Military genius, a winning diplomatic move, or just a man baby seeking revenge on President Zelenskyy for not saying “thank you,” President Trump’s decision today to pause all military aid to Ukraine marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. With far-reaching ramifications. It follows a “contentious Oval Office clash” with Zelenskyy on February 28.
So what is likely to happen next, and for whom? What are the likely ramifications, and for whom? They vary:
For Ukraine
Military Vulnerability: Ukraine relies heavily on U.S. military aid – $65.9 billion since 2022, with billions in weapons like air defence systems and artillery still in the pipeline. A halt could deplete stockpiles within six months. Russian advances could “accelerate,” especially in Donbas, where Ukraine lost ground during a 2024 aid lag.
Civilian Impact: Paused aid weakens Ukraine’s ability to counter Russian air attacks and it’s not difficult to predict more effective Russian bombings, hitting infrastructure – as they have always done – and increasing civilian casualties. Kyiv’s Patriot missile reserves, critical against drones and missiles, could conceivably run dry.
Economic Strain: The minerals deal with the U.S., meant to offset war costs, is now in jeopardy. Ukraine’s wartime economy, already stretched, faces further pressure without this financial lifeline.
Negotiation Pressure: Trump’s move, tied to demands for Zelenskyy to commit to peace talks could force Ukraine into concessions – like territorial losses – to Russia, weakening its bargaining power.
For Russia
Strategic Advantage: A U.S. pullback strengthens Russia’s hand and they may exploit this to sabotage the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal, securing economic and territorial gains.
Emboldened Aggression: This one is bleeding obvious, with Ukraine’s defences waning, Russia could intensify its offensive, targeting key regions. This aligns with Trump’s past praise of Putin, potentially signaling U.S. tolerance of Russian expansion.
For the United States
Alliance Strain: European allies, rattled by Trump’s decision, are doubling down on support. Britain and France, meeting Zelenskyy in London on March 2, pushed a “coalition of the willing” (where have we heard that before?) for peacekeeping, but – I assume – without U.S. backing.
Domestic Fallout: Politically, Trump faces a GOP clash – Congress approved $170 billion in aid, and halting shipments could spark legal battles over emergency powers like the Defense Production Act. Public opinion splits: MAGA would cheer this decision, but a slight majority of Americans favour Zelenskyy, suggesting – I expect – backlash from Ukraine supporters.
Global Standing: The halt, alongside Trump’s NATO threats, signals an isolationist turn. This could erode U.S. credibility, emboldening adversaries like China or Iran, while allies pivot to Europe or self-reliance.
For Europe
Increased Burden: Europe, already committing €132 billion, can’t fully replace U.S. aid. Could this stall EU unity, forcing reliance on ad-hoc coalitions?
Peacekeeping Risks: Britain’s Keir Starmer offered troops for a ceasefire, but without U.S. support, this risks overextension or direct confrontation with Russia, which rejects foreign boots on the ground.
Broader Geopolitical Shifts
Peace Talks Dynamics: Trump’s push for peace, excluding Ukraine from initial talks may hasten a settlement but likely on Putin’s terms. Zelenskyy’s “far away” peace comment enraged Trump, suggesting a miscalculation that fuelled the aid cut.
Long-Term Precedent: This could deter future U.S. aid commitments globally, especially if Trump’s review deems them misaligned with his “America First” agenda. It’s feasible that some allies like might adjust strategies accordingly.
Further Uncertainty
I predict a brewing storm: protests, Democratic fury, and MAGA applause. How long the pause in providing military aid lasts is anybody’s guess. Maybe we’ll know more after Trump’s address to Congress tomorrow (our time). Even if he resumes military aid, could the damage already be done? If he doesn’t resume aid, we can say goodbye to Ukraine.
In short, Trump’s decision risks tipping the Russia-Ukraine war toward Moscow, straining U.S. alliances, and reshaping global power – while testing his domestic support against a backdrop of economic and moral stakes. The next few days will clarify how deep the fallout runs.
See also: Sleeping with the enemy
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
So, Trump stops military aid to Ukraine and Netanyahu blocks humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Birds of a Feather !
MICHAEL TAYLOR
Onya Michael, for this prescient overview that is soooooooooo important !
Maybe Zelenskyy could ask Russia for military supplies …only delivered by road and rail, rather than drone , rocket and artillery.In return Zelenskyy would stop dealing with the orange lunatic, and the logistics make much more sense,Russia being a lot closer,and Vlad wouldn’t want to be pounded with his own weapons.
Peace would be upon us..it’s a win win .
Now, about that Israeli war criminal…
I name this creature President Donald Nasty Spiteful Petulant Vile Child Donald.
I name this creature President Donald Nasty Spiteful Petulant Vile Child Donald. (Dunks thing in font full of bilious green foul slime and almost forgets it’s there when mobile rings.)
What will happen next?
There’s no point in asking that question until people have a clear understanding of what has already happened.
It’s clear from quite a few of the comments here over the past few days that this is not happening. Many people do not realise what’s happened.
What happened is that NATO wanted to extend Russia for political and financial reasons but they miscalculated. They assumed that the Russian economy was weak, that sanctions would bring it to its knees, even though they knew in 2021 that it had the 4th largest economy in the world. And very resilient.
Economic realities somehow did not work their way up into political discourse. The masses were shielded from reality.
How could such a huge mistake happen?
They relied on economic data to paint a false picture.
The entire global financial system they set up is a vast casino operating 24/7, but these geniuses relied on data they knew was dodgy.
Things like GDP that always portrayed Russia as struggling to keep up.
When even the CIA does not have any regard for GDP, and rightly so.
Here’s a humorous but accurate take on how GDP works.
I pay you $40 to wash my car.
You pay me $40 to mow your lawn.
Bingo, we have created $80 of “wealth” aka GDP, but the resulting “product” part of “Gross Domestic Product” is a bag of grass clippings and a bucket of dirty water.
That is not a fantasy.
US GDP figures look good because if my memory is correct, non-productive elements such as rents and interest payments are included.
So what has happened is that the US finally woke up that they miscalculated Russian resilience and now they want out. If it had not happened under Trump it would have happened somewhere down the line.
When people have that clear in their mind, they’ll be in a position to consider what will happen next.
I’m not sure, with Steve Davis, that the USA would want out of this war, even in a situation beyond Trump. The USA has not shown, in the wars post WW2, any keenness to get out of war, even when there’s a stalemate, or they seem to be losing, In the past, it was probably loss of American lives that embarrassed the government into negotiation or withdrawal. In the Vietnam war, they made the mistake of letting television expose the carnage. The war-mongering mindset is strong in America, and they would probably plan on winning this one somehow with futuristic technology and no USA blood spilt. On the one hand Ukraine, taking the human toll for the West, is supposed to beat the “oh so weakened Russia”, while at the same time we’re supposed to believe that the “powerful monster Russia” is about to overrun Europe. Therefore the fight must go on indefinitely, so that NATO military bases can be setup in Ukraine. Ukraine’s membership of NATO is apparently a fetish worth millions of Ukrainian lives. There seems to be no thought that a reasonable negotiation could take place, before it all gets even worse.
Steve, what do you mean by the phrase “… NATO wanted to extend Russia”?
Fun fact: Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe, after Russia. Yet its area is only 75% that of New South Wales. POV is significant, either Ukraine is quite small or NSW is quite large.
One is not so pessimistic, as Europe and other nations have been helping Ukraine with armaments for three years, and will tell the US and Russia to quite rightly, f’off.
On supplying armaments, Europe is about parity with the US (latter spends domestically to replace expiring munitions etc.), but on intangible technical and social support, Europe does far more overall.
Despite it’s alleged ‘unlimited resources’ Russia has been hurting and desperate for a ceasefire or an end of their war upon their terms, with the support of their ally the US (after Hamas-Netanyahu helpfully kicked off in ’23); while requiring North Korean soldiers, armaments etc.
Defence analysts writing under the descriptor ‘Sarcastosaurus’ based in Poland, Austrai and Ukraine, for balance they also cynically view Ukraine’s leadership as simply less incompetent than Russia’s, recent report:
‘Russian Military Setbacks, Economic Strains, Demographic Crisis, Internal Dissent & Social Stability, and counters with strengths including territory already occupied, economic and military adaptability’
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/actually-russia-is-at-its-most-fragile
Saturday ABC RN’s Global Roaming with Doogue, MacDonald and guest Bryant had an ’emergency’ podcast speaking about Trump – Zelensky WH meeting optics, but on Europe…. appalling and embarrassing ignorance* from Anglophere media types with alleged geopolitical knowledge; they need a researcher (disappeared by ABC cuts?) or Lowy Centre? (*another symptom of pressure on ABC to avoid experts, but embrace personalities)
Doogue asked out loud can Europe arm itself…. silence…, left to McD to guess, maybe Turkey….. Fact is Europe has a massive defence industry across multiple nations, and eg. Poland has been rearming with much South Korean kit; either Poland or Turkey alone could give Russia a conventional hiding.
For an overview (haven’t watched yet) is Perun on YouTube who does much in arms analysis (ABC Global Roaming should get him on the phone, he is Australian)?
‘Could Europe Defend Itself Without the US’ https://youtu.be/7giYIisLuaA?si=QclWBxe9Gr7yHIJc
As interesting is how these events are smoking out and/or compromising fossil fuel anti-EU Koch ‘realism’ school followers on the right, and allies, the faux anti-imperialist tankies of the left, sharing perceptions, talking points and solutions….
There were more than 1K dynamic comments below SMH’s Peter Hartcher’s pretendy impartial opinion piece this am, the antithesis of Michael Taylor’s fulsome and informative analysis (thank you Michael):
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/it-s-clear-that-trump-is-an-agent-of-putin-all-us-allies-should-be-alarmed-20250303-p5lghu.html
Then tonight in an emotional interview with Sarah Ferguson Simon Schama referred to the behaviour of the Oval Office bullies as ‘infamy’ alongside a few cautious historical comparisons. Her next guest (Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs columnist, UK Financial Times) was no less candid.
https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NC2501H034S00
Canguro, my memory let me down a little, but I was not far off.
RAND in 2019 provided a report titled Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.
The proposals in the report were reflected in the lead-up to the Russian action.
From a summary of the report — This brief summarizes a report that comprehensively examines nonviolent, cost-imposing options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress—overextend and unbalance—Russia’s economy and armed forces and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad.
Keep in mind that it was also 2019 when Zelensky’s right-hand man gave a TV interview in which he outlined the plan to provoke an invasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNHmHpERH8&t=449s
Noel, you’re right about the US possibly not wanting out, but Europe is taking this apparent move out to be very real.
They are in a panic, and tearing themselves apart.
I saw a headline just before I came here that claims Orban has vetoed an EU aid package.
Slovakia has also been vocal in recent days with anti-Ukraine messages.
Anything could develop out of this.
We live in interesting times.
Both Slovakia’s Fico and Abbott’s chum Orban are allies of Putin, but now lack the support of their voters and former’s coalition partners, why?
Corruption, Russian influence, suboptimal public services, attacks on media & judiciary, inflation, lagging economic performance, declining demography and emigration of working age.
This has left an ageing electorate, especially regional, easily nudged into voting for Fico and Orban, but no more as they and conservatives wise up to there being NO improvement to their or the nation in the past decade; most 40 somethings and younger vote opposition.
Like above, the Hungarian opposition under Peter Magyar (think small ‘l’ Liberal) has managed vs a hostile media to replicate Navalny in highlighting corruption, decline in public services and the economy, and the big one, Russian influence.
Noel W, you have correctly cited Atlas as a malign (fossil fuel & faux free market) actor through its think tank network (inc Orban & Abbott’s Hungary); but you seem to share the same anti-Ukraine and anti-Europe talking points?
Can’t remember if this presentation has been in the comments here somewhere, but well worth digesting the 30 year background as given by Jeffery Sachs at European Parliament:
https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/
Truth Teller, thanks for that.
A quote from the article — “As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda.”
The problem we have is that a few don’t like to hear facts from people who were on the ground when all this started.
Why should anyone pay attention to the gaslighting of Jeffrey Sachs, an American faux geopolotical expert in the pocket of oligarchs and the Kremlin vs. European and longstanding Anglo specialists?
According to Vatnik Soup, the American Jeffry Sachs is allied with US RW faux ‘free market’ ideology; helped crash USSR industry, inc.fossil fuels and mining, into privatised Russia creating oligarchs, but blames Ukraine, NATO, EU and Biden’s US, yet mute on Trump-Putin-Musk?
https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/166/
Not only has he ‘kissed the ring’ of Abbott’s chum Hungarian PM ‘mini Putin’ Orbán, but is linked to the risible Rockefeller (previously funded by Exxon etc.) Foundation, via his wife and his role in promoting UN ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (fossil fuel greenwashing).
He’s just another American right wing geopolitical grifter, masquerading as an anti-imperialist like Charles Koch’s Mearsheimer, drawing in ageing Anglo and developing world left, and right, while helping both Trump and Putin?
“I know. I was there …”
Wow, that’s such a compelling argument. One person saying that wanting a naval base was the absolute limit of Russian ambition in the area …
Yes, SD, I agree. I don’t think Putin is expansionist, just trying to bludgeon his way to trade access, and to do that he has to take on the guileful brutal hegemon America leading Europe by the nose-ring, and the stupidity of the modified NATO’s ring-fencing.
With the labile narcissistic lunatic Trump II in place, anything could happen. And Europe is in a tiz still habitually talking military conflict for which they don’t have the wherewithal, and with Trump not letting go of the keys.
Clakka, there’s been some “careless” commentary about the Budapest Memorandum here recently. I think you’ll find this from Jacques Baud to be of interest.
*In 1994, by signing the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine surrendered the nuclear weapons of the former USSR that remained on its territory, in exchange for “its security, independence and territorial integrity.” At this stage, Crimea considered that it was—de jure—no longer part of Ukraine and therefore not concerned by this treaty.
On its side, the government in Kiev felt strengthened by the memorandum. This is why, on 17 March 1995, it forcibly abolished the Crimean Constitution. It sent its special forces to overthrow Yuri Mechkov, President of Crimea, and de facto annexed the Republic of Crimea, thus triggering popular demonstrations for the attachment of Crimea to Russia.
An event hardly reported by the Western media.
Crimea was then governed in an authoritarian manner by presidential decrees from Kiev. This situation led the Crimean Parliament to formulate a new constitution in October 1995, which re-established the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. This new constitution was ratified by the Crimean Parliament on 21 October 1998 and confirmed by the Ukrainian Parliament on 23 December 1998. These events and the concerns of the Russian-speaking minority led to a Treaty of Friendship between Ukraine and Russia on 31 May 1997. In the treaty, Ukraine included the principle of the inviolability of borders, in exchange — and this is very important — for a guarantee of “the protection of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious originality of the national minorities on their territory.”
On 23 February 2014, not only did the new authorities in Kiev emerge from a coup d’état but, by abrogating the 2012 Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law on official languages, they no longer respected this guarantee of the 1997 treaty. The Crimeans therefore took to the streets to demand the “return” to Russia that they had obtained 30 years earlier.
On March 4, during his press conference on the situation in Ukraine a journalist asked Vladimir Putin, “How do you see the future of Crimea? Do you consider the possibility that it joins Russia?” he replied:
No, we do not consider it. In general, I believe that only the residents of a given country who are free to decide and safe can and should determine their future. If this right has been granted to the Albanians in Kosovo, if this has been made possible in many parts of
the world, then no one is excluding the right of nations to self-determination, which, as far as | know, is laid down in several UN documents. However, we will in no way provoke such a decision and will not feed such feelings.
On March 6, the Crimean Parliament decided to hold a popular referendum to choose between remaining in Ukraine or requesting the attachment to Moscow. It was after this vote that the Crimean authorities asked Moscow for an attachment to Russia.
With this referendum, Crimea had only recovered the status it had legally acquired just before the independence of Ukraine. This explains why it renewed its request to be attached to Moscow, as in January 1991.
Moreover, the status of force agreement (SOFA) between Ukraine and Russia for the stationing of troops in Crimea and Sevastopol had been renewed in 2010 and was to run until 2042. Russia therefore had no specific reason to claim this territory. The population of Crimea, which legitimately felt betrayed by the government of Kiev, seized the opportunity to assert its rights.
On 19 February 2022, Anka Feldhusen, the German ambassador in Kiev, threw a spanner in the works by declaring on the television channel Ukraine 24 that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding. Incidentally, this is also the American position, as shown by the statement on the website of the American embassy in Minsk.
The whole Western narrative about the “annexation” of Crimea is based on a rewriting of history and the obscuring of the 1991 referendum, which did exist and was perfectly valid. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum remains extensively quoted since February 2022, but the Western narrative simply ignores the 1997 Friendship Treaty which is the reason for the discontent of the Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens.*
Those of us who try to look on the bright side of life had hoped Trump was using his skills in exaggeration, pomposity and bombastic rhetoric to round up NATO into a unified position on Ukraine.
Alas, all Trump has done is embolden Putin, delight the fascists as well the old fashioned communists with a deep mistrust of democracy
When Trump is chiming in with the same talking points, using the same narrative, you should know you’re wrong and your position has no basis in ethics or humanitarianism or sound judgement
I’ve mentioned in the past the hypnotic power of Western propaganda, and nowhere is that better illustrated than AC’s comment here.
AC has for many months tried to push the Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994, as the only item of significance in determining blame in the breakdown of relations between Ukraine and Russia that has resulted in war.
As well as refusing to accept that the Memo was breached by the US and Ukraine before the Russian invasion in 2022 and was therefore void, with no constraint on Russia to observe it, AC overlooked or hid the significance of legal provisions that developed after the Memo.
Now, confronted by those legal provisions, AC refuses to accept their significance.
Cannot even bring himself to refer to them.
Instead he has indulged in a petulant rant about humanitarianism and sound judgement to hide his own misjudgement regarding the essential goodness of the US.
Despite continuous appalling human rights abuses by the US that would have made Genghis Khan blush, despite evidence presented here numerous times that the US conspired to provoke a Russian invasion, he continued his love affair with the US until just a few days ago.
What happened a few days ago?
Did Trump commit murder?
Did he invade a foreign country?
Did he unleash a virulent biological weapon against some unsuspecting victim?
Did he commit some other unspeakable atrocity?
No.
He made policy decisions that AC disagreed with.
That’s the ethical standard that prevails in the universe that AC inhabits.
Here’s AC’s position in a nutshell — “I don’t care how appalling your actions are — just don’t disagree with me.”
The hypnotic power of Western propaganda is without precedent.
Or is there something else in play here?
I think it’s great that Steve has come out to defend Trump and his foreign policy ethics
According to Steve, he isn’t as bad as I’ve suggested. I’ll take lots of comfort from that
In regard to AC ranting about Trump, I must say that I feel very little sympathy for the liberals who are wailing and gnashing their teeth over Trump and his erratic bulldozer-style tactics.
Liberals are loathe to admit that Trump is the inevitable consequence of decades of liberal dominance of not only politics, but of society itself. They see the tragedy of it all but are blind to the process that produced the tragedy.
“He’s a narcissist” cries one.
“He’s selfish” cries another.
“He panders to elites” cries another.
All true. But guess what? That’s what liberalism gives you.
Those are all features of liberalism at work in society.
Those are liberal “values”.
When we put the individual at the apex of society, why would we expect anything different?
This is how liberalism warps us.
Liberals were happy to go along with all the rhetoric of liberty and freedom and the rights of the individual. Only the left gave a hoot about what this all meant for society as a whole.
Social standards? Hmph! Who cares? It’s my right to think what I want and do as I want.
So liberal privatisations did not only occur in the economic sphere. We paved the way for those great thefts from society because, as one critic put it, we privatized morality and destroyed the moral order.
So liberals, this is what you worked for — enjoy the ride.
Marx and Engels warned of the consequences of liberal hegemony — “All that is solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”
It’s time for all the libs out there to “face with sober senses” their real conditions of life and more particularly, their relations with humanity.
Thanks Steve, I’m sure everyone now agrees with you, that Trump is right and his critics are wrong.
It’s a true reflection of your character that you’re willing to chime in with such vociferous support
“I’m sure everyone now agrees with you, that Trump is right and his critics are wrong.”
Did I say that?
I’m sure I didn’t say that.
Maybe I did say that.
Let me check.
No, I’ve checked. I didn’t say that.
Phew, for a moment there I was really really really worried! 🙂
Steve, like Trump your expertise is bombastic rhetoric, self important/long winded diatribes and a desire for cognitive reinforcement.
Sarcasm requires humour, it’s not your forte.
It’s best you stick to your areas of expertise
°°°°°°°°°°°°
When you take issue with my criticism of Trump, when you use the same talking points as Trump, when you seek the same outcome as Trump…it’s difficult to identify why you object to my comment
“When you take issue with my criticism of Trump …”
Why would AC think that my comment was about him?
AC merely performed a useful service as an intro to expose the deficiencies of liberal thinking. A throwaway item of convenience, if you will.
“When you seek the same outcome as Trump …”
Did I say that?
Here we go again!
And I refuse to accept any criticism of my humour.
It is of the absolutely highest standard, and rarely stoops to vulgarities. 🙂
Hilarious!
Can you identify any of Trump’s narrative on Ukraine you disagree with?
But, perhaps after all, you are succeeding in sarcasm, certainly in self depreciation
For those just coming in on this thread, check out my comment to Clakka above, at March 6, 2025 at 5:03 pm.
It contains info that completely undermines AC’s determined and continual misrepresentation of the Ukraine war.
He was, and still is unable to refute the comment, so what we are seeing now is a futile fit of frustration.
There’s an article at Pearls today that might help AC work through his dilemma. This quote would be a good place for him to start.
“ Russophobia, as it exists today, is the inheritor of a long lineage of Western anxieties about Russia’s place in the European order. From the British Empire’s paranoia during the Great Game to Cold War containment strategies and post-Soviet economic warfare, the West has always perceived Russia not simply as a rival, but as an aberration – too large to be ignored, too independent to be controlled. The ideological justifications for this hostility have shifted over time, but the underlying impulse remains unchanged. Whether tsarist, communist, or post-communist, Russia’s refusal to accept junior partner status has always been treated as evidence of malign intent.”
https://johnmenadue.com/russophobia-and-sinophobia-projection-narcissism-and-denial/
Once AC understands that his condition is not chronic, he can begin the journey out of Plato’s Cave.
You’re known by the company you keep.
The Trump narrative has included-
° Zelensky is the no longer the legitimate leader of Ukraine
° Putin had reasons for invading Ukraine
° Putin was provoked
° Ukraine will have to relinquish territory to reach an agreement
° Ukraine cannot join NATO
The Trump policy has caused –
° A deep split between US and most other NATO members
° Serious questioning about whether the US is entitled to continue its leadership of western democracies
So Steve, which of the above is inconsistent with your views? It looks like you share Trump’s platform
Steve Davis
Here we go again, using an amateur’s article in P&Is as credible evidence, not; just a subjective opinion, but promoting Kremlin paranoia e.g.
‘Russophobia, as it exists today, is the inheritor of a long lineage of Western anxieties about Russia’s place in the European order’
What Russophobia?
Does that include the many Russian citizens who despise the Putin regime, and those who have emigrated?
Or just another Kremlin rhetorical device to avoid scrutiny?
“It looks like you share Trump’s platform”
AC really should stop listening to those voices in his head.
I suppose I should be thankful.
At least he hasn’t mentioned the little green men again.
President Trump pauses military aid to Ukraine – what happens next?
A rhetorical question not looking for an answer, but Putin has taken in literally: he just ramps up production and dissemination of ballistic missiles and drones and throws them at Ukraine. Even Trump has now arrived at that conclusion.
‘On the Ukraine war, Trump appeared to accept Putin was exploiting his decision to pause US military aid to Ukraine after the disastrous White House meeting with its president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
“I actually think he [Putin] is doing what anybody else would do,” Trump said. “I think he wants to get it stopped and settled, and I think he’s hitting them harder than he has been hitting them, and I think probably anybody in that position would be doing that right now.”’
Michael Koziol, SMH, 8/3/24
Gobsmacking in its psychopathy. Just a little friendly fire for the White House Toddler as he pokes the big Iranian Bear.
The fox is in charge of the henhouse…for the moment.
Presumably Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) is back on the High School English curriculum.
@Steve Davis
Steve, this may be of interest:
BBC reporting on Ukraine
By Gregory Clark. P&I. Jun 15, 2024.
https://johnmenadue.com/bbc-reporting-on-ukraine/
Steve, it’s indicative that you’re unable to identify a single point of Trump’s position on Ukraine (and it’s consequences) that is different to yours.
Julian, thanks for the link — it’s a cracker.
I can’t resist a quote — “But this admirable un-spun reporting made a 180 degree change when London’s position turned anti-Russian. The BBC reporter, Ros Atkins, who in 2014 had reported in depth on the danger posed by neoNazi and other anti-Russian extremist groups operating in Ukraine was able with full seeming sincerity in 2021 to look into the cameras and tell us how reports of dangerous pro-Nazi forces in Ukraine were greatly exaggerated.”
So the news media had been instructed on how to behave BEFORE the invasion. A far cry from the Gulf War when it took days to get the media onside.
That’d be the same news organisation that falsely reported the downing of WTC7 before it was… ahem… demolished by internally-placed explosives, as confirmed by Larry Silverstein in an inadvertent admission; ‘we had it pulled.’ he said.
The amount of horseshit masquerading as serious & responsible journalism along with the thousands of pages of obfuscatory lies and deeply irrational and unscientific rationalisations endeavouring to demonstrate the impossible in relation to that deeply criminal imbroglio that were generated with the government’s imprimatur cemented, I believe, a deep, enduring and appropriate mistrust in both MSM and governmental reporting when it comes to frank discussions about the truth of matters.
Australian conservatives and conspiracy theorists, one would take Europe and Asia anyday over Trump’s US and Putin’s Russia; like why do we have to ask whose side Abbott, Downer, Murdoch et al and the tankie left are on?
From Matt Gerz in Media Matters US, familiar?
‘The American Right’s Decade-Long Lurch Toward Putin’s Russia
The right-wing commentariat’s decade-long shift from near-universal antagonism to Russia to eager amplification of Kremlin propaganda has helped create the environment for Trump’s recent moves selling out Ukraine in favor of an effective alliance with Putin*.’
https://www.nationalmemo.com/russia-right-wing
*For fossil fuels, oligarchs, corruption and autocracy vs the EU and the west.
Happy commenters, conspiracies and empathy bypasses?
From Phillips P O’Brien
‘The United States has not just abandoned Ukraine, the United States is now actively helping Vladimir Putin and the Russian state kill Ukrainians to try and force Ukraine to accept a bad peace deal that very well might spell the end of their country. At the same time, the USA is now bending over backwards to help protect the Russian military.’
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-123-the-week-the-usa