*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (3 Viewers)

[djmich]

https://www.kaine.senate.gov/in-the...ing-presidents-from-unilaterally-exiting-nato

Under the measure, advocated by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the president would be prohibited from withdrawing from NATO without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or separate legislation passed by Congress.

Kaine and Rubio had tried to advance similar measures since 2021. Passage of the defense policy bill this week marked the first time the House had embraced the tactic.

The Republican-led House Armed Services Committee did not respond to questions about why the chamber accepted the provision. The office of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declined to comment.
=============================================================================================
Rubio said in a statement: “The Senate should maintain oversight on whether or not our nation withdraws from NATO. We must ensure we are protecting our national interests and protecting the security of our democratic allies.”
=============================================================================================
For future reference

Did this pass?

Don't know, but we do know who was in favor of the legislation and their reasoning.

Well that one person wasn't singularly able to get the legislation passed back then so it's kind of a joke to hold that one person singularly responsible now. Especially when the one person no longer even has a formal vote

Not holding anyone responsible, holding people accountable.

I'll bite my tongue for the sake of the thread

Not political, pertinent to the situation and where it may be headed. It's important to understand the new paradigm taking shape and to see where we as a country are headed as far our standing on the world stage. As stated previously, no country ahs ever unilaterally and voluntarily left either the UN or NATO so if either or both of those actions occur for the US, that's seismic.

It passed. So withdrawing from nato is a big deal and requires participation from more than just the president. Rubio agreed. What’s your point?

I'm in wait and see mode but will be interested in what arguments Secretary Rubio will put forth to buttress an attempt by the Admin to withdraw seeing as he recently felt protecting the security of our democratic allies via NATO was of paramount importance to the US. Rubio's arguments will be the memo points put out by the admin so it will give us an understanding of how, why, where the change of direction comes from and why the admin determines withdrawing the right thing to do for the sake of the security of America. And there is a line of thought that the Admin can and will do an end around of the requirement setting up a legal battle. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/trump-nato-congress-courts-00188426

Ok a bunch of speculation around what might happen but hasn’t happened and in terms of withdrawal, can’t happen solely through presidential authority. This is political speculation my friend, I’d suggest dropping it.

 

[uwillbsoon]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ Reverse inflate these numbers and extrapolate this for 80 years since the end of WW2, with the USA being relied on as the world police for democracy (which we have done both right and wrong at times), and you get a country that is $38 trillion in debt. Nixon tried to put the same screws to Europe that Trump currently is. it's not new. And if Europe with far more wealth than Russian can't stop Russia from taking this beyond Ukraine (assuming that would happen), well shame on them. Heck, they created many of these world issues we tried and failed to fix (Sykes Picot in Mid East, territories off of China, Balfour declaration in Israel, etc, etc). We just get blamed because we tried to clean it up. Which was mostly a losing proposition all along.

Agree with someone above. A complete re-think of our defense spending is in order. And it should be more for protection, a dome that stops hypersonics, IT and energy security, and border patrol rather than a world deplorable force. For instance, the DoD wants more aircraft carriers through ~2060. At an enormous cost. With the cost of the new jets to sit on those carriers and our soldiers in harms way. While China is using ships to deploy drone launching stations throughout the oceans. Just drop an undersea balloon of 1,000 drones in multiple seas, ready to be launched at the push of a button. We need to re-think the future of warfare.

I would assume we have no allies and never did. We had countries willing to latch to us so our taxpayers could protect them while they put their money into domestic social spending. Now that the faucet is being turned off, they are acting like jilted girlfriends.

The long pole in all this is the Congress. Presidents both Rep and Dem can try to fix the deficit. But Congress' bread and butter on both sides of the aisle is defense and healthcare companies. It's the Roman Senate all over again. Until we the people pass: 1) a balanced budget amendment and 2) term limits on Congress. Well it's a long haul to get Congress to make good fiscal decisions when they are totally fine spending money that isn't theirs.

One way to reduce military spending but also reduce the odds of war is through soft power and trade. They also happen to typically cost a lot less, too.

 

[Chadstroma]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ Reverse inflate these numbers and extrapolate this for 80 years since the end of WW2, with the USA being relied on as the world police for democracy (which we have done both right and wrong at times), and you get a country that is $38 trillion in debt. Nixon tried to put the same screws to Europe that Trump currently is. it's not new. And if Europe with far more wealth than Russian can't stop Russia from taking this beyond Ukraine (assuming that would happen), well shame on them. Heck, they created many of these world issues we tried and failed to fix (Sykes Picot in Mid East, territories off of China, Balfour declaration in Israel, etc, etc). We just get blamed because we tried to clean it up. Which was mostly a losing proposition all along.

Agree with someone above. A complete re-think of our defense spending is in order. And it should be more for protection, a dome that stops hypersonics, IT and energy security, and border patrol rather than a world deplorable force. For instance, the DoD wants more aircraft carriers through ~2060. At an enormous cost. With the cost of the new jets to sit on those carriers and our soldiers in harms way. While China is using ships to deploy drone launching stations throughout the oceans. Just drop an undersea balloon of 1,000 drones in multiple seas, ready to be launched at the push of a button. We need to re-think the future of warfare.

I would assume we have no allies and never did. We had countries willing to latch to us so our taxpayers could protect them while they put their money into domestic social spending. Now that the faucet is being turned off, they are acting like jilted girlfriends.

The long pole in all this is the Congress. Presidents both Rep and Dem can try to fix the deficit. But Congress' bread and butter on both sides of the aisle is defense and healthcare companies. It's the Roman Senate all over again. Until we the people pass: 1) a balanced budget amendment and 2) term limits on Congress. Well it's a long haul to get Congress to make good fiscal decisions when they are totally fine spending money that isn't theirs.

One way to reduce military spending but also reduce the odds of war is through soft power and trade. They also happen to typically cost a lot less, too.

I am not sure if you have been watching but we have been trading like crazy with China while they continually lie, cheat and steal to undermine us and clearly are the major threat of us. They have actually used trade to weaken us and strengthen themselves and there are numerous examples of this. Further, you can look at history with the underlining reason for Pearl Harbor being that we were not too excited about continuing to feed their war machine with our oil and they figured they would knock us out and take the oil from Indonesia. So, though trade is important and countries that trade together usually tend to not go to war, it is not anything close to being "let's just be nice to each other and trade and all will be good" kind of thing.

 

[Chadstroma]

As Europe mobilizes behind Ukraine, it's sitting on a $218 billion ace card — and it's being urged to play it​

• European leaders held emergency talks to discuss support for Ukraine on Sunday.
• It came amid souring relations between the US and Ukraine, raising pressure on Europe to step up.
• One quick way to raise "game-changing" cash would be to seize $218 billion in frozen Russian assets.

Amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv, calls are growing for Europe to take an unprecedented step that could unlock billions in funding for Ukraine.

Some world leaders and politicians, including former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are urging European countries to seize the roughly $218 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets — now largely held in Brussels — and hand them to Ukraine.

"It is only fair that Russia should pay for the damage its war has caused," Sunak wrote in an opinion piece for The Economist on Friday.

But such a move comes with risks.

The question of funding was a hot topic on Sunday as EU and UK leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for emergency talks in London to discuss support for Kyiv — just days after the latter's unprecedented Oval Office clash with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader on Friday in front of reporters and cameras. Zelenskyy ultimately left the White House without finalizing a minerals deal that would give the United States access to Kyiv's mineral wealth in exchange for investment and what Zelenskyy hoped would be security guarantees.

The situation has fueled questions over how Europe can step up to help aid Ukraine's defense efforts should the United States reduce, or cut altogether, its support for the war-torn nation.

For Europe to make up the difference would be an expensive prospect and one that could come with political repercussions — which makes the potential to unlock $218 billion in non-taxpayer money all the more attractive.

"We've got all of these different countries with their own internal political battles, and their own internal budgets, all trying to find more cash — and we're sitting on a game-changing amount of funding," Heather Buchanan, the chair of the Athena Foundation, an economic policy advisory nonprofit that supports the move, told Business Insider.

Europe's ace card​

The EU holds the majority of the roughly $300 billion in Russian funds frozen by the United States and international allies after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The funds have been earmarked for rebuilding Ukraine in peacetime.

Some of the interest earned on those funds has been transferred to Ukraine as loans. The UK's chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and Ukraine's finance minister, Sergii Marchenko, signed a deal on Saturday to deliver another £2.26 billion, or about $2.8 billion, to Ukraine from the accrued interest, also as a loan.

But there's now growing support for a long-considered option: seizing those frozen funds, which would allow them to be transferred directly to Ukraine for use in its defense.

In December, Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, called for the move — and it's seen support in the past week from leaders in the UK, Estonia, Poland, and Finland.


On Saturday, a coalition of campaign groups and UK MPs brought together by the Athena Foundation called on the UK to get the ball rolling with the seizure of £25 billion, or about $31.4 billion, of Russian state assets now frozen in the UK financial system.

Adrian Karatnycky, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January that the full $300 billion in frozen assets could replace the US contribution to Ukraine for the next six or seven years if Trump were to cut support to Kyiv.

A nervous gambit​

"The key blocker is that nobody wants to move alone," Buchanan said.

But the White House's recent moves have provided a "perfect storm" that is focusing minds, she added.

While many politicians are pushing for the move, some analysts warn that it should be a last resort because of the impact it could have on global economies.


For example, permanently confiscating Russian assets held in countries that aren't at war with Russia could also "increase the risk perceived by several other countries," Creon Butler, the director of Chatham House's global economy and finance program, wrote last year.

Other countries — such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia — may "fear that at some point they could be subject to similar measures," he wrote.

Sunak, writing for The Economist, has argued that those concerns are "overstated" and that this risk "can be contained."

There's also a debate among analysts over whether the assets should be kept available as a bargaining chip for any future peace talks.

Legal complications must also be considered, as the assets of a foreign nation are normally protected against seizure by a host country.

But the leading lawyer Paul Reichler previously argued to Congress that such protection falls apart when a host state carries out "egregiously wrongful conduct," as he said Russia had.


"If Congress has the power to authorize the executive to freeze a foreign state's assets, it must also have the power to authorize the executive to transfer them," he said.

Buchanan told BI that such a move does require legislation but that "that's what lawmakers are for," adding that meeting a satisfactory legal standard could be brought about "quite quickly."

A further worry is the prospect of retaliation by the Kremlin, whose State Duma is discussing a draft bill allowing it to confiscate foreign property in response to similar moves from "unfriendly countries," Reuters reported.

Striking a psychological blow​

Buchanan said passing the cash to Ukraine would send a "crystal clear" signal to Russia that this money isn't coming back — potentially dealing a strong psychological blow to a country whose economy and labor market are already deeply strained by the war.

The question is whether Western leaders will take the leap.

"It's just political will at this point," she added.

 

[Jayrod]

As Europe mobilizes behind Ukraine, it's sitting on a $218 billion ace card — and it's being urged to play it​

• European leaders held emergency talks to discuss support for Ukraine on Sunday.
• It came amid souring relations between the US and Ukraine, raising pressure on Europe to step up.
• One quick way to raise "game-changing" cash would be to seize $218 billion in frozen Russian assets.

Amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv, calls are growing for Europe to take an unprecedented step that could unlock billions in funding for Ukraine.

Some world leaders and politicians, including former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are urging European countries to seize the roughly $218 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets — now largely held in Brussels — and hand them to Ukraine.

"It is only fair that Russia should pay for the damage its war has caused," Sunak wrote in an opinion piece for The Economist on Friday.

But such a move comes with risks.

The question of funding was a hot topic on Sunday as EU and UK leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for emergency talks in London to discuss support for Kyiv — just days after the latter's unprecedented Oval Office clash with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader on Friday in front of reporters and cameras. Zelenskyy ultimately left the White House without finalizing a minerals deal that would give the United States access to Kyiv's mineral wealth in exchange for investment and what Zelenskyy hoped would be security guarantees.

The situation has fueled questions over how Europe can step up to help aid Ukraine's defense efforts should the United States reduce, or cut altogether, its support for the war-torn nation.

For Europe to make up the difference would be an expensive prospect and one that could come with political repercussions — which makes the potential to unlock $218 billion in non-taxpayer money all the more attractive.

"We've got all of these different countries with their own internal political battles, and their own internal budgets, all trying to find more cash — and we're sitting on a game-changing amount of funding," Heather Buchanan, the chair of the Athena Foundation, an economic policy advisory nonprofit that supports the move, told Business Insider.

Europe's ace card​

The EU holds the majority of the roughly $300 billion in Russian funds frozen by the United States and international allies after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The funds have been earmarked for rebuilding Ukraine in peacetime.

Some of the interest earned on those funds has been transferred to Ukraine as loans. The UK's chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and Ukraine's finance minister, Sergii Marchenko, signed a deal on Saturday to deliver another £2.26 billion, or about $2.8 billion, to Ukraine from the accrued interest, also as a loan.

But there's now growing support for a long-considered option: seizing those frozen funds, which would allow them to be transferred directly to Ukraine for use in its defense.

In December, Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, called for the move — and it's seen support in the past week from leaders in the UK, Estonia, Poland, and Finland.


On Saturday, a coalition of campaign groups and UK MPs brought together by the Athena Foundation called on the UK to get the ball rolling with the seizure of £25 billion, or about $31.4 billion, of Russian state assets now frozen in the UK financial system.

Adrian Karatnycky, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January that the full $300 billion in frozen assets could replace the US contribution to Ukraine for the next six or seven years if Trump were to cut support to Kyiv.

A nervous gambit​

"The key blocker is that nobody wants to move alone," Buchanan said.

But the White House's recent moves have provided a "perfect storm" that is focusing minds, she added.

While many politicians are pushing for the move, some analysts warn that it should be a last resort because of the impact it could have on global economies.


For example, permanently confiscating Russian assets held in countries that aren't at war with Russia could also "increase the risk perceived by several other countries," Creon Butler, the director of Chatham House's global economy and finance program, wrote last year.

Other countries — such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia — may "fear that at some point they could be subject to similar measures," he wrote.

Sunak, writing for The Economist, has argued that those concerns are "overstated" and that this risk "can be contained."

There's also a debate among analysts over whether the assets should be kept available as a bargaining chip for any future peace talks.

Legal complications must also be considered, as the assets of a foreign nation are normally protected against seizure by a host country.

But the leading lawyer Paul Reichler previously argued to Congress that such protection falls apart when a host state carries out "egregiously wrongful conduct," as he said Russia had.


"If Congress has the power to authorize the executive to freeze a foreign state's assets, it must also have the power to authorize the executive to transfer them," he said.

Buchanan told BI that such a move does require legislation but that "that's what lawmakers are for," adding that meeting a satisfactory legal standard could be brought about "quite quickly."

A further worry is the prospect of retaliation by the Kremlin, whose State Duma is discussing a draft bill allowing it to confiscate foreign property in response to similar moves from "unfriendly countries," Reuters reported.

Striking a psychological blow​

Buchanan said passing the cash to Ukraine would send a "crystal clear" signal to Russia that this money isn't coming back — potentially dealing a strong psychological blow to a country whose economy and labor market are already deeply strained by the war.

The question is whether Western leaders will take the leap.

"It's just political will at this point," she added.

That's a serious move.

I could see Russia moving into further aggression if this happens.

 

[thecatch]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ Reverse inflate these numbers and extrapolate this for 80 years since the end of WW2, with the USA being relied on as the world police for democracy (which we have done both right and wrong at times), and you get a country that is $38 trillion in debt. Nixon tried to put the same screws to Europe that Trump currently is. it's not new. And if Europe with far more wealth than Russian can't stop Russia from taking this beyond Ukraine (assuming that would happen), well shame on them. Heck, they created many of these world issues we tried and failed to fix (Sykes Picot in Mid East, territories off of China, Balfour declaration in Israel, etc, etc). We just get blamed because we tried to clean it up. Which was mostly a losing proposition all along.

Agree with someone above. A complete re-think of our defense spending is in order. And it should be more for protection, a dome that stops hypersonics, IT and energy security, and border patrol rather than a world deplorable force. For instance, the DoD wants more aircraft carriers through ~2060. At an enormous cost. With the cost of the new jets to sit on those carriers and our soldiers in harms way. While China is using ships to deploy drone launching stations throughout the oceans. Just drop an undersea balloon of 1,000 drones in multiple seas, ready to be launched at the push of a button. We need to re-think the future of warfare.

I would assume we have no allies and never did. We had countries willing to latch to us so our taxpayers could protect them while they put their money into domestic social spending. Now that the faucet is being turned off, they are acting like jilted girlfriends.

The long pole in all this is the Congress. Presidents both Rep and Dem can try to fix the deficit. But Congress' bread and butter on both sides of the aisle is defense and healthcare companies. It's the Roman Senate all over again. Until we the people pass: 1) a balanced budget amendment and 2) term limits on Congress. Well it's a long haul to get Congress to make good fiscal decisions when they are totally fine spending money that isn't theirs.

One way to reduce military spending but also reduce the odds of war is through soft power and trade. They also happen to typically cost a lot less, too.

That was the strategy toward China in the 1990s and has come back to bite us.

 

[Stoneworker]

As Europe mobilizes behind Ukraine, it's sitting on a $218 billion ace card — and it's being urged to play it​

• European leaders held emergency talks to discuss support for Ukraine on Sunday.
• It came amid souring relations between the US and Ukraine, raising pressure on Europe to step up.
• One quick way to raise "game-changing" cash would be to seize $218 billion in frozen Russian assets.

Amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv, calls are growing for Europe to take an unprecedented step that could unlock billions in funding for Ukraine.

Some world leaders and politicians, including former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are urging European countries to seize the roughly $218 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets — now largely held in Brussels — and hand them to Ukraine.

"It is only fair that Russia should pay for the damage its war has caused," Sunak wrote in an opinion piece for The Economist on Friday.

But such a move comes with risks.

The question of funding was a hot topic on Sunday as EU and UK leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for emergency talks in London to discuss support for Kyiv — just days after the latter's unprecedented Oval Office clash with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader on Friday in front of reporters and cameras. Zelenskyy ultimately left the White House without finalizing a minerals deal that would give the United States access to Kyiv's mineral wealth in exchange for investment and what Zelenskyy hoped would be security guarantees.

The situation has fueled questions over how Europe can step up to help aid Ukraine's defense efforts should the United States reduce, or cut altogether, its support for the war-torn nation.

For Europe to make up the difference would be an expensive prospect and one that could come with political repercussions — which makes the potential to unlock $218 billion in non-taxpayer money all the more attractive.

"We've got all of these different countries with their own internal political battles, and their own internal budgets, all trying to find more cash — and we're sitting on a game-changing amount of funding," Heather Buchanan, the chair of the Athena Foundation, an economic policy advisory nonprofit that supports the move, told Business Insider.

Europe's ace card​

The EU holds the majority of the roughly $300 billion in Russian funds frozen by the United States and international allies after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The funds have been earmarked for rebuilding Ukraine in peacetime.

Some of the interest earned on those funds has been transferred to Ukraine as loans. The UK's chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and Ukraine's finance minister, Sergii Marchenko, signed a deal on Saturday to deliver another £2.26 billion, or about $2.8 billion, to Ukraine from the accrued interest, also as a loan.

But there's now growing support for a long-considered option: seizing those frozen funds, which would allow them to be transferred directly to Ukraine for use in its defense.

In December, Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, called for the move — and it's seen support in the past week from leaders in the UK, Estonia, Poland, and Finland.


On Saturday, a coalition of campaign groups and UK MPs brought together by the Athena Foundation called on the UK to get the ball rolling with the seizure of £25 billion, or about $31.4 billion, of Russian state assets now frozen in the UK financial system.

Adrian Karatnycky, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January that the full $300 billion in frozen assets could replace the US contribution to Ukraine for the next six or seven years if Trump were to cut support to Kyiv.

A nervous gambit​

"The key blocker is that nobody wants to move alone," Buchanan said.

But the White House's recent moves have provided a "perfect storm" that is focusing minds, she added.

While many politicians are pushing for the move, some analysts warn that it should be a last resort because of the impact it could have on global economies.


For example, permanently confiscating Russian assets held in countries that aren't at war with Russia could also "increase the risk perceived by several other countries," Creon Butler, the director of Chatham House's global economy and finance program, wrote last year.

Other countries — such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia — may "fear that at some point they could be subject to similar measures," he wrote.

Sunak, writing for The Economist, has argued that those concerns are "overstated" and that this risk "can be contained."

There's also a debate among analysts over whether the assets should be kept available as a bargaining chip for any future peace talks.

Legal complications must also be considered, as the assets of a foreign nation are normally protected against seizure by a host country.

But the leading lawyer Paul Reichler previously argued to Congress that such protection falls apart when a host state carries out "egregiously wrongful conduct," as he said Russia had.


"If Congress has the power to authorize the executive to freeze a foreign state's assets, it must also have the power to authorize the executive to transfer them," he said.

Buchanan told BI that such a move does require legislation but that "that's what lawmakers are for," adding that meeting a satisfactory legal standard could be brought about "quite quickly."

A further worry is the prospect of retaliation by the Kremlin, whose State Duma is discussing a draft bill allowing it to confiscate foreign property in response to similar moves from "unfriendly countries," Reuters reported.

Striking a psychological blow​

Buchanan said passing the cash to Ukraine would send a "crystal clear" signal to Russia that this money isn't coming back — potentially dealing a strong psychological blow to a country whose economy and labor market are already deeply strained by the war.

The question is whether Western leaders will take the leap.

"It's just political will at this point," she added.

That's a serious move.

I could see Russia moving into further aggression if this happens.

Agreed. Play that card you push all the chips in the middle and kiss the peace process goodbye. Much better utilized if/when they are at the negotiating table IMO

 

[Chadstroma]

As Europe mobilizes behind Ukraine, it's sitting on a $218 billion ace card — and it's being urged to play it​

• European leaders held emergency talks to discuss support for Ukraine on Sunday.
• It came amid souring relations between the US and Ukraine, raising pressure on Europe to step up.
• One quick way to raise "game-changing" cash would be to seize $218 billion in frozen Russian assets.

Amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv, calls are growing for Europe to take an unprecedented step that could unlock billions in funding for Ukraine.

Some world leaders and politicians, including former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are urging European countries to seize the roughly $218 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets — now largely held in Brussels — and hand them to Ukraine.

"It is only fair that Russia should pay for the damage its war has caused," Sunak wrote in an opinion piece for The Economist on Friday.

But such a move comes with risks.

The question of funding was a hot topic on Sunday as EU and UK leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for emergency talks in London to discuss support for Kyiv — just days after the latter's unprecedented Oval Office clash with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader on Friday in front of reporters and cameras. Zelenskyy ultimately left the White House without finalizing a minerals deal that would give the United States access to Kyiv's mineral wealth in exchange for investment and what Zelenskyy hoped would be security guarantees.

The situation has fueled questions over how Europe can step up to help aid Ukraine's defense efforts should the United States reduce, or cut altogether, its support for the war-torn nation.

For Europe to make up the difference would be an expensive prospect and one that could come with political repercussions — which makes the potential to unlock $218 billion in non-taxpayer money all the more attractive.

"We've got all of these different countries with their own internal political battles, and their own internal budgets, all trying to find more cash — and we're sitting on a game-changing amount of funding," Heather Buchanan, the chair of the Athena Foundation, an economic policy advisory nonprofit that supports the move, told Business Insider.

Europe's ace card​

The EU holds the majority of the roughly $300 billion in Russian funds frozen by the United States and international allies after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The funds have been earmarked for rebuilding Ukraine in peacetime.

Some of the interest earned on those funds has been transferred to Ukraine as loans. The UK's chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and Ukraine's finance minister, Sergii Marchenko, signed a deal on Saturday to deliver another £2.26 billion, or about $2.8 billion, to Ukraine from the accrued interest, also as a loan.

But there's now growing support for a long-considered option: seizing those frozen funds, which would allow them to be transferred directly to Ukraine for use in its defense.

In December, Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, called for the move — and it's seen support in the past week from leaders in the UK, Estonia, Poland, and Finland.


On Saturday, a coalition of campaign groups and UK MPs brought together by the Athena Foundation called on the UK to get the ball rolling with the seizure of £25 billion, or about $31.4 billion, of Russian state assets now frozen in the UK financial system.

Adrian Karatnycky, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January that the full $300 billion in frozen assets could replace the US contribution to Ukraine for the next six or seven years if Trump were to cut support to Kyiv.

A nervous gambit​

"The key blocker is that nobody wants to move alone," Buchanan said.

But the White House's recent moves have provided a "perfect storm" that is focusing minds, she added.

While many politicians are pushing for the move, some analysts warn that it should be a last resort because of the impact it could have on global economies.


For example, permanently confiscating Russian assets held in countries that aren't at war with Russia could also "increase the risk perceived by several other countries," Creon Butler, the director of Chatham House's global economy and finance program, wrote last year.

Other countries — such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia — may "fear that at some point they could be subject to similar measures," he wrote.

Sunak, writing for The Economist, has argued that those concerns are "overstated" and that this risk "can be contained."

There's also a debate among analysts over whether the assets should be kept available as a bargaining chip for any future peace talks.

Legal complications must also be considered, as the assets of a foreign nation are normally protected against seizure by a host country.

But the leading lawyer Paul Reichler previously argued to Congress that such protection falls apart when a host state carries out "egregiously wrongful conduct," as he said Russia had.


"If Congress has the power to authorize the executive to freeze a foreign state's assets, it must also have the power to authorize the executive to transfer them," he said.

Buchanan told BI that such a move does require legislation but that "that's what lawmakers are for," adding that meeting a satisfactory legal standard could be brought about "quite quickly."

A further worry is the prospect of retaliation by the Kremlin, whose State Duma is discussing a draft bill allowing it to confiscate foreign property in response to similar moves from "unfriendly countries," Reuters reported.

Striking a psychological blow​

Buchanan said passing the cash to Ukraine would send a "crystal clear" signal to Russia that this money isn't coming back — potentially dealing a strong psychological blow to a country whose economy and labor market are already deeply strained by the war.

The question is whether Western leaders will take the leap.

"It's just political will at this point," she added.

That's a serious move.

I could see Russia moving into further aggression if this happens.

Further aggression in what way? Launching an assault? No- they are running out of equipment to throw at the Ukrainians as is right now. More sabotage and asymmetric warfare? Perhaps. It might be a positive over the recent shifts we have seen where Russia may be reluctant to escalate and lose some of the seemingly positive influence with the US that they think they have.

The bigger concern would be over future investment from overseas and the rule of international law. I am not sure how unprecedented this would be.... I can't think of any historical analogies for it but it would be a big shift away from how things are normally done.

If the US pulls out, this might be the only thing that can keep the Ukrainians in the fight and it could be used to buy the US weaponry that is needed. Likely not directly but NATO/EU nations buying new equipment and then handing over their older same systems over to the Ukrainians. e.g. Germany gives their current 9 Patriot systems with 72 launchers as the 8 systems with 64 launchers on order are delivered. (but since that is already on order they would order another 9 systems). That along with the NATO/EU nations own military equipment that they can produce would keep the Ukrainians in the fight. It would not cost the US anything, in fact, would be an economic plus.

But one of the biggest issues is how this money IS a bargaining chip for any future peace talks. You want that land? Ok, you pay for it. That money goes to Ukraine.

 

[Jayrod]

As Europe mobilizes behind Ukraine, it's sitting on a $218 billion ace card — and it's being urged to play it​

• European leaders held emergency talks to discuss support for Ukraine on Sunday.
• It came amid souring relations between the US and Ukraine, raising pressure on Europe to step up.
• One quick way to raise "game-changing" cash would be to seize $218 billion in frozen Russian assets.

Amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv, calls are growing for Europe to take an unprecedented step that could unlock billions in funding for Ukraine.

Some world leaders and politicians, including former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are urging European countries to seize the roughly $218 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets — now largely held in Brussels — and hand them to Ukraine.

"It is only fair that Russia should pay for the damage its war has caused," Sunak wrote in an opinion piece for The Economist on Friday.

But such a move comes with risks.

The question of funding was a hot topic on Sunday as EU and UK leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for emergency talks in London to discuss support for Kyiv — just days after the latter's unprecedented Oval Office clash with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader on Friday in front of reporters and cameras. Zelenskyy ultimately left the White House without finalizing a minerals deal that would give the United States access to Kyiv's mineral wealth in exchange for investment and what Zelenskyy hoped would be security guarantees.

The situation has fueled questions over how Europe can step up to help aid Ukraine's defense efforts should the United States reduce, or cut altogether, its support for the war-torn nation.

For Europe to make up the difference would be an expensive prospect and one that could come with political repercussions — which makes the potential to unlock $218 billion in non-taxpayer money all the more attractive.

"We've got all of these different countries with their own internal political battles, and their own internal budgets, all trying to find more cash — and we're sitting on a game-changing amount of funding," Heather Buchanan, the chair of the Athena Foundation, an economic policy advisory nonprofit that supports the move, told Business Insider.

Europe's ace card​

The EU holds the majority of the roughly $300 billion in Russian funds frozen by the United States and international allies after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The funds have been earmarked for rebuilding Ukraine in peacetime.

Some of the interest earned on those funds has been transferred to Ukraine as loans. The UK's chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and Ukraine's finance minister, Sergii Marchenko, signed a deal on Saturday to deliver another £2.26 billion, or about $2.8 billion, to Ukraine from the accrued interest, also as a loan.

But there's now growing support for a long-considered option: seizing those frozen funds, which would allow them to be transferred directly to Ukraine for use in its defense.

In December, Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, called for the move — and it's seen support in the past week from leaders in the UK, Estonia, Poland, and Finland.


On Saturday, a coalition of campaign groups and UK MPs brought together by the Athena Foundation called on the UK to get the ball rolling with the seizure of £25 billion, or about $31.4 billion, of Russian state assets now frozen in the UK financial system.

Adrian Karatnycky, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January that the full $300 billion in frozen assets could replace the US contribution to Ukraine for the next six or seven years if Trump were to cut support to Kyiv.

A nervous gambit​

"The key blocker is that nobody wants to move alone," Buchanan said.

But the White House's recent moves have provided a "perfect storm" that is focusing minds, she added.

While many politicians are pushing for the move, some analysts warn that it should be a last resort because of the impact it could have on global economies.


For example, permanently confiscating Russian assets held in countries that aren't at war with Russia could also "increase the risk perceived by several other countries," Creon Butler, the director of Chatham House's global economy and finance program, wrote last year.

Other countries — such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia — may "fear that at some point they could be subject to similar measures," he wrote.

Sunak, writing for The Economist, has argued that those concerns are "overstated" and that this risk "can be contained."

There's also a debate among analysts over whether the assets should be kept available as a bargaining chip for any future peace talks.

Legal complications must also be considered, as the assets of a foreign nation are normally protected against seizure by a host country.

But the leading lawyer Paul Reichler previously argued to Congress that such protection falls apart when a host state carries out "egregiously wrongful conduct," as he said Russia had.


"If Congress has the power to authorize the executive to freeze a foreign state's assets, it must also have the power to authorize the executive to transfer them," he said.

Buchanan told BI that such a move does require legislation but that "that's what lawmakers are for," adding that meeting a satisfactory legal standard could be brought about "quite quickly."

A further worry is the prospect of retaliation by the Kremlin, whose State Duma is discussing a draft bill allowing it to confiscate foreign property in response to similar moves from "unfriendly countries," Reuters reported.

Striking a psychological blow​

Buchanan said passing the cash to Ukraine would send a "crystal clear" signal to Russia that this money isn't coming back — potentially dealing a strong psychological blow to a country whose economy and labor market are already deeply strained by the war.

The question is whether Western leaders will take the leap.

"It's just political will at this point," she added.

That's a serious move.

I could see Russia moving into further aggression if this happens.

Further aggression in what way? Launching an assault? No- they are running out of equipment to throw at the Ukrainians as is right now. More sabotage and asymmetric warfare? Perhaps. It might be a positive over the recent shifts we have seen where Russia may be reluctant to escalate and lose some of the seemingly positive influence with the US that they think they have.

Depends on if China helps them or not. I haven't followed it close enough to have sense of where that relationship is right now.

But Putin and the other Russian power players would probably be foaming at the mouth mad over something like that.

 

[uwillbsoon]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ Reverse inflate these numbers and extrapolate this for 80 years since the end of WW2, with the USA being relied on as the world police for democracy (which we have done both right and wrong at times), and you get a country that is $38 trillion in debt. Nixon tried to put the same screws to Europe that Trump currently is. it's not new. And if Europe with far more wealth than Russian can't stop Russia from taking this beyond Ukraine (assuming that would happen), well shame on them. Heck, they created many of these world issues we tried and failed to fix (Sykes Picot in Mid East, territories off of China, Balfour declaration in Israel, etc, etc). We just get blamed because we tried to clean it up. Which was mostly a losing proposition all along.

Agree with someone above. A complete re-think of our defense spending is in order. And it should be more for protection, a dome that stops hypersonics, IT and energy security, and border patrol rather than a world deplorable force. For instance, the DoD wants more aircraft carriers through ~2060. At an enormous cost. With the cost of the new jets to sit on those carriers and our soldiers in harms way. While China is using ships to deploy drone launching stations throughout the oceans. Just drop an undersea balloon of 1,000 drones in multiple seas, ready to be launched at the push of a button. We need to re-think the future of warfare.

I would assume we have no allies and never did. We had countries willing to latch to us so our taxpayers could protect them while they put their money into domestic social spending. Now that the faucet is being turned off, they are acting like jilted girlfriends.

The long pole in all this is the Congress. Presidents both Rep and Dem can try to fix the deficit. But Congress' bread and butter on both sides of the aisle is defense and healthcare companies. It's the Roman Senate all over again. Until we the people pass: 1) a balanced budget amendment and 2) term limits on Congress. Well it's a long haul to get Congress to make good fiscal decisions when they are totally fine spending money that isn't theirs.

One way to reduce military spending but also reduce the odds of war is through soft power and trade. They also happen to typically cost a lot less, too.

I am not sure if you have been watching but we have been trading like crazy with China while they continually lie, cheat and steal to undermine us and clearly are the major threat of us. They have actually used trade to weaken us and strengthen themselves and there are numerous examples of this. Further, you can look at history with the underlining reason for Pearl Harbor being that we were not too excited about continuing to feed their war machine with our oil and they figured they would knock us out and take the oil from Indonesia. So, though trade is important and countries that trade together usually tend to not go to war, it is not anything close to being "let's just be nice to each other and trade and all will be good" kind of

I thought we were talking about ensuring peace and reducing spending. Since that was the expressed goal I've been seeing from many regarding Ukraine here.

Sure, it's not a panacea. Neither is war and ever-increasing defense spending.

 

[fatness]

Long article in the NY Times about how drastically the fighting in Ukraine has shifted towards drone use.

If you can't read that page, here it is archived.

 

[beer 30]

Further, you can look at history with the underlining reason for Pearl Harbor being that we were not too excited about continuing to feed their war machine with our oil and they figured they would knock us out and take the oil from Indonesia.

Seems you and I are destined to derail this thread

Reading your statement quoted above, do you not mean the Japanese ambition rather than China (which is kinda how it reads in the context of what you posted). Regardless, thanks for the lunch time rabbit hole. As well versed as I think I am on WWII I always learn something new. Never knew the precursor for Pearl Harbor was our refusal to stop backing China forcing Japan to continue to focus on them and acquiring oil elsewhere and more importantly, keeping them from attacking Russia during the peak of the German advance into Russia

The Path Through the Soviet Union and China to Pearl Harbor

Historian Richard Frank explores the influence of China and the Soviet Union in the Japanese decision to attack American territories in December 1941.

www.nationalww2museum.org

 

[Chadstroma]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ Reverse inflate these numbers and extrapolate this for 80 years since the end of WW2, with the USA being relied on as the world police for democracy (which we have done both right and wrong at times), and you get a country that is $38 trillion in debt. Nixon tried to put the same screws to Europe that Trump currently is. it's not new. And if Europe with far more wealth than Russian can't stop Russia from taking this beyond Ukraine (assuming that would happen), well shame on them. Heck, they created many of these world issues we tried and failed to fix (Sykes Picot in Mid East, territories off of China, Balfour declaration in Israel, etc, etc). We just get blamed because we tried to clean it up. Which was mostly a losing proposition all along.

Agree with someone above. A complete re-think of our defense spending is in order. And it should be more for protection, a dome that stops hypersonics, IT and energy security, and border patrol rather than a world deplorable force. For instance, the DoD wants more aircraft carriers through ~2060. At an enormous cost. With the cost of the new jets to sit on those carriers and our soldiers in harms way. While China is using ships to deploy drone launching stations throughout the oceans. Just drop an undersea balloon of 1,000 drones in multiple seas, ready to be launched at the push of a button. We need to re-think the future of warfare.

I would assume we have no allies and never did. We had countries willing to latch to us so our taxpayers could protect them while they put their money into domestic social spending. Now that the faucet is being turned off, they are acting like jilted girlfriends.

The long pole in all this is the Congress. Presidents both Rep and Dem can try to fix the deficit. But Congress' bread and butter on both sides of the aisle is defense and healthcare companies. It's the Roman Senate all over again. Until we the people pass: 1) a balanced budget amendment and 2) term limits on Congress. Well it's a long haul to get Congress to make good fiscal decisions when they are totally fine spending money that isn't theirs.

One way to reduce military spending but also reduce the odds of war is through soft power and trade. They also happen to typically cost a lot less, too.

I am not sure if you have been watching but we have been trading like crazy with China while they continually lie, cheat and steal to undermine us and clearly are the major threat of us. They have actually used trade to weaken us and strengthen themselves and there are numerous examples of this. Further, you can look at history with the underlining reason for Pearl Harbor being that we were not too excited about continuing to feed their war machine with our oil and they figured they would knock us out and take the oil from Indonesia. So, though trade is important and countries that trade together usually tend to not go to war, it is not anything close to being "let's just be nice to each other and trade and all will be good" kind of

I thought we were talking about ensuring peace and reducing spending. Since that was the expressed goal I've been seeing from many regarding Ukraine here.

Sure, it's not a panacea. Neither is war and ever-increasing defense spending.

I am not interested in following the same cycle that the US has followed over it's entire life span..... go to war then stop spending after letting the military whither and fall apart then get thrusted into war and quickly gear up and then again stop spending and have a weak military to only go to war again and rush to build the military up. It was much easier to do that from 1776 through the WWII but the world had changed. You can't produce thousands of F-22's with no notice in a war. The complexity of modern warfare and what is needed to fight it does not allow us to mobilize after the war is started. See Ukraine and we can barely arm them because our military industry is not prepared to support it.

 

[beer 30]

Long article in the NY Times about how drastically the fighting in Ukraine has shifted towards drone use.

If you can't read that page, here it is archived.

The drone warfare being exhibited in Ukraine is probably the scariest thing I think I've seen in a long time when it comes to war fighting. I might be wrong but to me we are seeing the next iteration of warfare, similar to the introduction of the machine gun in WWI. Ironic that WWI was fought in trenches but because of the technology introduced during that war, much of that doctrine changed and here we are, 100 years later fighting a war in trenches again with a paradigm shift in technology being introduced.

 

[Chadstroma]

Further, you can look at history with the underlining reason for Pearl Harbor being that we were not too excited about continuing to feed their war machine with our oil and they figured they would knock us out and take the oil from Indonesia.

Seems you and I are destined to derail this thread

Reading your statement quoted above, do you not mean the Japanese ambition rather than China (which is kinda how it reads in the context of what you posted). Regardless, thanks for the lunch time rabbit hole. As well versed as I think I am on WWII I always learn something new. Never knew the precursor for Pearl Harbor was our refusal to stop backing China forcing Japan to continue to focus on them and acquiring oil elsewhere and more importantly, keeping them from attacking Russia during the peak of the German advance into Russia

The Path Through the Soviet Union and China to Pearl Harbor

Historian Richard Frank explores the influence of China and the Soviet Union in the Japanese decision to attack American territories in December 1941.

www.nationalww2museum.org

Yes, I guess I took it for granted that everyone knew the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and not China but that might have been a poor assumption

And hey- don't blame me for a derailment on this one. My point had direct application to this thread.

 

[Chadstroma]

Long article in the NY Times about how drastically the fighting in Ukraine has shifted towards drone use.

If you can't read that page, here it is archived.

The drone warfare being exhibited in Ukraine is probably the scariest thing I think I've seen in a long time when it comes to war fighting. I might be wrong but to me we are seeing the next iteration of warfare, similar to the introduction of the machine gun in WWI. Ironic that WWI was fought in trenches but because of the technology introduced during that war, much of that doctrine changed and here we are, 100 years later fighting a war in trenches again with a paradigm shift in technology being introduced.

I think we (US Military) has known that the way warfare was going was heavily UAV centered but I think as is usually the case, the military, as a large organization with older men being the leadership, are slow to really change as things change. We are seeing the importance of drone warfare and not just in the air but on the ground and water as well. Another great lesson that we are learning with this war in more of an emphasis.

Coming out of this war, Ukraine will be the leader in UAV advancement. We very well may be buying from them (well, we will team them up with a US company or have them start a US affiliate company because that is how things are done)

 

[beer 30]

I guess I took it for granted that everyone knew the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

I'll see myself out

 

[Chadstroma]

I guess I took it for granted that everyone knew the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

I'll see myself out

We all forgot about it... you were rolling.

 

[Worm]

Long article in the NY Times about how drastically the fighting in Ukraine has shifted towards drone use.

If you can't read that page, here it is archived.

The drone warfare being exhibited in Ukraine is probably the scariest thing I think I've seen in a long time when it comes to war fighting. I might be wrong but to me we are seeing the next iteration of warfare, similar to the introduction of the machine gun in WWI. Ironic that WWI was fought in trenches but because of the technology introduced during that war, much of that doctrine changed and here we are, 100 years later fighting a war in trenches again with a paradigm shift in technology being introduced.

I think we (US Military) has known that the way warfare was going was heavily UAV centered but I think as is usually the case, the military, as a large organization with older men being the leadership, are slow to really change as things change. We are seeing the importance of drone warfare and not just in the air but on the ground and water as well. Another great lesson that we are learning with this war in more of an emphasis.

Coming out of this war, Ukraine will be the leader in UAV advancement. We very well may be buying from them (well, we will team them up with a US company or have them start a US affiliate company because that is how things are done)

Ukraine is already being powered on the drone software side by an American company, Palantir.

I suspect Anduril will provide a large amount of the next generation of western warfighting hardware.

 

[culdeus]

https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possible-russia-sanctions-relief-sources-say-2025-03-03/

Wasn't expecting it quite so fast.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possible-russia-sanctions-relief-sources-say-2025-03-03/

Wasn't expecting it quite so fast.

Seems like a precursor to "these sanctions will be lifted if X happens regarding Ukraine ".

From that article

Trump in January threatened to ramp up sanctions on Russia if Putin was unwilling to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. But more recently, Trump administration officials have openly acknowledged the possibility of easing sanctions on Moscow.

I'd be willing to bet that "more recently" part was in light of thinking Ukraine was also near a deal.

 

[Dezbelief]

Fire erupts at key oil facility deep inside Russia amid drone exchange with Ukraine

Local emergency services in Ufa reported a fire at one of the country's largest oil refineries, with one Ukrainian official describing the incident as a drone attack.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Dezbelief]

Long-range drone strikes weakening Russia's combat ability, senior Ukrainian commander says

Sky News was given rare access to view a drone mission at a top-secret area in Ukraine. Long-range drone strikes targeting ammunition, weapons and fuel are making it "significantly" harder for Russia to conduct combat operations against Ukraine.

news.sky.com

 

[culdeus]

Long-range drone strikes weakening Russia's combat ability, senior Ukrainian commander says

Sky News was given rare access to view a drone mission at a top-secret area in Ukraine. Long-range drone strikes targeting ammunition, weapons and fuel are making it "significantly" harder for Russia to conduct combat operations against Ukraine.

news.sky.com

There are now videos of them riding horses in

 

[tymarsas]

Trump halts US aid To Ukraine after fiery clash with Zelensky: report

Bloomberg reports that the aid freeze will remain in place until Trump determines Ukraine is making a genuine effort toward peace.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Dezbelief]

Russia plans to launch 500 kamikaze drones per day at Ukraine, HUR says

Russia currently uses 150 to 200 drones per attack against Ukraine, but Russian forces plan to increase their capabilities to 500, Vadym Skibitskyi said.

kyivindependent.com

 

[dutch]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

 

[Dezbelief]

Fire erupts at key oil facility deep inside Russia amid drone exchange with Ukraine

Local emergency services in Ufa reported a fire at one of the country's largest oil refineries, with one Ukrainian official describing the incident as a drone attack.

abcnews.go.com

Fire engulfs Russian oil refinery 900 miles from Ukraine after drones heard

Residents in Ufa, Bashkortostan, reported hearing drones and explosion sounds in the city before the fire broke out.

www.newsweek.com

 

[ghostguy123]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

New president that's been in office a little over a month?

 

[dutch]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

New president that's been in office a little over a month?

Sure that's a thing but the way the new admin is attacking and the pace with which they are escalating is radical, imo. I realize actual diplomacy is beyond the current Presidents capabilities but even for him this is aggressive from jump.

 

[Dezbelief]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

The answer is 100% political.

 

[Worm]

-Cease cyber operations against Russia

http://www.axios.com/2025/03/03/hegseth-trump-russia-cyber-operations-ukraine

-Invite banned Russian State Media into the Oval Office for a meeting with Ukranian president that goes south

http://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/tass-oval-office-trump-zelenskyy-00206739

-Cease (pause, technically per the report) Ukrainian aid

Edit - just facts from the last few days

 

[Chaos34]

Just my opinion but any discussion of the peace negotiations is almost impossible to have without bending to the politics. It IS the politics. God bless if you can keep it to reporting just the facts without opinion or speculation. So, maybe we drop it and just go with a wait and see.

I'd be up for a group PM discussion so some of you can vent, and some of us struggling to keep quiet can go there. I think there's plenty to flesh out.

I'm only saying this and suggesting an outlet because I will be more disappointed in the loss of this thread than any I can think of. It's almost been an honor to read at times as some of you have done such a great job of keeping the information going and the politics blocked.

 

[HellToupee]

Hard to not come to the conclusion that the admistration is aligning with Russia.

Seriously?

 

[ghostguy123]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

New president that's been in office a little over a month?

Sure that's a thing but the way the new admin is attacking and the pace with which they are escalating is radical, imo. I realize actual diplomacy is beyond the current Presidents capabilities but even for him this is aggressive from jump.

Well, I mean, they want the war ended ASAP. You want another 3 years?

 

[Atomic Punk]

Really hard not to get political right now based on the conversation and the response of various players that aren’t Russia and Ukraine.

If you keep it to the two combatants, I think you will be better off.

 

[Dezbelief]

I'd be up for a group PM discussion so some of you can vent, and some of us struggling to keep quiet can go there. I think there's plenty to flesh out.

There is a discord group of FBGs discussing things like this.

 

[Zeppelin]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

The answer is 100% political.

Which means we cant talk about it here.

 

[Zeppelin]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

New president that's been in office a little over a month?

Sure that's a thing but the way the new admin is attacking and the pace with which they are escalating is radical, imo. I realize actual diplomacy is beyond the current Presidents capabilities but even for him this is aggressive from jump.

Seems like he's treating national leaders the same way he treats his contractors, tenants, etc.

Not all that surprising IMO

This is the kind of post that will shut this thread down so please stop.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I'd be up for a group PM discussion so some of you can vent, and some of us struggling to keep quiet can go there. I think there's plenty to flesh out.

There is a discord group of FBGs discussing things like this.

Can I get a link?

 

[Redwes25]

I'd be up for a group PM discussion so some of you can vent, and some of us struggling to keep quiet can go there. I think there's plenty to flesh out.

There is a discord group of FBGs discussing things like this.

Can I get a link?

Would be interested as well.

 

[[icon]]

As Europe mobilizes behind Ukraine, it's sitting on a $218 billion ace card — and it's being urged to play it​

• European leaders held emergency talks to discuss support for Ukraine on Sunday.
• It came amid souring relations between the US and Ukraine, raising pressure on Europe to step up.
• One quick way to raise "game-changing" cash would be to seize $218 billion in frozen Russian assets.

Amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv, calls are growing for Europe to take an unprecedented step that could unlock billions in funding for Ukraine.

Some world leaders and politicians, including former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are urging European countries to seize the roughly $218 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets — now largely held in Brussels — and hand them to Ukraine.

"It is only fair that Russia should pay for the damage its war has caused," Sunak wrote in an opinion piece for The Economist on Friday.

But such a move comes with risks.

The question of funding was a hot topic on Sunday as EU and UK leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for emergency talks in London to discuss support for Kyiv — just days after the latter's unprecedented Oval Office clash with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader on Friday in front of reporters and cameras. Zelenskyy ultimately left the White House without finalizing a minerals deal that would give the United States access to Kyiv's mineral wealth in exchange for investment and what Zelenskyy hoped would be security guarantees.

The situation has fueled questions over how Europe can step up to help aid Ukraine's defense efforts should the United States reduce, or cut altogether, its support for the war-torn nation.

For Europe to make up the difference would be an expensive prospect and one that could come with political repercussions — which makes the potential to unlock $218 billion in non-taxpayer money all the more attractive.

"We've got all of these different countries with their own internal political battles, and their own internal budgets, all trying to find more cash — and we're sitting on a game-changing amount of funding," Heather Buchanan, the chair of the Athena Foundation, an economic policy advisory nonprofit that supports the move, told Business Insider.

Europe's ace card​

The EU holds the majority of the roughly $300 billion in Russian funds frozen by the United States and international allies after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The funds have been earmarked for rebuilding Ukraine in peacetime.

Some of the interest earned on those funds has been transferred to Ukraine as loans. The UK's chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and Ukraine's finance minister, Sergii Marchenko, signed a deal on Saturday to deliver another £2.26 billion, or about $2.8 billion, to Ukraine from the accrued interest, also as a loan.

But there's now growing support for a long-considered option: seizing those frozen funds, which would allow them to be transferred directly to Ukraine for use in its defense.

In December, Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, called for the move — and it's seen support in the past week from leaders in the UK, Estonia, Poland, and Finland.


On Saturday, a coalition of campaign groups and UK MPs brought together by the Athena Foundation called on the UK to get the ball rolling with the seizure of £25 billion, or about $31.4 billion, of Russian state assets now frozen in the UK financial system.

Adrian Karatnycky, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January that the full $300 billion in frozen assets could replace the US contribution to Ukraine for the next six or seven years if Trump were to cut support to Kyiv.

A nervous gambit​

"The key blocker is that nobody wants to move alone," Buchanan said.

But the White House's recent moves have provided a "perfect storm" that is focusing minds, she added.

While many politicians are pushing for the move, some analysts warn that it should be a last resort because of the impact it could have on global economies.


For example, permanently confiscating Russian assets held in countries that aren't at war with Russia could also "increase the risk perceived by several other countries," Creon Butler, the director of Chatham House's global economy and finance program, wrote last year.

Other countries — such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia — may "fear that at some point they could be subject to similar measures," he wrote.

Sunak, writing for The Economist, has argued that those concerns are "overstated" and that this risk "can be contained."

There's also a debate among analysts over whether the assets should be kept available as a bargaining chip for any future peace talks.

Legal complications must also be considered, as the assets of a foreign nation are normally protected against seizure by a host country.

But the leading lawyer Paul Reichler previously argued to Congress that such protection falls apart when a host state carries out "egregiously wrongful conduct," as he said Russia had.


"If Congress has the power to authorize the executive to freeze a foreign state's assets, it must also have the power to authorize the executive to transfer them," he said.

Buchanan told BI that such a move does require legislation but that "that's what lawmakers are for," adding that meeting a satisfactory legal standard could be brought about "quite quickly."

A further worry is the prospect of retaliation by the Kremlin, whose State Duma is discussing a draft bill allowing it to confiscate foreign property in response to similar moves from "unfriendly countries," Reuters reported.

Striking a psychological blow​

Buchanan said passing the cash to Ukraine would send a "crystal clear" signal to Russia that this money isn't coming back — potentially dealing a strong psychological blow to a country whose economy and labor market are already deeply strained by the war.

The question is whether Western leaders will take the leap.

"It's just political will at this point," she added.

That's a serious move.

I could see Russia moving into further aggression if this happens.

Agreed. Play that card you push all the chips in the middle and kiss the peace process goodbye. Much better utilized if/when they are at the negotiating table IMO

Given what has happened over the last few weeks, I have next to zero faith that any peace without cowing fully to Russias demands is possible…. And that is not an option sooooo…

I’d say break off 50B as a “loan” and test the waters.

 

[[icon]]

I'd be up for a group PM discussion so some of you can vent, and some of us struggling to keep quiet can go there. I think there's plenty to flesh out.

There is a discord group of FBGs discussing things like this.

Can I get a link?

Would be interested as well.

Same please

https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possible-russia-sanctions-relief-sources-say-2025-03-03/

Wasn't expecting it quite so fast.

I was, sadly.

Based on the U.S. seeming to quietly aid in the reopening of Nordstream 2 to generate more revenue for Russia,

I would not be surprised at all to see the U.S. to begin backing Russia more openly in this war. Not saying it’s goin to happen but there is enough smoke in that direction.

This is indeed quite relevant to the war, but if it’s too political accept my apologies and delete. I tried to keep it as factual as possible.

 

[ghostguy123]

When some of you mention the US will "back Russia", in what way exactly?

 

[[icon]]

When some of you mention the US will "back Russia", in what way exactly?

Not sure I can answer that within the confines of this thread but happy to lay out what I see possibly happening over in the discord.

 

[Chaos34]

When some of you mention the US will "back Russia", in what way exactly?

Why ask this? Answering is speculating. Speculating is political where this topic is concerned. Go to X and search the topic. There's tons there to read.

 

[BassNBrew]

Major props to those of you who swam away for the bait and those who took the conversation elsewhere as needed.

 

[[icon]]

Major props to those of you who swam away for the bait and those who took the conversation elsewhere as needed.

Not sure what this has to do with the situation in Eastern Europe but maybe I missed something.

 

[BassNBrew]

Major props to those of you who swam away for the bait and those who took the conversation elsewhere as needed.

Not sure what this has to do with the situation in Eastern Europe but maybe I missed something.

Just saying thanks to guys like you who pulled this thread off the ledge today and probably saved it.

Not sure I can answer that within the confines of this thread but happy to lay out what I see possibly happening over in the discord.

 

[fatness]

What is the urgency requiring the all out pressure campaign? No way it's just the money we've spent, it's got to be something else. Zelensky was pressed to sign the agreement the first time basically sight unseen and then he, and Europe, were frozen out of talks by the US and Russia. Now, the US is freezing aid and goading Zelensky while taking a tough stance on the European involvement. Why the all out blitz?

The answer is 100% political.

Which means we cant talk about it here.

On page 166 of a long running topic about a multi-year war, during which the US is the major supplier for Ukraine which was invaded by Russia, and the suggestion upthread is that we can't talk about what the US is doing any more.

I think that is a bad idea. Aid to Ukraine by the US has just been cut off, there's a shift in US government's views of Ukraine, and both US arms supply and support have been a constant source of discussion in the topic. I agree with no blatantly political posts but those 2 issues can still be discussed, in my opinion, without the need to close the topic at this point. Talking about what the US government is (or isn't) doing isn't political. Talking about "Trump that idiot" or "Saving our country" would be and are political (examples pulled out of my hat).