Negotiations are only just started over ending the Ukraine war - we shouldn't read much into the discussions between US and Russia - the path to peace starts in earnest when Trump talks to Zelensky
- and Ukraine is fully supported by its European partners whatever Trump does
Trump said he would find a path to peace in the first 100 days (originally he said 24 hours). However he is currently trying to find a solution by:
talking to Putin and not engaging in any genuine dialogue with Zelensky or European leaders. This can’t work
making major concessions about Ukraine to Putin before the negotations start
- these are concessions he has no right to make. That also can’t work.
[Skip to Contents or click on vertical column of dashes to the left of this page on a laptop]
Trump and Zelensky did talk in person in November but back then Trump told Zelensky he could only listen and couldn't negotiate because US law didn't permit him to negotiate while Biden remained president.
So Trump and Zelensky haven't had a proper dialogue yet, just Zelensky explaining his ideas to Trump with Trump unable to negotiate back.
We may have a clearer picture after Zelensky meets with Trump whenever that is. However so far they don't seem to have a meeting scheduled yet.
Instead Trump officials went to Saudia Arabia to talk to Russian officials about the future for Ukraine. They didn’t invite either Ukraine or Europe to those talks.
By coincidence Zelensky was going to be in Saudi Arabia for other reasons on that day to do with a charity run by his wife - so he cancelled that visit to avoid the coincidence of being in Saudi Arabia at the same time as the meeting and not present.
https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-postpones-saudi-arabia-visit-amid-russia-us-talks/
The Russian and US teams agreed to set up diplomatic relations. It was essentially talks about talks. They agreed to set up a "consultation mechanism to address irritants to our bilateral relationship," and to appoint "high-level teams to begin working on a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible in a way that is enduring, sustainable, and acceptable to all sides."
QUOTE The State Department said only that Mr. Trump was, "the only leader in the world who can get Ukraine and Russia to agree to" a ceasefire.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-russia-meeting-improving-relations-ukraine-war/
That will be useful later on but first Trump has to talk to Zelensky and European leaders.
Of course Trump can’t work out anything with Putin for Europe and Ukraine without first talking to those countries first.
France held an emergency meeting on the matter because they know that Trump can’t arrange a peace deal without their involvement or Ukraine’s involvement.
So they are looking for other ideas for a way forward.
The French government later said the crisis meeting Monday afternoon would include Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as the NATO secretary-general and the presidents of the European Council and the European Commission.
This is to discuss what Europe should do next, given that they all know it is impossible for Trump to find a way to peace in Ukraine by talking to Putin without involving Ukraine or Europe. So Europe has to be ready from its side for whenever Trump might start to talk to them.
Or else if necessary they have to be ready to find an independent path to peace themselves.
Biden knew that Trump can be an erratic decision maker. He felt that Ukraine needs steady support to resist Russia while it charts a way to end the war.
So Biden along with his European colleagues helped NATO to shift the center of operations to Germany to keep that stability. This will help ensure that the support for Ukraine will continue no matter what Trump decides.
So we’ll get to that in the next section. But first because most people help are scared of a world war, then we should briefly look at that and say why there is no way Russia attacks NATO.
No risk of Russia attacking NATO or a world war
There isn’t any risk of Russia attacking NATO. If that worries you please see:
There isn’t any risk of a world war.
Sky News' military analyst, Sean Bell to young kids: “we are NOT on the verge of World War 3” and “we are NOT about to have a nuclear confrontation” - shortened version
I hope this helps some of the scared people we help,
That helps explain how huge NATO’s technological advantage is over Russia.
It has quotes from Admiral Radakin who heads the UK defence and General Petreaus explaining how safe we are for any of us in NATO countries.
Here is General Petreaus - when the US allowed UK to give permission to Ukraine to use its stormshadow missiles against targets in Russia, General Petraeus was one of the few to assure us that Putin will NOT attack any NATO country and will NOT use nukes.
General Petraeus: Okay to let Ukraine use UK’s long-range stormshadow cruise missiles and US’s ATACMS to hit Russian soil - Putin will NOT attack any NATO country - NOT use nukes
General Petraeus is a US retired four star general and one of the best informed people on the topic. He was director of the CIA and led American and international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has been over to Ukraine four times in the last 18 months. He is speaking from Kyiv in this interview.
Also since many of the scared people worry about a world war - no that’s not what it’s about. See my:
Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - and longer term are headed for a future without any war
For a first overview look at the graphics, read the bullet points summary, and read the section titles in the contents list - then dive into more detail in any section of interest. If you are on the laptop you can also navigate to any section by clicking on the column of horizontal dashes you see to the left of this page.
Worst case here is just peace postponed - Ukraine will never accept an inadequate treaty
The main thing to remember is that the worst case here is peace is postponed
Ukraine is not going to accept any treaty that leaves Ukraine too weak to protect itself from Russia or be protected by others.
So if Trump comes up with an inadequate way to end the war, all that happens is that Ukraine has to keep fighting until someone finds a better way forward.
We will find that it’s a very different situation from spring 2024. The US now provides only a fifth of the military support Ukraine needs. Europe provides 25% and Ukraine itself now is able to provide the remaining 55%.
There is no shortage of shells any more. Europe can continue to support Ukraine if the US stops. However even under Trump, the US is continuing to ship the weapons that Biden promised to Ukraine but wasn’t able to get out of the USA before the new presidency. Trump is also interested in a minerals for arms deal with Ukraine which suggests that the US also will be in it for the long haul once the Biden shipments are over.
So there isn’t any risk of Ukraine’s army running out of supplies this spring.
Indeed it’s the opposite. Before he left office, Biden arranged with Europe that
All support operations for Ukraine will be coordinated in Germany instead of the USA - Trump is now out of the loop.
Ukraine will get $2 billion a month secured against the interest on the frozen Russian foreign reserves which it can use as it pleases.
This puts Ukraine in a far more secure situation than it was this time in 2024.
Zelensky wants peace. But there is an asymmetry here:
an invaded country can't stop an invasion by stopping fighting on its side.
Zelensky has to find a way to get Putin to stop the fighting from his side.
Until then the fighting continues.
If Trump and Putin come to an unfair agreement this has no effect on the war. Ukraine will just ignore it.
Europe has vastly more GDP than Russia. It's technologically way ahead of Russia. European countries are only spending a minute fraction of their GDP to support Ukraine. Europe can support Ukraine easily.
Trump continues to send the shipments to Ukraine that Biden has already paid for and will keep doing so for months. And Trump also seems to be open to supporting Ukraine militarily in exchange for some arrangement that lets US businesses exploit Ukrainian deposits of Lithium, Titanium etc.
So all that would continue while Trump figures out what to do after his plan worked out in collaboration with Putin is just ignored.
Zelensky sees Trump’s plan to talk to Putin first as a delay, that will make it longer to achieve peace.
He still sees plenty of potential to end the war. But with a delay while Trump explores other approaches that are not able to achieve peace.
Trump can’t find peace for Ukraine without involving Ukraine in the peace plan
Zelensky says first that Trump’s team can’t have a genuine peace plan because they can’t have it without Ukraine:
TRANSCRIPT STARTS
KRISTEN WELKER:
What is the Trump administration's peace plan? Do they have one?
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
First of all, I think, no, they don't have a real plan because they can't have it without us. I think so. Maybe there are some ideas.
He also says Ukraine will never accept any decisions that the US and Russia make for Ukraine. The US can make decisions about other things, but not about Ukraine.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about something that President Trump said this week. He did not say yes when he was asked if he sees Ukraine as an equal member in the peace process. He did say later that Ukraine would have a seat at the table. Have you been given any assurances that Ukraine will have an equal seat at the negotiating table?
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
So, I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine.
Never. And our people, never. And our adults, and children, and everybody, it can't be so. The war in Ukraine is against us, and it is our human losses.
…
Of course, the United States can have a lot of decisions, economical partnership, and et cetera. We're not happy with it, but they can have with Russians.
But not about this war without us. And that's why I think that what we need I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine.
Never. And our people, never. And our adults, and children, and everybody, it can't be so. The war in Ukraine is against us, and it is our human losses. And we are thankful for all the … unity in USA around Ukraine support, bipartisan unity, bipartisan support, we're thankful for all of this.
But there is no any leader in the world who can really make a deal with Putin without us [and] about us.
Of course, the United States can have a lot of decisions, economic partnership, and et cetera. We're not happy with it, but they can have [economic partnership] with Russians.
But [they can't make decisions] about this war without us. And that's why I think that we need [to work very closely and faster]
He says that we are wasting time to work faster on a common plan with these dialogues between Trump and Putin.
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
I think we [are losing] time [to work faster] on .. the common plan.
[The] United States is our biggest strategic partner. We are ready not only to share our plan. We're ready to put common plan [to] President Trump.
And of course we need support from EU. It's important. They are also big donators during this war. And we will be the members [the] European Union [in the future]. That's why we need the support of Europe.
And this common plan,we have to discuss with Russians, and we will. And at the table, it's very important to hear [from] America, Europe, Ukraine and Russia.
I think we lose time [to work faster] on the common plan.
And he says he can’t accept any peace deal that is cut without Ukraine.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you accept any peace deal that is cut without Ukraine?
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
No
This is a delay until Trump comes up with some better approach
This is just a delay in Trump's peace plans until he comes up with something better. For as long as Trump persists in this approach he won't be able to achieve his goal of a peaceful end to the war.
If Trump doesn't change course, it will then be up to Ukraine and its European partners to conduct negotiations with Putin instead.
He doesn’t have the right to make concessions for Ukraine to Putin, and of course Ukraine is not bound in any way by things that the Trump says to Putin.
Trump’s team has said that
Ukraine will never join NATO
[Trump can’t make this decision for future US presidents]Ukraine has to give up its hopes to restore the territory captured by Russia since 2014
[Trump can’t make this decision for Ukraine and legally Ukraine can’tHe hinted that Ukraine needs to hold elections and elect a new leader
[Ukraine can’t do this in war time by its constitution as well as practical reasons such as how to arrange voting for 800,000 soldiers actively fighting, for ballot stations that may be hit by Russian glide bombs ]
Of course Trump flips all the time. He can easily flip on all these things he said to Putin.
Anton Gerashchenko talking to Ukrainians: Gradually we’ll see demands from all sides - then a search for a consensus will follow - we must remain calm and remember our goals
This is just a start of negotiations. I thought this was a good summary from Anton Gerashchenko, former advisor to the internal Affairs Minister in Ukraine who I follow on Twitter.
Talking to Ukrainians who are understandably anxious, he says:
Gradually, we will see the demands of all sides. Then, a search for consensus will follow.
We must keep calm and remember our goals.
There will be lots and lots of rumors and anxiety. It's important to stay grounded.
The crucial thing to remember: to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, Ukrainian Defense Forces must remain strong and well equipped; same goes for the military production complex.
Full quote:
TWEET STARTS
Negotiations started.
An important week. So many events and statements. We must keep calm and remember our goals.
The negotiations process will be taking place. Gradually, we will see the demands of all sides. Then, a search for consensus will follow.
There will be lots and lots of rumors and anxiety. It's important to stay grounded.
It's just the beginning.
The crucial thing to remember: to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, Ukrainian Defense Forces must remain strong and well equipped; same goes for the military production complex.
The United States is Ukraine's strategic partner. A just peace for Ukraine will show the real strength and impact of the US.
He also shares the statements of both Zelensky and Trump from their calls:
TWEET STARTS
Presidents Zelenskyy and Trump shared the details of their conversation:
◾️President Zelenskyy:
…
Ukraine wants peace more than anyone else. We define our joint steps with America to stop Russian aggression and guarantee a reliable, long-lasting peace. As President Trump said, let's get it done.
We agreed on further contacts and meetings.
◾️President Trump:
… The conversation went very well. He, like President Putin, wants to make PEACE. We discussed a variety of topics having to do with the War, but mostly, the meeting that is being set up on Friday in Munich, where Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will lead the Delegation. I am hopeful that the results of that meeting will be positive.
…
If Trump can’t secure a far, safe, and lasting peace - nothing bad happens - Ukraine just keeps fighting until he does or someone else finds a solution
Fist there’s an asymmetry here
If Putin orders his soldiers to stop fighting - then they have to leave Ukraine but Ukraine would then give Kursk back to Russia and the war would be over with no harm to the Russian Federation
If Ukraine orders his soldiers to stop fighting, Putin’s soldiers will take over all of Ukraine and Ukraine will no longer exist as a separte country or a democracy.
So
Putin as the invader can stop fighting and leave Ukraine with no harm to the Russian Federation
If Ukraine stopped fighting, gave up its weapons, stood down all its soldiers, Russia would quickly take over all of Ukraine.
It is the same for any invasion. Only the invader can stop the war by ending the fighting from its side.
The invaded can only end the war by fighting back and pushing the invader out - or surrendering.
Ukraine is not going to surrender.
Ukraine has strong support from Europe and a strong defense industry base of its own - and won't be forced to submit to Russia.
So there are two possibilities
Trump secures a just and fair lasting peace deal and Ukraine can stop fighting
Trump doesn't secure a safe and lasting peace and the fighting continues.
There’s no risk of a world war here. Just of the war continuing.
There’s a big change from 2024 when
Ukraine depended so much on the US Ukraine bill in spring 2024.
In 2025, it can continue fighting without any more support from Trump
That’s because of
a big ramp up in support from Europe
its own defense industrial base is now supported by its $2 billion per month from the EU secured against the interest on the Russian foreign reserves.
Trump continues to send the equipment promised by Biden and not yet shipped to Ukraine
Biden used the last few months of his presidency to help transfer the decision making and leadership of NATO from the US to Europe. NATO can now support Ukraine without any input from the USA.
As the invader, Putin can end this war by stopping the invasion and ending its attempt to add Ukraine to the Russian Federation - while Ukraine can’t end the invasion except by surrendering all its territory to Russia
It is not peace for Ukraine if Ukrainians top fighting and Russians continue fighting.
If Russians decide to stop fighting they have to leave Ukraine but in that situation Ukraine will respect the national boundary and withdraw from Kurks and that's the war over.
If Ukrainians decide to stop fighting, Russia takes over all of Ukraine.
That is the aysmmetry
As Zelensky put it,
“without Russians, we can't stop this war. We can't stop Putin without his decision, because he is on our territory."
In context:
KRISTEN WELKER:
Given what you're saying, are you willing to negotiate with Vladimir Putin face to face?
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
Together, United States, Europe, Ukraine and Russia, yes, because without Russians, we can't stop for today, we can't stop this war. We can't stop Putin without his decision, because he is on our territory.
Zelensky goes on to say that his allies could give Ukraine weapons that would let them push the Russian army out of Ukraine. However they decided to deal with Putin instead.
Since Zelensky doesn’t have the power to push Putin out then he has to do what he can via diplomacy
KRISTEN WELKER:
If you were sitting across from Vladimir Putin right now instead of me, what would you say to him?
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
It's not about emotions. It's about how to stop him. So for me, he is a killer, and he will never change. And that's why this is dialogue with a terrorist. This is dialogue with a killer.
I don't have enough power to push him out. That's why I have to speak about it.
So our allies can give me such power to push him out, but our allies decided to make a deal with Putin.
But I'm ready. Of course we don't want to lose our people. And if it can [use] diplomacy to stop this war, of course, we are ready. Of course we will be happy with a peace [deal]
Trump only briefly paused the Biden shipments of arms to Ukraine
First, Trump has NOT blocked the shipments of aid that Biden authorized.
They were paused briefly along with everything else in his foreign aid freeze but then he quickly resumed them.
These are commitments that Biden already made. He resolved to leave not a cent unspent but though he spent everything approved by Congress in spring 2024, he wasn’t able to send everything to Ukraine because of internal administrative delays.
However, Trump is going to continue to ship the material that Biden promised based on the funding Congress allocated in spring 2024. This is not affected by the funding freeze for foreign aid. It was only briefly paused and then resumed.
Shipments restarted after the White House pulled back on its initial assessment to stop all aid to Ukraine, two of the sources said.
…
Since Donald Trump took office, no packages have been announced, but shipments authorized by Joe Biden were thought to continue to flow - and would for months - due to the backlog.
Biden's last package in december was $5.9 billion to spend all the funding Congress allocated in the spring. https://san.com/cc/us-to-send-nearly-6b-to-ukraine-in-biden-administrations-final-days/
Since nothing like that amount got to Ukraine, there is likely several billion dollars of that aid still in the US which will gradually reach Ukraine over the following several months.
That gives time for Ukraine to negotiate with Trump over his minerals for arms deal.
Trump’s minerals for arms deal with Ukraine
Trump also plans to send more military supplies to Ukraine as part of a deal:
to support Ukraine militarily in return for
access to Ukraine's mineral deposits for materials such as lithium.
This is already part of Ukraine's victory plan. But it depends on the details of what is meant. If he just means that the US will be able to buy Ukrainian Lithium along with Europe and other economic partners that's one thing, if he means somehow exclusive access to lithium that would be much more contentions.
QUOTE STARTS
Recently, US President Donald Trump stated that the United States could continue its aid to Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian rare earth metals. He also mentioned that Washington is working on guarantees for Ukraine.
It is worth recalling that earlier, Zelenskyy stated that these resources are strategically valuable and could strengthen Ukraine. Specifically, within the victory plan, one of the points proposed by Ukraine was to sign an agreement with the US and other Western allies to protect these critical resources, jointly invest in them, and utilize their economic potential.
https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/zelenskyy-responds-to-trump-s-statements-1738688915.html
In more detail, Ukraine is interested in the deal. It has agreements ready to sign.
QUOTE STARTS
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said the United States wants Ukrainian rare earth minerals — such as lithium, uranium and titanium — in exchange for the security assistance that Ukraine depends on for its defense against Russia’s invasion.
“We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine, where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earth and other things,” Trump said.
With continued U.S. support for Ukraine in doubt since Trump’s election, officials in Kyiv regarded Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s rare earth commodities as a positive development that could get him invested in the country’s future. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky first suggested providing the United States with the materials during his meeting with Trump ahead of the November election.
...
Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s offer of a barter for military aid could serve as a road map for how countries negotiate with his administration going forward.
…
A senior Ukrainian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, said Tuesday that Zelensky’s administration is “ready to sign documents about joint agreements” and that “having a strategic U.S. interest in Ukraine is a key component to our security in the future.”
...
Of particular interest to Trump is likely Ukraine’s prospective deposits of lithium — used for high-tech components, such as in microchips and electric car industries. Russia is also interested in Ukraine’s natural resources, and one major lithium reserve is within 10 miles of the front line in the Donetsk region. Analysts have estimated that Moscow has already managed to seize more than $12 trillion worth in Ukrainian energy assets.
Exactly how many mineral resources Ukraine has is something of a mystery, though it’s believed to be worth trillions. The Ukrainian official acknowledged that estimates are outdated and that new surveys would need to be done according to international standards
….
Part of the Ukrainian pitch to Trump was that China has already invested in receiving rare earth minerals from Africa and Latin America, so this marks an opportunity for the United States to compete with its adversary.
...
A European diplomat said Ukraine has discussed with its allies exploring the use of earnings from those resources for reconstruction — “not so much just giving them to another state or exchanging them for weapons.”
The viability of Trump’s proposal could depend “on how exactly it’s meant by Trump,” the diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations.
He noted it would be somewhat different if the plan was to reach agreements on trade conditions or exclusive licensing access. “For now, we are in the process of figuring out what is a negotiating technique and what is meant literally,” the official said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/ukraine-trump-rare-earth-minerals/
This is what Zelensky said:
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
This is – then we need money for this, so we need investment.
The second part that is not discussed yet but it must be, that is what Putin captured. There, there are many things, not only for electric vehicles and cell phones.
There are many rare earths that they will use for missiles – missiles, weaponry for their aerospace industry. Those are very costly things, and here it seems to me important to understand what we will do with those rare earths that now cost billions, hundreds of billions, that Putin occupied.
Is it to give to him? And this is what I want to discuss. Why shall why we gift it to him?
So we present it not only to him but also to his allies, Iran, North Korea. They will have access there. China can also have access there. I do not know their relations, whatthey discuss precisely. But today with senators, I listed one example with rare earth. Seems to me that this example is important. We looked into what America imports for its industry. And when we took titanium, that's one example, titanium.
We say that we have titanium in Ukraine, and that is precise information. And it is sufficient for industry for 40 years. Forty years.
And today you import titanium from China and from Russia and from other sources, but these are the two main countries. You import from them for your industry, and we say, “Let us defend titanium in Ukraine, and you will not need to pay money neither to Russia nor to China. We will be partners in that.”
And such examples, they are very important. If we look in detail then we must understand that we need strong security guarantees.
NATO in Europe no longer depends on the USA to coordinate supplies to Ukraine - coordinated from Germany via NSATU
Also because of uncertainty of what Trump will do - Biden helped NATO to move the center of command for NATO operations supporting Ukraine to Europe.
TWEET: NATO is assuming responsibility for coordinating military aid to Ukraine. Some mechanisms previously organized by the United States are now being taken over by NATO, including a part of the responsibility for coordinating military assistance to Ukraine - Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer.
TRANSCRIPT: The framework after Washington [NATO meeting in Washington] is to transfer some of the things that were organized by the US now into NATO.
The SACU, the IDCC - that was a group of nations helping Ukraine. Now NATO is taking over that responsibility and the United States has agreed to that.
They established the NSATU headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany
QUOTE STARTS
NSATU will have three main focus areas:
- oversee training of Ukrainian armed forces at training facilities in Allied countries;
- provide support to the long-term development of Ukraine’s Armed Forces;
- support Ukraine through planning, coordination of donations with Allies and partners, transfer of security assistance material, and repair of equipment.
These efforts do not make NATO a party to the conflict, but enhance support to Ukraine’s self defence. By using NATO structures, support will be on a firmer footing, will provide more predictability for Kyiv, and will address both immediate and longer-term needs.
It has now taken over fully from the US.
“NSATU is now at a point in its development where it is taking on responsibilities from the International Donor Coordination Centre (IDCC) and the U.S.-led Security Assistance Group – Ukraine (SAG-U),” said German Army Major General Hartmut Renk, NSATU deputy commander.
The organization will coordinate the provision, transfer and repair of military equipment critical to Ukraine’s operations, as well as training in Allied countries to bolster Ukraine’s military effectiveness. These tasks will be synchronized with efforts to develop Ukraine’s future military force, in order to achieve full interoperability with NATO and align with NATO standards.
https://ac.nato.int/archive/2024/nsatu-is-beginning-to-assume-responsibilities-to-support-ukraine
Now they’ve also established a NSATU office in Ukraine to help.
“NATO continues to strengthen its military cooperation with Ukraine. NSATU's mission is progressing rapidly, and it is essential that support be delivered promptly and in the necessary quantities. The establishment of the NSATU office in Ukraine will facilitate more effective execution implementation of joint initiatives,” emphasized Rustem Umerov.
The headquarters of NATO always was Brussels in Belgium.
However under Biden, the US was integrated closely into the command structure for any response.
It isn't any more because of Trump’s erratic statements about NATO and Ukraine which led NATO countries to the conclusion they can’t rely on him to be a steady leader in the way Biden was.
So now NATO countries in Europe lead the initiative.
Trump will never aid Russia
A list of actions against Russia by Trump in his first term including:
sanctions of Russian oligarchs
expulsions of Russian spies
statements condemning Russia
withdrawing from INF treaty when Putin failed to comply
help for Ukraine
first lethal weapons aid to Ukraine.
sanctions for cyberattacks and spying
strongly condemning Salsbury nerve attack
and many more.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/
On 15th January:
Zelenskyy: I spoke with Donald Trump today and told him that Ukraine is producing more drones than Russia. He also stated that he will push the idea of transferring frozen Russian assets[300bln], enabling Ukraine to produce more military equipment than Russia.
Trump is giving conflicting messages
So he is giving conflicting messages here. Claiming to Putin he'll put pressure on Ukraine to end the war while at the same time telling Zelensky that he is in it for the long haul so long as Ukraine is prepared to make a deal on mineral reserves in Ukraine.
Trump can't make a decision for Ukraine and Europe. He's getting a lot of push back from Europe and from Ukraine for his decision to talk to Putin first before Zelensky. Europe is not going to give up on Ukraine. It's hugely ramped up on its capabilities to support Ukraine.
Since election day when Trump was voted in, Europe and Ukraine have prepared for this and they are ready to keep fighting without US support.
I know that Zelensky says he depends on the US but that is partly flattery and to try to get Trump to support him.
In reality Ukraine is far less dependent on the USA now than it was at the same time in winter / early spring in 2024. So long as Trump continues to let the Biden shipments of aid continue that will help a lot with the transition and its European allies are committed fro the long term.
Kaja Kallas - vice president of the EU and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - about how Trump can’t make a deal over the heads of Europe and Ukraine - and Europe can continue to support Ukraine no matter what
Here she is responding to Trump who seems to have made concessions to Putin already, without checking with Europe or Ukraine
Kaja Kalas says
Any agreement without us will fail because you need Europe and Ukraine to also implement the agreement so without us at the table you know you can agree on on whatever but it will just simply fail because the implementation is not there
Any quick fix is is is a dirty deal that uh we have seen before when it comes to Minsk for example and it will just simply not work.
It will not stop the killing it will not stop the war and it will just continue.
...
Are the US listening?
Well, i we think about military aid I just met today the defense minister of Ukraine so 55% of the military they are financing themselves 25% comes from Europe 20% comes from US
This is the situation in Ukraine
If Ukraine decides to resist Europe will back the principles Europe will back Ukraine uh so yes with 20% less if US decides to withdraw but still Ukraine will defend the principles of sovereignty territorial integrity and the principles that also Europe stands for and and we are there together can you think of any times in history where a deal making with Russia has worked
[Some of the transcript is from a longer clip here]
Here she also says that NATO is the strongest security guarantee there is - and also the cheapest security guarantee.
Her point here is - why reinvent the wheel when we’ve got NATO already as a way to keep Ukraine safe after the war.
She says that in a negotiation we shouldn’t take anything off the table before negotiations even begin.
She is responding here to Trump saying he has already told Putin that Ukraine won’t join NATO.
TRANSCRIPT
Membership of NATO is the strongest security guarantee there is, and actually, it's also the cheapest security guarantee there is.
If we are saying that it's not going to be NATO membership but it's going to be some other security guarantees then the question needs to be answered by everybody, what are these security guarantees really.
Again I would say that we shouldn't take anything off the table before the negotiations have even started. Because it plays to Russia's court, and it is what they want.
Why are we giving them everything that they want even before the negotiations started?
It's appeasement. It has never worked.
QUESTION: Last question. How do you put these things back on the table? How does Europe muscle itself back to the table and put these options on the table again?
Is that even possible?
ANSWER:
Again, I want to say that, if there is an agreement made behind our backs, it will simply not work.
Because for any kind of deal, any kind of agreement you need Europeans to implement it. You need the Ukrainians to implement it.
That also doesn't look good - if someone agrees something and everybody else says "Okay, fine you agreed but we will not follow this!"
Ukrainians will resist and we will support them.
The concessions Trump made - without any corresponding concessions from Putin - are:
that Ukraine will never join NATO
that Ukraine can’t return to its 2014 borders
that Ukraine will be forced into a ceasefire
hints that Ukraine has to elect a new president
[something that’s not permuted by their constitution during martial law and also impractical]
Zelensky just rejects this call says he doesn’t recognize it. He says nothing can be about Ukraine without Ukraine - that Trump hasn’t got the right to make all these decisions for Ukraine.
TRANSCRIPT:
We have already had three conversations with president Trump so I don't accept this call, that it was a priority for him to talk to Russia firest.
Although it's really not pleasant in any case.
You know how Ukrainian society, how all of us, and Europeans, react, is that first and foremost it's about Ukraine and nothing can be about Ukraine without Ukraine.
Comparison of GDP of Russia and its allies with Ukraine and it’s allies
https://institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/a-secure-future-the-price-of-peace-in-ukraine-and-europe
Ukraine plans to spend $53.7 billion or about 26% of its GDP on defence in 2025.
QUOTE Ukraine plans to spend 2.2 trillion hryvnias ($53.7 billion), or about 26% of its gross domestic product, on defence and security next year, officials said.
…
The budget deficit of about $38 billion will be covered with financial aid from Kyiv’s Western partners as well as the government’s domestic borrowing.
…
All taxes of citizens and businesses next year will be directed to the defence and security of our country,” Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said.
“Record amount of funds will be directed to weapons’ production and purchases. There will be more funding to modernise our weapon industry and also to buy drones,” he said in a statement.
…
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who presented Ukraine’s resilience plan, said Ukraine was planning to produce at least 30,000 long-range drones and 3,000 cruise missiles and drone missiles next year.
The government will channel 739 billion hryvnias [$17.8 billion dolars] into weapons production in 2025, 34.1 billion hryvnias more than this year, the finance ministry said.
https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/ukraine-passes-2025-budget-with-record-defence-spending
EU will contribute $20 billion against the interest on the frozen assets
Furthermore, in October 2024, the EU and G7 partners agreed to collectively provide loans of $50 billion to support Ukraine's budgetary, military and reconstruction needs, financed by extraordinary revenues from immobilized Russian sovereign assets. The EU will contribute $20 billion, the first $3.2 billion of which was disbursed in January 2025.
As you see from that graphic by 2024 about two thirds of the military supplies were produced by industry rather than taken from stockpiles.
Ukraine and EU have a mutually beneficial relationship here. The EU has plenty of funds for making missiles, but hasn’t got the production capacity. It could develop it but hasn’t.
But Ukraine with a war-time economy has vast production capacity - it is capable of producing three times more weapons and military equipment than its budget can purchase.
So, increasingly, Europe is paying Ukraine to make its own weapons. This also builds a defense industrial base for Europe to use once the war is over.
Ukraine also is the only European country with experience in conducting modern warfare. In particular no other country has ever fought a war involving miniature drones by the hundreds of thousands and millions along the front line.
The only two countries with that experience are Ukraine and Russia.
QUOTE STARTS
Two important factors bring Ukraine closer to the EU in the military-industrial sphere. The first is Ukraine's experience in conducting modern warfare. The second is the desire of Ukrainian defense companies to scale up, which is quite difficult to achieve without regular exports and sustained access to financing.
If the EU has funds but lacks production capacity, Ukraine often faces the opposite situation - capacity has emerged, especially in the private sector, but the state does not always have the funds. According to the government project ZBROYARI, Ukrainian manufacturers are capable of producing three times more weapons and military equipment than the budget can purchase.
The solution lies in the direct procurement of Ukrainian weapons by European partners for the needs of Ukraine`s Defense Forces. Denmark was the first to propose this approach, and later a number of other countries joined in. Last year, under the "Danish model," the Defense Forces received weapons worth nearly 538 million euros.
https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/sleeping-giant-europe-s-lagging-defense-industry-1739177429.html
There is plenty of scope for Europe to step up its support.
The sum of aid is comparatively low, however, when measured as a share of donor GDP. Germany, the UK, and the US, for example, have mobilized less than 0.2 percent of their GDP per year to support Ukraine, while other rich donor countries like France, Italy, or Spain only allocated about 0.1 percent of their annual GDP. Even small domestic policy priorities are many times more expensive than what is being done for Ukraine. For example, Germany’s tax subsidies for diesel fuel (‘diesel privilege’) cost taxpayers three times more per year than Germany’s military aid for Ukraine. “When looking at the government budgets in most European donor countries, Ukraine aid over the last 3 years looks more like a minor political ‘pet project’ rather than a major fiscal effort,” says Christoph Trebesch, head of the Ukraine Support Tracker at the Kiel Institute.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-after-3-years-of-war-aid-flows-remain-low-but-steady-shift-towards-weapons-procurement/
The shell supply problem is essentially solved now.
The EU is now able to produced half as many shells as Russia - and the European shells are far more precise than the Russian ones.
Graphic from the Danish report.
See page 15.
QUOTE Production figures for 152mm and 155mm artillery shells used in some of the most widely used Russian and Western artillery systems. The warring parties are trying to increase the production of artillery shells. It is likely that Russia is often firing around 10-20,000 shells a day
See my:
Why Russia can't attack NATO after Ukraine war is over - NATO is already quickly ramping up capabilities in Europe - and an end to the war will free up Ukraine and its allies as much as Russia
Skip to Contents - or click on vertical column of dashes to the left on laptops.
This isn’t accidental, it’s part of a major initiative by Europe to increase its defense spending, as well as to make it more self-sufficient.
This is from 2024
https://www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/european-defence-industrial-strategy-hostile-world
From March 2024:
QUOTE STARTS
This week, European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled the EU’s first-ever defense industrial strategy. This is the EU’s attempt to move on from its initial emergency responses to Russia’s invasion and to improve European defense industrial readiness for the long term.
….
More than three-quarters of the defense acquisitions by EU member states between the start of Russia’s invasion and June 2023 were made from outside the EU, with the United States alone representing 63 percent. But buying from third countries involves minimal European technology and intellectual property content and poses a risk to local skills and knowledge. It can also be harder to justify before European taxpayers who are asked to accept higher defense spending. The strategy envisions that by 2030, at least 50 percent of member states’ procurement budget (60 percent by 2035) should go to EU-based suppliers and that at least 40 percent of defense equipment should be procured in a collaborative manner.
Zelensky says that by far the lowest cost solution is for Ukraine to join NATO - if not then NATO will need to create a copy of NATO within Ukaine to hold back Russia
Zelensky says that if Ukraine can’t join NATO, it needs to be strong enough to stop a Russian invasion on its own. To do that it needs a 1.5 million strong army.
QUOTE STARTS
If Ukraine does not join NATO as part of a peace deal, it will need Western support to maintain an army of 1.5 million soldiers as deterrence against a future Russian invasion, President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters on Feb. 14 at the Munich Security Conference.
"It doesn't matter what country these forces are from. In any case, we need 1.5 million troops if we are not in NATO," Zelensky said.
"If we really want not to be afraid of a new occupation or a new Russian invasion, these are real security guarantees. (Vladimir) Putin will know that he has a 1.5 million army, and Ukraine has a 1.5 million army. If he wants to come and die (in Ukraine), he is welcome to do so," Zelensky added.
Ukraine currently has 110 combat brigades, while Russia has 220, according to Zelensky. "So, we need 220," he added.
https://kyivindependent.com/we-need-a-1-5-million-army-if-we-are-not-going-to-be-in-nato-zelensky-on-ukraines-membership-in-alliance/
Ukraine does have plenty of citizens willing to fight. At least 2.7 million.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
At least 2.7 million Ukrainians signed up to fight for their country with the Reserv+ app
Zelensky says Ukraine needs equipment not soldiersUkraine has ~2% of its 37 million people fighting.
It could increase this 4-fold and be far less than WW2 levels of ~12% fighting.
Modern wars need far fewer soldiers than earlier wars
- so long as they have well trained soldiers with high tech modern equipment.
For details see my:
He says taht NATO is by far the cheapest guarantee. Because if Ukraine can’t rely on article 5 protection when invaded, it needs to be equipped with everything it needs to counter an invasion by itself positioned in Ukraine already.
After all without article 5, it can’t depend on its allies to provide this material. So it needs to have it already. This is whatw makes it so very expensive.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you. President Trump said, he does not think Ukrainian membership in NATO is,quote, "practical." In your view, is NATO membership something that should be determined as apart of this deal?
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY:
Well, I want to be very clear with NATO for us and for everybody.
It's the cheapest security guarantes, the cheapest for us, the cheapest for Europe, the cheapest for United States andthe cheapest really for Russia.
And if we are not in NATO, it means that we will build NATO in Ukraine. Otherwise, we will not recognize the security guarantees.
If opposite you 3 or 5 million army of Russians, what number of soldiers you have to have? What number of troops you have to have just to survive and to defend the same?
Now we have 110 strong brigades. Russia has twice [that number], 220 strong brigades. Europe has 82.
So if Putin will break us, he will occupy Europe. He can destroy all the army of Europe if they are without United States.
[This is not really true because it ignores the technology difference that NATO is far advanced technologically over Russia and hasn’t given this technology to Ukraine - Zelensky himself later in this interview says he can push Russia out of Ukraine if his allies give him certain weapons]
That's why I said this is the cheapest for United States and for Europe. Why? Because if we don’t, if I'm not in NATO and if everybody will recognize that we need [an army of] more than 1 million people, so we will need money for all these people.
If we can't use, for example, a fleet of jets from NATO, we will need hundreds of jets. So it's very, very expensive, even without the war just to have it, not to spend, just to have it. That's it. Then NATO is very cheap I said for Russia.
And this is also important and for Europe that they are secure. Because there is a big army in NATO. Ukrainian army together with Europe is comparable with Russia. That's what I said. This is the cheapest way.
Ukraine has a lot to offer NATO as the sixth largest army in the world and the only army with experience of fighting Russia in a modern war and fight it to a standstill
At the moment it's about opening communications. Whatever Hegseth or Putin says is only opening rounds. Zelensky also had a phone call with Trump - and they will surely meet in person soon.
There is no way Ukraine will say that Crimea and Donbas are part of Russia - that's just not going to happen.
There are solutions though for situations like this where one country has control of parts of another country.
Ukraine could come to a peace agreement where
1. Russia has control of Crimea and East Donbas, perhaps also the Azov sea coast (depending on the details).
2. Ukraine doesn't acknowledge the Russian claim
3. but Ukraine agrees to stop fighting.
4. after the treaty is made, Ukraine continues to negotiate with Russia to try to return Crimea, East Donbas and the Azov sea coast.
Zelensky has suggested solutions like this several times.
Ukraine doesn't need to have any realistic possibility of returning the territory through negotiations any time soon. But this solution means Ukraine doesn't recognize them as part of Russia.
Ukraine will never stop fighting unless it can get adequate security guarantees better than the Budapest Memorandum.
Trump does have the ability as president to say that he will never agree to let Ukraine join NATO during his presidency. Since new members can only be added with unanimous agreement that would stop Ukraine's ability to join for at least 4 years.
He can't bind future US presidents.
If Trump does say Ukraine can't join NATO - Ukraine can still have adequate security guarantees in other ways.
Ukraine does have the ability to defend itself with enough support.
Ukraine has the sixth largest army in the world and by far the largest army in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
After that it’s Turkey, Poland, France, Germany and the UK - the Polish army has increased significantly since that table:
The Polish armed forces contain 216,100 personnel, according to NATO’s estimates for this year. That is behind only the United States (1.3 million) and Turkey (481,000).
Poland is followed by France (204,700), Germany (185,600), Italy (171,400) and the United Kingdom (138,100).
https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/07/16/poland-has-natos-third-largest-military-new-figures-show/
https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/07/16/poland-has-natos-third-largest-military-new-figures-show/
Ukraine’s 800,000 soldiers are more than enough to deter an invasion if it has modern NATO equipment and is fully equipped with it.
So, as far as numbers of soldiers to defend with - it doesn't really need to be in NATO - even NATO's expanded Allied Response Force is only 300,000.
Zelensky has said that - that if it can’t join NATO then to give it the eqipment it needs to defend itself - AFTER THE WAR IS OVER.
The Russian army that invaded Ukraine was less than 200,000.
So, 800,000 soldiers equipped with modern NATO weapons and F-35 fighter jets etc would be enough to prevent Russia invading Ukraine again.
So, for security after the war is over, what Ukraine needs is access to the NATO technology after the war is over.
So they might have a solution where Ukraine is a close partner of NATO like Sweden was before it joined and with Ukraine transitioning to the F-35 fighter jets and supplied with all the modern technology.
Ukraine doesn’t need a nuclear umbrella to stop Russia invading again.
However, it does need to be better equipped than it is at present so that it has a big technological advantage over Russia and especially advantage in the air. That would make a new invasion impossible.
But this also shows what Kaja Kallas means about NATO being the cheapest option.
Instead of giving Ukraine the equipment it needs to keep out the entire Russian army just by itself - if Ukraien joins NATO, then Ukraine and other NATO members share that responsibility.
Ukraine can supply equipment itself too indeed will be a major arms exporter once the war is over.
Zelensky naturally is holding out for joining NATO - and he will present a strong case to Trump when they meet.
Zelensky's proposal is that Ukrainian fighters can substitute for many of the Americans in Europe and so make it easier for US to withdraw most of its soldiers from Europe.
That solution might appeal to Trump and overcome his objections to Ukraine joining NATO.
But if that doesn't work, he would need very strong security guarantees.
They need to be stronger than the Budapest Memorandum or the Ukrainians will keep fighting no matter what Trump says.
So this is just some thoughts. One way to have those guarantees would be for Ukraine to be a partner that trains with NATO and has support and access to all the equipment NATO has - with some agreement to support it with everything it needs to protect itself in an invasion by way of equipment but not formally joining.
The main issue is this is similar to the Budapest memorandum.
NATO provides far more security.
If Ukraine joins NATO that's irreversible unless all the other NATO members vote to eject it.
If all Ukraine has are security guarantees along the lines of the Budapest Memorandum, these can be ignored by future governments that didn't actually sign the guarantees.
E.g. a future UK government say that didnt sign them might not feel obligated to fulfil a guarantee that a previous UK< government signed a decade earlier. .
So Zelensky would explain all that to Trump. So - what could an alternative to NATO be?
Just my own thoughts: maybe a quid pro quo where Ukrainian soldiers agree to respond to an article 5 situation and fight for NATO and train with NATO - and in return Ukraine gets access to all the same technology and information sharing as a NATO country??
I.e. an informal article 5 like situation where Ukraine offers soldiers to NATO in a crisis and NATO offers weapons to Ukraine in a crisis
By offering something to NATO in response for help from NATO it might be more lasting than the Budapest memorandum. Just my thought here.
I expect Zelensky would map out some ideas, not necessarily that one - and then say "but look, it's far simpler if we just join NATO".
See also my
Zelensky: war in Ukraine can end faster with Trump - can only negotiate from a position of strength - expects Trump to strengthen Ukraine - but by 1799 Logan act can’t discuss until he's president
From what he says Zelensky seems reasonably confident that Trump isn't likely to do what Biden did - to give permissions for various systems - but only after a lot of saying no and then finally yes.
Ukraine might be able to restore its 2022 boundaries - though the 2014 boundaries would be more difficult - especially if they can’t get a deal early on
Zelensky is keen to end the war. But this idea that Ukraine can't restore its 2022 boundaries assumes that Ukraine doesn't do any major new counteroffensives.
But it might have the capability to do this. It could still liberate some large area say cutting through to the Azov coast.
There’s a huge difference from 2024. As it goes into 2025, Ukraine has thta $2 billion a month and has the support of a far stronger Europe.
If it had modern NATO technology it could do it easily.
It's not going to get everything it needs from its allies for a counteroffensive - but it is going to get more fighter jets - Mirage jets from France and F-16s from Netherlands - and it has the $2 billion a month for its own defense industry set against the interest on the Russian foreign reserve.
It's rapidly advancing its drone technology and its missile technology.
Recently Ukraine did its first ever all drones assault. https://kyivindependent.com/the-counteroffensive-inside-ukraines-historic-first-all-drone-assault-on-russian-positions/
That’s a major milestone because with drones everywhere along the front line it’s very hazardous for humans. But small drones are harder to target and also if they are desroyed- that’s just a drone.
Ukraine was able to take over a Russian position only using a large number of drones without any human soldiers invovled - they only operated the drones remotely. It's the first ever purely drone based military operation. Later humans then followed up to secure the outpost.
So Ukraine is very innovative and it might well have things planned out for later this spring when it gets dry enough for counteroffensives.
The Ukrainians wouldn't tell many of its allies about its secret plans.
Possibly not even the US yet. They would want to feel out whether Trump would share any secrets with Musk and if so how far it might spread after that. They had problems with leaks from the Biden admin and the Trump admin seems potentially to be more leaky than the Biden admin.
So if Ukraine isn't able to get security guarantees that it can rely on - it would have to continue fighting.
If for instance it cut through to the Azov sea then that would put Russia in a much weaker situation with Crimea suddenly very vulnerable.
Russia might then be willing to withdraw from the areas it has occupied since 2022 in return for keeping Crimea.
The other thing Ukraine may be able to do by itself if it doesn't get the guarantees it needs is to build missiles like its Neptune and its new ballistic missile but with a range of 1000 km instead of 300 km.
If it does that, the entire Black Sea is within reach and that then gives it a lot of leverage over Russia. Ukraine with its own missiles may be able to sink the entire Black Sea fleet later this year.
Not to actually do it. The fleet doesn’t play a very major role in the war any more though it is used as a platform to fire missiles at Ukraine from a distance.
But it would be a huge prestige loss to Russia to lose its Black Sea fleet. There isn’t anything comparable of miltiary nature in Ukraine for Russia to target.
The unique thing about warships is they
can’t be hidden with camouflage
can’t be buried
can’t be flown or driven out of the Black Sea
are easily visible targets in satellite images
are very expensive to build and take a long time to build and so are hard to replace
Ukraine has a proven ability to sink them and has already sunk a third of it - the remaining two thirds were sailed out of range of its missiles to the far side of the Black Sea.
Russia is able to move warships to the Caspian sea using the Russian deep sea network. But this is extremely risky already.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_Deep_Waterway_System_of_European_Russia.svg
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Deep_Water_System_of_European_Russia
It moved one corvette to the Caspian Sea in 2024, and not clear how it did it but it must have gone up the Volga and down the Don to the Caspian.
However to get to the Volga it has to navigate the Kerch strait which is now within range of the Ukrainian cruise and ballistic missiles so it’s fraught with risk.
QUOTE STARTS
Unfortunately, there is no direct channel for such a transit. One of the feasible solutions, though fraught with risk, is for Tucha to cross the Kerch Strait, under the watchful eyes of the Ukrainians. Following this route, the corvette would reach the Sea of Azov. From there, Tucha could easily access the Don River. The river has several tributaries, but notably, a specific channel was constructed to link the Don with the Volga River. This is known as the Volga-Don Canal.
When Russia needs to move a ship from Novorossiysk to the Caspian Sea, it utilizes the Volga-Don Canal. This canal connects the Volga River with the Don River, facilitating access to the Caspian Sea through the Volga River system. Additionally, there is the Volga-Baltic Waterway to consider. This waterway ties the Volga River with the Baltic Sea, creating another route for ships aiming for Novorossiysk. These inland waterways play an integral part in Russia’s transport infrastructure, enabling the transit of warships, goods, and vessels amongst diverse regions.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/05/04/russia-moved-karakurt-class-warship-to-caspian-via-inland-waterways/
Ukraine has already sunk the largest ship, the Moskva, a cruiser at 9,380 tons or 11,490 tons full load
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva
It’s sunk 28 other ships according to Oryx including two corvettes and one conventional attack submarine.
The remaining Black Sea fleet consists of 5 frigates (3,000 tons+) and 15 Corvettes, 8 conventional attack submarines. No destroyers. Many other smaller vessels. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships
[Sort tables by the fleet to count them]
All those would be at risk if Ukraine gets missiles with a range of 1000 km with similar capabilities to the ones it has already with range of 300 km. There would be nowhere safe for them and Russia would risk losing the remaining two thirds of its fleet.
Ukraine doesn’t have any warships of its own. So it’s a one-sided vulnerability.
And Russia would NOT respond by using nukes. They have already shown how they respond, by retreating.
This is from July 2024 when Russia withdrew its last remaining patrol ship from Crimea which used to be the headquarters of its Black Sea fleet but became so unsafe that it can’t even keep patrol ships there as a result of the Ukrainian ballistic missile and cruise missile strikes on the ships in harbour. Russia’s air defences were not able to stop Ukraine sinking its ships.
QUOTE STARTS
This week marked another milestone in the Battle of the Black Sea as the Russian Navy reportedly withdrew its last remaining patrol ship from occupied Crimea. The news was announced by Ukrainian Navy spokesperson Dmytro Pletenchuk, who signaled the historic nature of the Russian retreat with the words: “Remember this day.”
The withdrawal of Russian warships from Crimea is the latest indication that against all odds, Ukraine is actually winning the war at sea. When Russia first began the blockade of Ukraine’s ports on the eve of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, few believed the ramshackle Ukrainian Navy could seriously challenge the dominance of the mighty Russian Black Sea Fleet. Once hostilities were underway, however, it soon became apparent that Ukraine had no intention of conceding control of the Black Sea to Putin without a fight.
…
The results speak for themselves. When the full-scale invasion began, the Russian Black Sea Fleet had seventy four warships, most of which were based at ports in Russian-occupied Crimea. In a little over two years, Ukraine managed to sink or damage around one third of these ships. In the second half of 2023, reports were already emerging of Russian warships being hurriedly moved across the Black Sea from Crimea to the relative safety of Novorossiysk in Russia. By March 2024, the Russian Black Sea Fleet had become “functionally inactive,” according to the British Ministry of Defense.
...
The Russian reaction to mounting setbacks in the Battle of the Black Sea has also been extremely revealing, and offers valuable lessons for the future conduct of the war. It has often been suggested that a cornered and beaten Vladimir Putin could potentially resort to the most extreme measures, including the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, he has responded to the humiliating defeat of the Black Sea Fleet by quietly ordering his remaining warships to retreat.
I’ve never seen Zelensky or anyone else suggest it directly as a lever Zelensky could have to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
However Zelensky did ask Biden for Tomahawk cruise missiles saying it would give them a big leverage over Putin to get him to the negotiating table. It may be putting 2 and 2 to gether to make 5 but to me it seems that surely he had in mind the vulnerability of the Russian warships.
It would only take a few dozen Tomahawks to sink the 20 largest ships in the Black Sea fleet. Also to sink all the conventional deisel attack subs as soon as they dock in a port.
This would not give Ukraine a winning advantage in the war.
It is more the prestige and humiliation of losing its entire Black Sea fleet and turning the Black Sea into a no-go zone for Russian ships for the first time since the Black Sea was established in the eighteenth century.
We know how vulnerable the Black Sea fleet is - back to 2022 when Ukraine sunk the Moskva, the flagship of the fleet which also had the most advanced radar protection of the fleet. Ukraine sunk it with their home built Neptune cruise missile which has a range of around 300 km
TEXT ON GRAPHIC - A “no navy” country Ukraine sunk the flagship of the Russian fleet, the Moskva, in 2022 with two sea skimming Neptune drones. From then on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was pretty much out of the war - they never ventured near the Ukrainian shores and then were forced out of Crimea as well in 2023.
Since then Russia has lost a third of its Black Sea fleet to Ukraine and has had ot move it out of range of the Neptune, ATACMS and stormshadow and so has had to remove it from Crimea because all of Crimea is now within range of Ukraine’s missiles.
But NOWHERE in the Black Sea is far enough to be out of the range of the Tomahawk cruise missiles even fired from the Mediterranean.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Range of the US tomahawk cruise missile with a half ton payload like the ATACMS, travels at nearly 1000 km / hour, range 2,400 km.
Proven ability to get through Russia's S-400 system
With the current state of Russian air defences, teh US could sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet in a few hours but doesn't give this capability to ukraine.
Details of the missile here: Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia
Circle drawn with this free online map circle drawing tool Radius Around a Point on a Map
Also, the Tomahawk is just a fraction of the technology tiny Estonia would have on call at day 1 of any war.
Imagine how hard it would be to defend against supersonic potatoes? That is what the Russians would see in their radars if they were fighting a NATO country with F-35s
None of Russia's planes are anything like as stealthy.
.
When you look for one of these F-35s on radar …
This is what you see: [large potato]
Russian radar operator (imagined): “What is that on the radar? A supersonic potato?”
Billie Flyn, F-35 test pilot on what it would do in Ukraine.
It would go in and kill every surface-to-air missile threat that was out there, and neutralize all the threats on the ground, and achieve air dominance because it would kill all the air-to-air assets also. Remember: we see them, they don’t see us. It’s like playing football, when one team’s invisible, and the other team is not….
Background photos: rightmost potato from: Potato var. Linda HC1 and F-35 at Edwards
The 4th generation F-35 has a radar cross section of 0.005 square meters or about 7 cm by 7 cm, 2.8 inches by 2.8 inches similar to a large potato. It's like trying to detect supersonic potatoes in flight. The Mig-29 has a cross section of 3 square meters so about the size of a normal door. The F-16c is between the two, 1.2, smaller than a door.
Figures from here: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Since 2022, Ukraine has been asking for the high altitude stealth Gray Eagle drone which can fly behind the front line and then deliver its “Hellfire” missiles from far too high for Russia to detect them.
But the US won’t send them. Again NATO would have those
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Ukraine has asked for the high altitude stealth Grey Eagle drone since 2022.
this could drop small precise missiles from an undetectable high alitude of 25,000 feet (7,600 meters) and fly for up to 36 hours, range of 370 km.
Any NATO country has these available from day 1.
Photo: MQ-1C Warrior (2005-08-11)
Details from: General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle
.jpg){kind=link}
The USA are not likely to send Ukraine the veteran 1980s technology Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of over 2,400 kilometers and a payload like the ATACMS.
The US uses these against the Houthi rebels in Yemen for instance.
Any NATO country would have access to these on day 1 but Ukraine’s allies feel they are too powerful for Ukraine.
Russia seems unable even to stop modified microlight hobbyist aircraft loaded with explosives! This is about how Ukraine is using modified ultralights as long range attack drones. Ukraine appears to deploy modified A-22 ultralights as suicide UAVs
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Russia's air defences are so degraded that Ukraine is able to fly ultralights through them without getting shot down.
Replace pilot by explosives and remote control, and you have a drone that can evade the Russian air defences and bomb a Russian oil refinery 1000s of kilometres from Ukraine.
Yet Russia claims FALSELY it can "escalate" and win a war against not just Ukraine but NATO as well. Just bluffs and bulls**t.
Graphic shows the File:Huntair.pathfinder.arp.jpg
Video showing some of the drones attacking oil refineries Ukraine’s AI-enabled drones are trying to disrupt Russia’s energy industry. So far, it’s working | CNN Business Bear in mind that to do this it has flown slowly at about the speed of a fast car over Russia for many hours and not been shot down by air defences or even fighter jets.
If Ukraine had the Tomahawk, then given how vulnerable the Russian warships have been since it sunk the Moskkva, Ukraine could sink the Russian ships anywhere in the Black Sea.
Ukraine could say to Putin “Leave Ukraine now or we’ll sink your Black Sea Fleet”
At that point Putin would surely exit the war.
I don’t think many in the West realize quite how devastating it would be to Putin to lose his Black Sea fleet. This is why Ukraine sees the Tomahawk cruise missiles as a big lever it could use in negotiations with Putin.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is of huge national pride to the Russians. Ukraine has already sunk its flagship and a third of its ships with the ATACMS, stormshadows and its own native Neptune but most have retreated out of reach to the far side of the Black Sea.
If Ukaine had the Tomahawk cruise missile it could sink the entire fleet - gone from the Black Sea for the first time since it began in 1783
A major lever for negotiations with Russia from a position of strength.
Black Sea Fleet - just before the start of the Crimean war of 1853-6
Graphic: Ivan Aivazovsky. Black Sea Fleet in the Bay of Theodosia, Crimea, just before the Crimean War
And they are not being supplied that technology but their allies ARE prepared to help them develop a lot of technology rapidly themselves and they have the experience of making missiles from back in Soviet eras when they built all the ICBMS for the Soviet Union.
Ukraine MAY have the technology to sink the Black Sea Fleet by next summer.
We know that the Tomahawk’s were part of Zelensky’s secret victory plan because this was leaked from the Biden administration to the press.
That is the only thing that makes sense here.
TWEET STARTS
⚡️How to understand Tomahawk messages? This was confidential information between Ukraine and the White House, - Zelenskyi.
"It turns out that there is nothing confidential between the partners," the president said.
We don't know what Zelensky said secretly to Biden. But he might have said "Give us the Tomahawks and then when we negotiate with Putin we'll say "Withdraw from Ukraine or we'll sink the Black Sea fleet"
It would then get a far better bargain from Russia.
That again could lead to a situation where Russia agrees to give up the territory it occupied since 2022 in return for keeping Crimea.
Or if not then with its European allies the Ukrainian defense industry can make missiles of its own.
Ukraine already has many missiles longer distance from the 80 km GLMRS upwards.
There’s a graphic of many of them here:
https://x.com/CovertShores/status/1858249895741739271
And page about them here: H I Sutton - Covert Shores
You can see with the US flags:
the 300 km ATACMS at bottom left,
above it the 80 km GLMRS which is fired from the same launcher which Ukraine ALREADY has permission to use against targets in Russia.
The HARM in the middle also from the USA which they’ve been firing at radar systems in Russia that it uses to guide missiles against Ukraine, since 2022.
The HARM is dropped from an aircraft and homes in on radars in Russia. Range 25 to 148 km depending on how high it is dropped from. For some reason neither the USA nor Russia has ever raised any issues with Ukraine using HARM in this way AFAIK.
Then you see the famous Ukrainian built Neptune
The Neptune cruise missile dates back to 2022 and has a range of around 300 km and was first used against warships, famously sinking the flagship of the Black Sea the Moskva, but now also against land targets.
Then you see two more Ukrainian built missiles which of course have no restrictions and have been used already in the war.
Second from the left at the bottom you see the Ukrainian built Palyanitsa which is a jet powered cruise missile like the Stormshadow with a range of 700 km
to the right of it the OTRK Sapson also known as HRIM-2 which is a ballistic missile like the ATACMs with a range of 700 km.
Both have been used in the war but Ukraine has only small numbers so far. It’s built about 100, they don’t say how many of each.
But by summer next year it should have large numbers of them and the range should be much more than 700 km if the war is still continuing by then. They expect both of them to exceed 1000 km in range as they develop them further.
Both its long distance cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are fired from a “Shoot and scoot” platform like HiMARS making it impossible for Russia to target the launchers.
So Ukraine has many missiles of its own and supplied by others.
Text on graphic: Once Ukraine has its own 1,000 km ballistic missiles
Or if US gives Ukraine htre Tomahawks it uses against he Houthi in Yemen
It can says to Putin “Leave Ukraine or we’ll sink your Black Sea Fleet”
Here, Russia can’t bring any more ships in to the Black Sea because Turkey closed off the strait of Bosporous to any military traffic in or out during the war.
Turkey guarantees freedom of passage for all civilian and commercial vessels during peacetime.
Military ships can also pass through, under certain conditions, and only if advance warning is given.
According to Article 19, when there’s a war that doesn’t involve Turkey, warships from the warring states can’t use the straits — unless they’re returning to home bases in the Black Sea.
Turkey has the discretion to close the strait to warships of all nations party to a conflict. It may also do so if it fears an “imminent danger of war.”
Fact-check: Is the Turkish Navy blocking Russian ships from crossing the Bosphorus Strait?
Given how vulnerable Russia is to these long range missiles, the situation on the battlefield is far more dynamic than it seems.
For that reason I do think the war could end quickly - but no way it ends with a ceasefire along current lines.
If on the face of it it continues to remain stationary, beneath the hood, Ukraine will be rapidly building up its capability until it can shift it back in its favour.
It’s asymmetrical. Russia is ALREADY bombing all of Ukraine, but Ukraine has the ability to defend itself with Patriot and even from its IRBM the Oleshnik with THAAD or SM-3 systems from its allies.
So Ukraine may not agree with Hegseth on that assessment.
Hegseth misreported on Military tools of leverage - this does NOT mean US troops - it may mean tomahawks - he didn’t elaborate and likely can’t because the ideas are secret
This was shared on CNN, BBC and other mainstream media as a FALSE claim that Hegseth said that the US might send troops to Ukraine.k
There is no way they will do that.
Military tools of leverage do NOT mean US troops in Ukraine - it includes sending Ukraine equipment such as Tomahawks that any NATO member would have on day 1 - LEVERAGE to END THE WAR in Ukraine's favour - NOT TO ACTUALLY USE
This also should help scared people because it shows that Putin couldn't attack any NATO country because even Estonia has this leverage on day 1.
They could say "Stop this invasion right now or we'll use this leverage" whatever it is.
They wouldn't even need to fight back in Estonia.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Just journalists not aware that there are many other military tools of leverage such as extra equipment for Ukraine - or that Zelensky asked for Tomahawk cruise missiles for leverage - LEVERAGE means FOR UKRAINE TO HAVE - NOT TO USE
NOTE Any NATO country would have this leverage - ON DAY ONE - to end the war in Ukraine's favour
These levers are why Putin will NEVER attack a NATO country.
CNN updated the story but just adds at the end "This story has been updated with additional information"
Doesn't elaborate on the mistake.
It makes no sense WHATSOEVER to send US Troops to Ukraine when Ukraine has 800,000 soldiers on the front line and tens of thousands of other soldiers that still need to be sent weapons to equip them and as we saw, has 2.7 million that have put their name down to be called up if needed.
For details see my:
Zelensky: Ukraine can easily recruit soldiers - shortage is equipment only - it's taken over a year to get 25% of the equipment for 10 extra battalions - send the equipment and he can find soldiers
This is something Zelensky says over and over including in the recent interview with Sky News. Ukraine can find soldiers. What it needs is equipment. Yet the Western mainstream media rarely seem to pick up on what he says.
Europe can easily find the 300,000 soldiers for the allied response force without the USA - and especially if Ukraine joins NATO
So now back to defence of NATO. They are actually closely related.
Ukraine has a lot to offer to NATO.
Europe can find 300,000 soldiers easily too, it's got far more than that amongst all participating countries in Europe. Turkey alone, as we saw, has more than 400,000.
Repeating that graphic:
https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/07/16/poland-has-natos-third-largest-military-new-figures-show/
US is still an important part of NATO. But if the US did disengage from NATO under Trump it would make very little difference.
The US is not needed for the nuclear deterrent though Trump would be unlikely to withdraw the nuclear umbrella from Europe.
Both France and the UK have independent nuclear deterrents that don't depend in any way on US permission. Both countries developed their own nukes with their own nuclear tests independently of the USA.
Under a new law which Biden signed after it passed in Congress, Trump legally can't leave NATO without consent of the Senate.
If he defied that new law then it would play out in the Supreme Court and he'd probably be forced to stay in.
But he can just refuse to take part in exercises in Europe and not honour the US's commitments to NATO.
The US only pays half a billion dollars a year to NATO - an amount that NATO countries can easily find if it stops paying
Trump often talks about the US paying too much to NATO. That could lead you to think that if the US withdrew that NATO would face major financial issues.
But no, NATO itself has very little by way of direct expenses.
The US pays about half a billion dollars a year into NATO funding, about the same as Germany or 16% of the the $3.3 billion a year.
That is not hard for Europe to find. It used to pay more but reduced because Trump in his first term said it's unfair for US to pay more than any other country to the NATO operating budget.
UK comes next at 11%, France at 10% and Italy at 8.5%, Turkey at 4.6%.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
What Trump refers to here really is the % of the GDP each country spends on its own defence.
They have rapidly increased this percentage and indeed Poland now spends a higher % of its total GDP on defence than the USA. Greece is not far off and the UK, Germany and France all spend more than half of the % the US spends.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44717074
Most NATO countries are now at above 2%.
Tiny Estonia is now second after Poland and the US which is one of the few countries to reduce its spending since 2021 is now in third place.
As for personnel - back when the NATO response force was only 40,000
QUOTE Altogether, the enhanced NRF comprises around 40,000 troops.
- the US contributed 12,000.
QUOTE Still, Kirby said, the U.S. has put as many as 12,000 service members on "prepare to deploy orders" so they will be ready if called upon to participate in the NATO Response Force. Some of those U.S. personnel may also be called upon to participate in any unilateral actions the U.S. may undertake.
. With Activation of NATO Response Force, U.S. Military Ready to Provide Forces
So that’s around 30%.
Now it's 300,000, doesn't say what proportion would be the USA but if it was the same proportion then that's 90,000.
If the US decides not to contribute to that 300,000 then the other countries can find 90,000 soldiers easily.
So if the US stopped all funding and all contributions of soldiers NATO would remain very strong.
Europe has its own defence industrial bases including in Germany as one of the big hubs but France, the UK, Sweden, Norway, many countries have developed their own air defence systems, their own fighter jets, their own tanks, infantry fighting vehicles etc. They do use F-16s and F-35s supplied from the USA but they bought most of those and so it's no different from any other foreign country the US supplies weapons to - they can still continue to use those fighter jets no matter what the US decides to do as well as all their own.
They also have their own aircraft carriers, nuclear powered subs, everything. UK and France have naval bases throughout the world, only the US has more than them. China has no foreign bases except a tiny one in Djibouti to keep an eye on shipping in the Middle East along with many other countries with similar small bases in Djibouti. Russia doesn't even have that and has just lost its only foreign base outside the former Soviet Union in Syria. Russia also doesn't have any aircraft carriers. The Soviet Union did but Russia sold or scrapped them all except for one which is out of service and not likely to return to service any time soon.
Europe is vastly more powerful than Russia, far more technologically advanced too.
I go into some of those details here:
Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - and longer term are headed for a future without any war
For a first overview look at the graphics, read the bullet points summary, and read the section titles in the contents list - then dive into more detail in any section of interest. If you are on the laptop you can also navigate to any section by clicking on the column of horizontal dashes you see to the left of this page.
Ukraine as a very valuable ally of NATO if it doesn’t join it once the war is over
Then Ukraine has the only modern army in the world apart from Russia with experience in fighting with drones and fighting a modern war against a roughly equal adversary. It's going to be a very valuable part of NATO whether it joins or remains an ally similar to the status of Sweden, say, before it joined NATO.
It's also got a major industrial base. Ukraine made all the Soviet Union silo based ICBMs and made many of their tanks and all its aircraft carriers.
It retained that capability through to the invasion. It was still servicing the Russian ICBMs when Russia took Crimea in 2014 - that's when Ukraine broke off its servicing contract with Russia.
It was a major exporter of military equipment before the invasion, and it will be after the war is over, one of the larger defence industrial bases in Europe.
Ukraine has shown it can stop Russia by itself with supplies of equipment from its allies.
If Ukraine joins NATO or has an informal arrangement where it cna help in an emergency - then it can contribute 800,000 soldiers who have actual experience of fighting Russian soldiers. Also very experienced in most NATO weapon systems and defence systems as well as direct front line experience of Russian equipment too.
So there's that too. Zelensky will explain this to Trump, that Ukraine is a huge asset to NATO if it joins.
So - we see that Ukraine was foght to a standstill in Ukraine. But if it was facing Ukrainian soldiers with the most modern NATO equipment including F-35 fighter jets, tomahawk cruise missiels etc then it would never be able to invade any NATO country. It's the same also with NATO soldiers but once the war is over then very likely Ukraine's military becomes part of NATO's response force in some way.
NATO generals will certainly want that. And Ukrainian soldier with NATO modern equipment and with the F-35 fighter jets would be a formidable protection for NATO by themselves. Russia is getting a beating fighting Ukraine without the most modern equipment. It's not going to want to face a rerun with a far stronger opponent.
That 300,000 will be automatic - the countries involved have already given permission in advance. If article 5 is triggered those 300,000 are available for any emergency.
So, if the Baltics are at risk all those soldiers can be deployed to help as needed. So that idea can't happen any more - that NATO would be stuck in negotiations deciding what to do.
And to add - I think it's likely once the war is over that Ukraine gets more and more integrated with NATO for self defence - and mutual benefit to NATO and Ukraine - whether it joins quickly or not. Perhaps something like the situation of Sweden and Finland before they joined NATO? If after the war is over they have the F-35s, Tomahawks etc then it might be as good as being a NATO member by way of deterrence.
After all Russia only invaded because Putin thought he could take over the country in 10 days. He's not going to believe that any more so long as Ukraine retains its current strength.
And I think he'd be very reluctant to start another war like this one. As a thought exercise, If hypthetically (not possible in our real world) you could somehow put Putin into a time machine to talk to his earlier self before February 2022 I think he'd try to persuade his younger self not to invade.
As an example of this closer integration, Ukraine has joined the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers:
QUOTE STARTS
Ukraine has become a member of the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR). Its membership was unanimously approved, according to RBC-Ukraine's sources in Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense.
The heads of NATO member states’ reserve officers' associations voted in favor of Ukraine’s accession. The country joined CIOR through the Ukrainian Association of Reserve Officers and Veterans.
...
The NATO Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) was founded by reserve officers who had participated in wars. Their goal was to use their experience to strengthen collective security and pass on their values to future generations.
CIOR focuses on integrating reserve service within NATO countries, supporting leadership training for reserve officers, and collecting and sharing best practices, particularly in skill development.
Notably, in 2023, Ukraine became a member of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. The Ukrainian flag was raised at the Center's headquarters.
Whether Ukraine joins NATO or not, it’s an important part of European security once the war is over.
So that’s one of the main messages here. Right now Ukraine is the country needing help
But in the future it may be the one that is helping to defend - by being just so formidable an adversary as part of NATO that Russia would never even consider invading.
However NATO has also strengthened itself immensely and has shifted away from the dependence on US leadership it used to have. That is another thing that Trump has done - forced Europe to strengthen it’s own military protection so that it no longer depends on the US military in the way it used to.
The short answer is you are very safe if you live in a NATO country.
For anyone in Ukraine, then Europe is stepping up and is strongly behind you whatever US decides.
And for Russia and those who support Russia - Ukraine wants peace. It wants an end to the war as much as anyone. But naturally enough it needs to a fair, safe, secure enduring peace.
I don’t think that in reality Rusisa would be keen to start this awr up again unless Putin could somehow force Ukraine to become very weak so he can take it over in days.
But it’s understandable after this invasion that Ukraine is very cautious and doesn’t want to enter into a “Minsk 3” type agreement that would only last a few years until the next invasion - after having had two invsions in 2014 and 2022 already, both of which it sees as Russia breaking promises.
SEE ALSO
Sky News' military analyst, Sean Bell to young kids: “we are NOT on the verge of World War 3” and “we are NOT about to have a nuclear confrontation”
To get a quick first overview of this blog post, just look at the graphics and read the section titles. Hover your mouse over the left margin to see a table of contents.
also
Why Russia can't attack NATO after Ukraine war is over - NATO is already quickly ramping up capabilities in Europe - and an end to the war will free up Ukraine and its allies as much as Russia
Skip to Contents - or click on vertical column of dashes to the left on laptops.
Contents
Worst case here is just peace postponed - Ukraine will never accept an inadequate treaty
Ukraine as a very valuable ally of NATO if it doesn’t join it once the war is over
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
Robert Walker
4d
If you have potentially scary questions about any other topic please post here: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/post-to-comment-on-with-off-topic-29a Post to comment on, with off topic potentially scary comments - or send me a private message - or use our group on Facebook
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
Also, I have heard it said that when these politicans, presidents, prime ministers, EU people, NATO people and military leaders and commanders across the globe are talking how threat of potential conflict is legitimate or how world's or Europe's security situation is worst since World War 2 or Cold War are most of the time either misinformed or are doing "wake up calls" to others to invest more on defense, military, and security or such? Is the statment more or less true?
However, as more and more European politicans, from left, right and center are united in this, could it indicate that Russian military threat in not to distant future to Europe is legitimate?