea.
Before you say "well anyone can do that" - no. Those are very rare qualities and skills and most people in Ukrainian politics lack them.
Is he corrupt? Yes. Every Ukrainian professional politician is corrupt, there are no exceptions, it's the only way to do politics in Ukraine, at least in the past 30 years. If you want to do anything, anything at all, in Ukrainian political landscape, you need to add a bit of grease behind the scenes, or nothing will be done. I think you know "Italian strike" - anyone trying to govern Ukraine without corruption would meet tremendous resistance. And to add the grease you need to collect the grease first.
Can he be replaced? Sure. Can he be replaced with non-corrupt person? Yes, but that person would be completely clueless and ineffective. Can he be replaced with professional and effective person? Sure, but that person would be at the very least similarly corrupt and Zelensky will not even know his motivations or be accustomed to him and his ways.
I would be greatly interested in a person Ukrainians think would be able to replace Yermak as a practical, powerful, skilful, experienced, uncorrupt, professional political functionary in a functioning political cabinet. Holding my breath, so to say.
Again, as with Zelensky, do I think Yermak is good? No. For starters, his backstage diplomatic deals are often shiat and he can't, for the life of him, synchronise what he can get in the deal with what Zelensky wants from the deal, which results in Zelensky trying to re-negotiate the deal on the signing spot, which causes justifiable, hm, misunderstandings, let's call it that.
Do I know a single person who would get a better deal or control Zelensky better? No, I don't. Somebody has to run the state when head of state is being all fancy, charismatic and political. I have no idea who would do it well. In the perfect Ukraine, the one that follows its own constitution and has a functioning parliament, it would be prime minister, chosen and controlled by parliament - it's his job. Ukraine doesn't do that.
Thanks Tom. As far as I remember, in 2019, Trump also stopped the transfer of Javelins to Ukraine after Zelensky refused to hand over incriminating materials against Biden's son. So, in addition to the political component, there are also Trump's personal claims against Zelensky, which, unfortunately, are reflected throughout Ukraine.
Yup., And Zele is still apologising today... Simply a shame.
Two technical questions & an observation:
"The issue is 'merely' to kick assess around Europe and get the zombie idiots to send better, more modern stuff to Ukraine (see Aster-30; Ukraine is already operating the Aster-15, which it's received as SAMP-T, from Italy, the last year)."
*************************************************************
(1) Can the Europeans who manufacture these weapon systems and missiles produce sufficient quantities that can be supplied to Ukraine and that can replace what may end up being a lack of missiles for Ukraine's current Patriot missile systems?
When I was a drilling Naval Reservist in the 1980s I was assigned to an Engineering Duty officer reserve unit. Our C.O. at the time was the civilian the Patriot Missile project officer for White Sands Missile Range. The Patriot Missile System was in its testing stages prior to deployment to the U.S. Army and showed great promise. On one of our "away weekends" our unit received a classified tour of the White Sands Naval Weapons Station and the White Sands (Army) Patriot Missile Systems. This was in the early 1980s. The missile system obviously was not the upgraded version of today.
That system is now an old system even though upgraded. I would expect that newer European designed and produced anti-air missile systems should be more effective interceptors of aircraft and missiles than the current Patriot missile system. (2) Are they?
We don't know. There is very little data and even less data we can trust. There are, supposedly, study centres where European and American specialists supposedly receive data from Ukrainian specialists and learn the lessons of war and equipment, but we don't know what happens in those centres.
For example I still can't decide for myself if I believe the data that Russian glided bombs became less accurate, which was described with this week's report with such assuredness. I try to chase the reports to its sources and it all ends up somewhere in the void of "repeating anonymous source" or "citing Russian declaration", which is the epitome of reliability.
Yes, they can.
As the CEO Thales explained just today, they simply need ORDERS from the politics.
....not that Moron took care to react, of course...
I do wonder, though, what happens once Merz takes over? If his word is worth anything, even the orders for US-Israeli ABM/SAMs for the Sky Shield Project would be all cancelled... and, probably, replaced by Astra-30-derivatives.
Indeed, Zelensky should forget about Putin's psychotic and narcissistic Orange puppet. And by all means, quit with the submissive displays that only weaken him. The Orange feeds on weakness. Instead, Z should get his own house in order (re: his advisors and military reform) and rely on Europe and Ukraine's own domestic production.
>> That answer was in style of (from memory): the person in question can come to live in Ukraine, take Ukrainian citizenship and then Zelensky is going to listen to him…
- I believe that interview was in Ukrainain and involved a pun as we have the same word for "voice" and "vote". The meaning would be something like "if he wants his voice to matter, he can become a citizen of Ukraine to vote" IIRC.
Zelenski has an obsession with this trope of coming to Ukraine.
If you don't come to Ukraine you can not discuss any event or solution.
It doesn't master if people have good advices or expertize. They must prove they share physical danger before opening their mouth.
I suspect it's more along the lines of giving people a real feel for what's going on.
Prime ministers and other ministers from across Europe has been and seen and felt, many of them have had to go into shelters due to attacks by Russia.
It's quite something to experience vs watching a youtube video or listening to some right wing propagandist online. Vance is openly hostile to Ukraine and has learned, according to him, by 'watching the videos of what you do' - ie hasn't got a clue.
There's another country that does this as routine.
No state or official visit to Israel can get underway until there's been a visit to the Holocaust museum. I say this not to belittle or denigrate the Holocaust and its evils, nor Israel, merely pointing out that 'seeing is believing'. There is power in seeing first hand the remnants and belongings of the murdered. You can read that ten million people were killed, but this is an abstract number for a human brain, we're not equipped to understand that in real terms, we are however able to process what we see.
In my country teenagers in school visit concentration camps as part of their education, to show them what happened, and can happen, when the guardrails come off.
The movie A Real Pain that just won Kieran McKulkin an Oscar, was partially filmed in a concentration camp, when you see the stores full of someone's shoes, knowing what happened to those people, when you see the ovens, that's visceral in a way no amount of reading can prepare you for.
The reason for inviting politicians to visit Kyiv, and give them the opportunity (they're invited, but who would say no?) to see Bucha or Irpin, is to enable them to empathize with Ukrainians, to experience the country under siege, and to see with their own eyes what the Russians have done.
Those same politicians also get to see how the day to day lives of people in Kyiv are, get to see first hand how the country's leaders go about their day.
For sure it's part of the political work they do, but that's the day to day work of any country - part and parcel of diplomacy, the politicians that visit know this.
You can call it propaganda, as Vance did, but isn't all government messaging propaganda when it comes down to it? There's no lie in what the Ukrainian government is doing, unlike the Russian or American messaging.
As to shared physical danger, it can create a powerful connection, but there's _no_ shared danger if someone like Vance visits - it's all coordinated, the Americans tell the Russians so and so is coming, no attacks on Kyiv today 'or else'. The Russians have no desire to kill a US politician or some European head of state.
This is also part of why the Ukrainians want heads of state or powerful politicians to visit, they function as shields, during the visits they can expect some quiet from the never ending Russian attacks.
This visit obsesion is kind of arrogant.
You must visit Ukraine before you talk. But if you visit Russia or Crimeea your are a traitor or assasin. Grossi is always a black sheep în Ukraine.
So you can discuss Ukraine only if you visit Ukraine and if you don't criticise Ukraine. Because any critique will hurt the Ukrainian morale or show some vulnerability for the Russians.
So communications with Ukraine must be în the form of kow-tows delivered în person în Kyiv.
So because he called out Vances total ignorance it's an obsession?
And yes, if anyone illegally visits occupied Ukraine, thereby de facto, if not de jure, acknowledges russian control, that is something Kyiv takes very seriously. It's been illegal since Poroshenko.
But to reply to your non-reply.
There is no visit before you talk rule, that's something you've inferred.
Sure they want people to visit, for the reasons I laid out.
And sure, sometimes a lack of a visit is pointed out, usually when someone is talking gibberish about something they don't know our understand. Come to Kyiv and see for yourself.
Nothing wrong with that, you know the old saying 'walk a mile in their shoes'.
If someone knows nothing but what some propagandist told them then yes, a visit may disabuse them of their ignorance.
There is no rule yet this visit argument is repeated continuosly.
And if Vance mentions real issues with Ukrainian conscription than they are gibberish. Because you can not criticise Ukrainian recruiters who kidnap and beat-up civilians.
Yes, Vance and Trump want to throw Ukraine unde the bus. And Trump wants to pay back and humiliate Zelenski. And Trumps really likes Putin.
But Trump and Vance don't lie about Ukraine. What they say is true and well known except the 350 billion thing.
Trump and Vance lie continuously about Ukraine. Easily dispelled by even a rudimentary knowledge of Ukraine and Russia, and their history.
I don't like it when you're right about appeasement, but I agree.
I am not sure I agree that Zelenskyi went there to sign the serfdom papers unaltered, I think he hoped, or was led to believe, there was wiggle room to add in 'something', and I don't believe he he had any choice.
Had he not gone 47 would have used that too, the result was a foregone conclusion. The US reaction would have been the same, but now at least Europe sees 47 and Vance more clearly.
Whoever advised him to go, without translators, without strong prep, should be fired, if the goal was to gain something from the US.
The problem is that it may well have been Macron or Starmer who told him to go - to 'mend ties' as it were. 'Go and charm him, he may still come around' - I can well believe they'd be that naive.
They're both hopelessly lost up their own asses, still believe a deal can be made. It boggles the mind that our politicians, after so many years, can't see the plainly obvious.
The translator issue may have been arrogance by Zelenskyi or poor advise, or maybe Trump doesn't like translators, I don't know - it was ill advised nonetheless.
The train wreck truly got underway when 47 corrected Zelenskyi on when Russia first invaded (47 said 2015, Zelenskyi should have kept quiet) - his diplomats and advisors should have warned him about ever correcting 47 and Vance.
For all his charm and boyishness, Zelenskyi doesn't appear to have learned the art of diplomacy and sucking up to the powerful. Or maybe three years of full scale war has taken away his tolerance of bullshit - if that's so he should have been advised to not go.
It's led to a shakeout, and I wonder how we'll look back at this in ten years time, if we're going to be talking about it as refugees in northern Africa or Turkie, or in the comfort of our own homes.
Macron & Starmer have been utterly naive. Starmer even advised UK parliament that Trump would not pull support from Ukraine just hours before he did exactly that.
I don't know... they seem to be pushing against our understanding of current realities in such a stark way that I fear they know something we don't... possibly about nuclear deterrence? Merz might be the one that is ignorantly courageous. But I hope not.
Hehe - Merz hasn't discovered yet that the easiest way to lead a spineless electorate is to be a spineless leader.
Yes. The "plainly obvious" is that the US president was always going to abandon Ukraine and sell out the US to Putin. Europe has only one rational choice, begin to rearm and support Ukraine with military kit to the maximum extent possible and then some. You can't make a deal with the Russians until they are facing catastrophic defeat. It's not all; that complicated.
Trump is very much like Putin in that they, along with their syncophants, really only want one thing. To remain in power forever, with impunity. They are so transparent that it is astonishing that so many seemingly intelligent people remain blind. Nothing they commit to is honored if it interferes with what they want. They do this over and over and over. I do not understand, or do not want to understand why, so many people do not notice this! Lord of the Flies is a terrifying example of this phenomena and, if there is no cure, we are truely fucked.
One has to ask, how much of the estimation of mineral wealth was done during Soviet time when "good news" was the only news? Could be much ado about nothing.
Yep, Grahor made that exact argument, it also includes hydrocarbons and infrastructure, but only for new projects.
There was an article in NYP that it was Ermak who insisted on visiting US and Zelensky signing the deal with Trump as opposed to just Rubio and Sebiha. I agree 100% with your opinion re Zelensky but I dont really know what could be done here, my best plan is to Virgin Mary to come to Ermak in the dreams and change his mind to a proper ways, or maybe alien invasion, other than that I dont really see how to change the way things go.
Oh, wouldn't be surprised if it was Yermak. People 'within circles' of Kyiv say, Zelensky can't... well, lets say 'tie his shoelaces without Yermak's permission'.
There's an obvious offramp here, throw Yermak under the bus, blame the entire debacle on him, could work in the US, and at home where he's not popular. With the silver lining of getting his hands off the military. But the entire Presidents Office is manned by Yermak acolytes from what I understand. Don't think they have enough time to do that tho, and I'm not sure 47 has the temperament to accept such an offering.
Thank you so much, Tom.
If the putative “coalition of the willing” (why oh why has this drivel resurfaced?) wants to do something effective for Ukraine, what's required is a plausible THREAT to Putin. How a disparate collection of self-interested politicians might accomplish that is beyond me. They're still trying to formulate a mode of capitulation that President Krasnov might accept.
As for Zelensky, none of my Ukrainian friends voted for him but I don't see that a savage critique contributes much. The immediate problem is how to supply Ukraine with sufficient resources to survive. And I don't even see how this can be achieved organisationally, even if there's a consensus on what to do. Expelling USA, Hungary and Slovakia from NATO might work.... a pity that without US resources the whole structure would disintegrate.
The current minimum requirement is a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
How about enough with empty promises, and actually doing something?
How about increasing taxes for super-rich (and seriously combating tax-evasion), so to have enough money to contract the 'defence sector' to (seriously) ramp up its production, construct new factories, create millions of new jobs (thus start earning yet more from taxes), and then deliver all or most of that to Ukraine?
Who would have ever thought, right...?
Increasing taxes?
I'd go one further and cap wealth entirely. No more billionaires.
If you have more than 20 million or so the tax code will simply collect the surplus wealth for redistribution.
There is no point to having someone have that much power. No point at all. These people are leeches, they are using their money only to actively hurt everyone else. They could have solved poverty decades ago. The fact that they didn't implies that they are not keeping their end of the bargain and allowing them such control over resources is detrimental.
I just became a big fan of yours (and that's serious).
(Have always considered my way of thinking in this regards for 'too leftist', even 'extreme'... )
I just have to add, before we have started full-blown Marxist-Leninist revolution right here, that I am definitely not a fan of left-wing ideology like capping of wealth and so on. While I'm definitely far to the left of, say, US political spectrum, you, people, are too left even for me. :) I consider even you to be "extreme", while "Law As Code" seems positively Stalinist for me. :)
Just a friendly reminder that people, while having similar views in one are, may differ in others, and in particular left-wing ideas are not yet the norm even here. :)
Yes, can perfectly understand that I do come over as a 'Leftist'.
Actually, I'm not the least one: I consider myself 'a sober, Central-European centrist'. Capitalism is perfectly fine with me - as long as carefully controlled.
Leaving aside Zelensky and Trump, the real idiots are the European “heads” of states busy preparing a peace plan! Much a do about nothing … and their “peace plan” is to tell Zelensky/Ukraine to accept in a polite manner Trump’s plan so they can save first and foremost their faces.
Trumps plan was to make Ukraine the bad guy that does not want peace. The European peace plan is a plan that Putin will not accept, and then they play the ball back at Trump and gain some time to figure out what to do.
Let's say one works 100s of hours, days, weeks, months, to come up with a fix to a problem. They explain that fix. Most people aren't interested. The few that are interested say, "Yes, I think you're onto something!" Then what? Other people, with less of an interest, or less knowledge about the situation, look at the fix and criticize it, or say it is just wrong. So you try to educated them about the pieces they don't understand. But they disappear. That gets tiring.
I'm not talking down to you, I'm telling you MY problem. If I get emotional about people calling me wrong I begin to play tennis on their level, so to speak. I use words like "desperate" without explaining specifically what the person is desperate for. I call people incompetent, without have a full window into the problems they're dealing with.
I've taken the cowards way out I guess by writing less. You guys continue to write. So again, I'm not saying you're wrong or you should do things this way or that.
I just read Keynes "Consequences of the Treaty..." He explained why WWII would result from an onerous treaty. Many people read the book at the time. There were people who understand. Just like there are many people who understand what you've been explaining.
Why do you believe this time is different? That your explanation will be adopted and WW3 averted?
Yeats:
All perform their tragic play,
There struts Hamlet, there is Lear,
That's Ophelia, that Cordelia;
Yet they, should the last scene be there,
The great stage curtain about to drop,
If worthy their prominent part in the play,
Do not break up their lines to weep.
They know that Hamlet and Lear are gay;
Gaiety transfiguring all that dread.
All men have aimed at, found and lost;
Black out; Heaven blazing into the head:
Tragedy wrought to its uttermost.
Though Hamlet rambles and Lear rages,
And all the drop scenes drop at once
Upon a hundred thousand stages,
It cannot grow by an inch or an ounce.
Zele had to go to d.c and see what comes of it .. he got his answer and now he know their position and can take decisions based on this . Yes he was ill prepared for that meeting only needed to meditate a bit before and let the clowns bable but he had to go and see where he is... he is not perfect and do believe he has the power to adapt and evolve just its not going to happen in 1 day ... still think that without him in feb 22 ukrainians would scatter and capitulate , he gave them unity and hope , they are still in this because of him. And ok the situation has gotten way over his head but future is impredictable and humans have some amazing capacity for adversity ... so fuck trump fuck maga and elon and musk .. this idiost will remain in history for the clowns that they are
Thanks Tom. I’m a fan and still “happy” to read your assessments, even if they are tough to take at times.
As for Zelenskyi, I think he was left in a no-win position. To go placed him in an unenviable position of either accepting a shitty deal or being the target of the take down we all saw. (I reckon that Trumps team would see a “win” either way so we’re happy to wing it.
The rest of the Europeans have similar tough choices. They want to buy as much time either way US support to rebuild whatever defences they haven’t over the last several years. The likely cost will be courting an aggressive US government that feels comfortable about interfering in elections, those in power and will rescind agreements at will.
At some point soon, they all need to swallow the bitter pill and fight back!
I hear you, i see yiur frustration. i cant see how Ukrainian resistance is improved by changing leadership right now, and, bejng pragmatic \ realist, Putin would be almost certain to iinstall a puppet, the risk is VERY high, more than 50% i would have thought.
the only solution i see is MORE, BETTER, FASTER military aid from everyone whi remains supporters.
and this aid nees to have ZERO restrictions on use. ZERO.
its ridiculous that non US NATO countries have stocks of stuff that is even considered. for example, storm shadow, how many have UK sent? 50? 100 max? we built 937 of them, and, i read somewhere that a lot of them are due to reach expury date soon.
these weapons are already PAID for. they already need to be be replaced, and the budgets for this exist already. the only excuse for not sending them is weakness.
As far as I know, plenty of them have reached the point where they are more or less useless without refurbishing. But it's hardly very important. The problem with Storm Shadows is not the numbers, but what would Ukraine use them against?
They are supposed to be used against heavily fortified targets. Ukraine has used them against Russian naval headquarters, but other than that... They are useless against infantry of mech corps. They could be used against heavily fortified ammo dumps but Russians don't do heavy fortifications and drone would do fine here. They are useful against command bunkers which Russians generally have none; it is usually a common building used as headquarters so why use expensive missiles?
Storm Shadow susceptible to interception so they are used together with lots of drones to soften Russian anti-air defence... but if you have already softened it and have lots of drones, why waste a Storm Shadow where cheap drone will do?
That said, I would certainly not be against more missiles sent to Ukraine, but it would hardly change anything.
Most Ukrainian losses happens, from what I can tell, from close infantry combat, and the way to change it is 1) better command and control structure 2) more infantry on the ground, for obvious reasons 3) better multilayered defence lines. None of it can be fixed by more weapons.
Exactly.
Moreover, Ukraine is meanwhile manufacturing its own 'mini-cruise missiles': these are merely ground-launched, instead of requiring Su-24s or Mirages.
i simply used storm shadow as an example of weapons stored up and already due for replacement, and, that there are many if them about to go into recycling.
eu and Uk need to make more of everything, we know that, but, the weapons we have will be of no use in 2, 3, 4 years time, they are about to expire anyway.
these weapons \ ammunition where made for the purpose of defending against RU anyway.
Challenger 2 is neing replaced with challenger 3. we have lots of them left. again, this isnt really extra expenditure.
It is absolutely true that EU and UK need to make more of everything. Even more important, mil-industry complex have to be developed more; but it is very hard for a single country to develop mil-ind, it is much more reasonable to develop capabilities for everyone, but you need common military procurement for it, and that means pretty much common military, and it is impossible in the current structure of EU.
Thus we need, kind of... imperialise... To have separate countries to lose a bit of sovereignty. But UK is not going to do it, is it? Brexit and shiat. :(
As for Challenger 2/3 specifically, I'm not sure about it at all. So far, Challenger 3 deliveries are only planned for 2025. And only 125 tanks are ordered, and it is not said over what period - if it's 125 tanks till 2030, than those 20 Challenger 3 that would be incorporated into UK army in 2025 will not free all that many Challenger 2 tanks.
I am pessimistic about any Challenger 2 tank leaving UK service in 2025.
nesscessity is the driver of action, strategy is words.
UK can make things happen if need is agreed by most MPs etc, and, im absolutely certain the current USA shitshow has more than highlighted 'the need'.
plus, challenger is a good seller internationally... commercial output always drives investment in tooling etc. I guess it depends how long the waiting list is for leopards, as, i doubt many non USA countries will be staying dependent upon the US long term.
i think this applies to every type of kit, not just challenger \ tanks.
can we fly F35s without USA input \ computing power and data for targetting?
I think it would be extremely hard to fully realize the potential of F35 without US.
That shows the problems with military procurement. There is no chance in hell UK may create a similar plane by itself, or even the united Europe. And yet if you can't rely on a country, you can't use its production for your military...
As a complete outsider with little knowledge of the internal machinations of Ukraine society and polity, it's hard to see what alternative there might be presently to the conundrum Ukraine faces. I am quite sure that Zelenskyy could find a way to step down without triggering an election - which is constitutionally banned in wartime - but who would replace him? Syrsky? Yermak? Plus ça change...
IF the recent cringing photo-ops mean the Allies (OK, Zombie Idiots) start getting their act together and producing more of the matériel Ukraine specifically needs, send it in a timely fashion, and keep agitating for structural reform of the armed forces, then Ukraine might just hang on till Thiel and his ilk inform their beloved leader just how much cash the US is losing by not supplying Ukraine. Especially if the Europeans manage to find a way to make their own stuff to send rather than relying on American bits...
Oh look...there's a squadron of flying pigs...and fairies at the bottom of my garden...
You are wrong, elections are not constitutionally banned in wartime in Ukraine. What you have heard is misinformation or pro ruzz propaganda obviously
Correct. The constitution allows their postponement but does not require it.
Not really. In art. 83 it says about the prolongation of power of current Parliament until new Parliament is reelected after the end of pre-war time only, but not for president election (art. 103), which shall be conducted in a timely manner regardless of war or pre-war time.
Pre-war time is martial law, war time is state of war, according to art. 106 of constitution of UA.
This is simply not true.
Article 83 of the constitution proscribes that the powers of the Verkhovna Rada remain until the first session of the newly elected representatives after martial law has ended.
Martial Law _specifically_ prohibits presidential elections.
Article 19 specifically prohibits:
Changing the constitution of Ukraine and Krym
Holding elections in Ukraine for Verkhovna Rada, president, local elections, plebicites, including in Krym and any other devolved areas.
Prescribes that new elections be held no later than 90 days after Martial Law ends if elections were due to be held during Martial Law.
I mean it's specific wording, it's not vague or open to interpretation.
Martial Law applies, therefore no elections can legally be held.
Article 103 does not speak about wartime elections at all, simply defines how the president is elected. Section V where this article is defines the presidential role. Article 106 #20 and #21 defines the presidents power to declare Martial Law. and state of emergency.
There is no definition of pre-war and war-time in the constitution, on the contrary, article 106 specifically mentions that the president shall impose martial law in the event of aggression:
"..adopt a decision, in accordance with law, on the general or partial mobilisation and the introduction of martial law in Ukraine or its particular territories in the event of a threat of aggression or danger to the independence of Ukraine"
I don't know where you get this idea of pre-war vs war from, it's not in the constitution of Ukraine as far as I can tell. Definitely not in article 106. The President can declare a state of war, yes, that doesn't change Martial Law - in a full out war or an invasion you will always have Martial Law for obvious reasons.
In Ukraine there is Martial Law, as defined in the law governing Martial Law, requested by the President and approved by the Verkhovna Rada. This is indisputable. Martial Law applies throughout Ukraine.
I wonder is this is a case of lost in translation, in English it's Martial Law, which could sound like it's somehow milder that Military Law - but that's what it means.
In Ukrainian it's named воєнного стану - Military Law
I can repeat. The constitution directly obliges the president with parliament to declare the State of war or Martial law in specific events.
As you cited above,
Martial law in event of threat of aggression, which is pre-war time,
State of war in the event of armed aggression - war time.
Obviously the Martial law in the war time is illegal.
If constitution says I shall run the election, but the law or code says I shall not, I will fulfill the constitution demand since it has the highest force. It's simple as that.
Martial Law is entirely legal, as spelled out directly in the Constitution, your focus on pre-war vs war is unfounded in this situation. No war has been declared.
You are interpreting the text wrong, and misquoting, I suspect because it doesn't fit your definition:
20) adopt a decision, in accordance with law, on the general or partial mobilisation and the introduction of martial law in Ukraine or its particular territories in the event of a threat of aggression or danger to the independence of Ukraine;
"or danger to the independence of Ukraine"
But it's besides the point, if you declare war you also declare a state of Martial Law. It's just that there is no specific law on state of war.
If the constitution says you should run elections, except when the law prohibits elections, you should follow that.
Which is what Ukraine is doing, this is not controversial, Poroshenko is not asking for elections, no-one in Ukraine is asking for elections, soldiers warn of the dangers that the front line will fall, only Putin and his henchmen in the US are asking for elections.
Which side does that put me on?
Article 19(1) of the Law of Ukraine expressly forbids elections for the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada under martial law. The Electoral Code of Ukraine also calls for the suspension of any electoral activity once martial law is declared.
Nevertheless, this could easily be amended by statutory law, so it's by no means impossible that elections might be held. Certainly some NATO countries have been pushing for this for a while, so it's not only a Kremlin propaganda ploy.
All the above is as far as I can ascertain: I am no international legal expert, as I assume you to be.
You are corect mostly, but with one remark. The law of martial law and electoral code are directly contrdicts constitution regarding elections suspension. In art. 8 the constitution says that its classes have direct acting force and have the highest force even higher than any law or code. The constitution will prevail in any case.
I'm beginning to think you are interpreting the verbiage, and what a Constitution is, wrong.
For example Martial Law - Martial Law is by definition the suspension of civil law, in Ukraine the Constitution does two things regarding Martial Law:
1 - it grants the president the right to declare Martial Law (with the approval of the Verkhovna Rada)
2 - it specifically directs that Martial Law be governed by enacted law, in Article 92 # 19.
"The following shall be determined exclusively by laws of Ukraine"
19) the legal regime of martial law and a state of emergency, zones of ecological emergency situations
Thus the Constitution explicitly grants the powers as defined in the law on Martial Law.
If you read the Constitution you will see that this is all in the context of power devolved to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, in Section IV - VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE
Article 85
Article 85. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall have the following powers:
3) adopting laws;
Martial Law is defined by a law adopted by the Verkhovna Rada, which the Constitution explicitly empower it to do.
Yes the Constitution is the highest law, but, as all constitutions, it delegates power to create laws to the the people, in Ukraine that's the Verkhovna Rada, it delegates executive power to the President.
I don't understand why you think laws enacted are not valid?
I do have to wonder how much of the present "minerals deal" will redound the benefit of Tesla and the share portfolio of Elon Musk.
Michael Kofman thinks this putative Franco-British plan is a go'er. Putative in that it excludes Putin. Kind of like the Franco-British partnership in the Crimean War. (A famously desperate affair.) But as Stalin said of the Pope, "how many divisions does he have?" Well Starmer has one or two more divisions than the Pope, and much less political legitimacy. Which brings me to another problem, which is that if the EU thinks it can find scores of billions for defense spending by squeezing the public spending in other areas, it is doing Putin's work by other means, because what you'll see as a direct consequence are parties like Reform, FN and AfD making yet more leaps and bounds.
They are all corrupt bastards and I increasingly don't see them having of a hope of organizing to beat Russia in a war of attrition on the borders of Russia.
No, Europe has the power and the means, it just lacks a unified politic will at the moment with some of the bigger states beginning to wake up. It will be a close race.
Ah the biggest irony is the story about those minerals. The USA has more of enough for themself, but it is too expensive for them to exploit their own deposits.
Not even speaking that there are pretty much no reliable information about minerals in Ukraine. There were NO geological surveys. None. Zero. Nada. For all we know there are no actual deposits which are in any way profitable to develop. I, at least, am a firm believer in "there are no actual deposits in Ukraine".
All that story about minerals was Ukrainians in preparations of US elections trying to find a way to offer something attractive to US conservatives to explain why they should spend money defending Ukraine. Because we have minerals you need to be paid back! Rare earths!! (I wouldn't even start on US public, but for some reason NOT industry specialists' obsession with rare earths. I wonder what the reason is, ha. Like, starting with "how much China actually earns for its rare earths and why no other country gives enough shiats to develop them, even though they aren't particularly, you know, rare?" The answer would likely not be what you expect.)
Well, that worked out flawlessly anyway.
The agreement also specified natural resources such as hydrocarbons (any extractable natural resource, could be gravel and sand for that matter), and all related infrastructure, like ports and pipelines.
Yeah, which was probably inserted there by someone who actually knew that an idea that you can get even 5 billions of profits, not even speaking about 500 billions, from rare earth metals is ridiculous. If I was Zelensky, I would sign a deal giving ownership over every single bit of rare-earth ores in Ukrainian soil to Trump personally and laughed all the way home. At least with ports and pipelines you could actually get some money.
That said, it was not exactly a contract, but, rather, a memorandum. There were no details, everything was "for the future additional agreements". Trump doesn't need actual money, what he needs is a paper he can declare "a big win", like billions and billions of "DOGE savings". The fact that such an agreement may be very quietly denunciated at a later date, say, in 5-6 years, by Ukrainian Rada would be of no interest for Trump - after all, how US public will even learn about it?
Yep, I would much prefer the agreement just mentioning rare earth, let them go wild looking for them 😜
Correct.
There are no dates so it is more like a letter of intent.
Donnie can wave it to his MAGAs as a great success as they swallow anything
Re Ukrainian 'mineral wealth': that's what official Kyiv claims. AFAIK, based on research by some Soviet-times geologist, and never confirmed by any independent instance.
How reliable is that...? Well, with Yermak behind every of Zelensky's moves, it's like in Lotto: 'everything is possible'...
******
The EU has the money and the industry.
As the CEO Thales said today, it needs politicians to place their fucking orders, so the industry can start manufacturing.
Essentially: the situation is exactly like with Rheinmetall for most of the last three years... and with Moron & Sartirical busy celebrating their PR-party in London, that's unlikely to change any time soon...
This is a very interesting article and I am willing to throw my 5 cents into the ring, which will result in a long answer.
1) I agree with allmost everything, but
a) There is no realistic way to do an election now during war time, as the people in the occupied
parts cannot vote. Zelensky has his limits, his merits and his faults. If one watches the video
closely, one can see how his mood did change several times and how nervous he was (hint
watch his hands). So Ukraine will have to go on on this bitter road till the end with him as a
president.
b) Of course some want him out of office, because they think it would serve their agenda better,
like Gollum and the orange man.
2) I know non of the persons personally, so I will stay silent about who would be a better person for
which job. But that doesn't stop me from calling an incompetent person an incompetent one.
3) Now to the bigger picture, where Ukraine is only a piece of the puzzle (sorry if I hurt any feelings,
this is not my intention, buth truth is an unloved child):
a) By now it should be cleear to everyone with a working brain we are on a big turning ponit in
history, as the world we are used to is gone and never will come back again. I don't know how
the 'new' world will look like, but there will be winners and losers as usual in history.
b) The biggest loser will be the USA. Their dominance comes to an end, because the stupid orange
man wages war in different forms on his allies and tries to embrace his foes. That reminds me
how Byzanz did construct it's own down fall (history doesn't repeat itself, it is the human
stupidity which repeats itself with the usual consequences).
c) The fate of Ukraine & Europe are one and the same. Either they do together what has to be done
to survive or they will go down together and it doesn't matter if there are a few years of
difference for some single states.
4) Some of the consequences: Europe has to wake up from it's decandence and parasitic slumber
of being a cheap freeloader in global politics. Again here, do it or be done.
That means a complete own weapon industry, which has to be independent from everyone else.
Fuck the USA with it's stupid and greedy government. And Europe needs it's own nuclear
umbrella. The USA are close to a financial implosion. There is no reason for Europe to delay it by
supporting the American industry. They decided finally to piss on it's allies, so they should face
the consequences. If one realizes that the fall is unavoidable, one has to roll.
NATO is dead now, Europe needs it's own regional alliance system. Again do it or be done.
The dice has been thrown, but hasn't landed yet.
I have an unpleasant analogy. The flagship of the American Merchant Marine, SS United States is being towed to the Gulf of America to be sunk as a fish and diving reef. This is like the nation itself being towed by maga, veering this way, then that, losing steam, and without a rudder. Europe and Ukraine keep clear of this tow, and set your own course!