Post New

I posted this on the METAR board on TMF but it was removed. A couple of METAR members asked me to repost it here so they can read it. I hope that's OK with everyone.

I want to say a few words about the debacle of Trump and Vance's attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday, 2/28/2025.

At this point, everyone has probably already seen the video and read the transcript.

Trump and Putin are clearly in cahoots to transfer Ukrainian territory to Putin, who has been clear that he wants to reconstruct the land area of the Soviet Union (and possibly the earlier Russian Empire) which included Ukraine. Trump wants the valuable minerals in Ukraine and tried to strong-arm Zelenskyy into signing them over in exchange for previous American arms supplies, with no future guarantee of security.

At the time of the breakup of the USSR, Ukraine had many nuclear warheads -- it was the third-largest nuclear power on Earth. Ukraine voluntarily transferred its nukes to Russia in exchange for a security guarantee. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022 so Putin's security guarantees are worthless. (As Zelenskyy pointed out during the meeting with Trump.)

Trump, like Putin, lies every time he opens his mouth. Trump stiffed his contractors and bankrupted 6 casinos.

It's obvious that Trump would double-cross Ukraine as soon as the mineral rights in Ukraine were handed over to the U.S. Trump would stop sending arms to Ukraine, Putin would take out Zelenskyy and install a puppet government, Russia would get the land and Trump would get the minerals.

Zelenskyy obtained a degree in law from the Kryvyi Rih Institute of Economics so he is no dummy. Unlike Trump, who is playing a game of cards, Zelenskyy is the embattled leader of an independent nation under attack from Russia which is backed by China and North Korea.

In my opinion, Trump is far worse than Neville Chamberlain who declared "Peace in our time" after signing the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in September 1938. Chamberlain really believed that he could ensure peace by handing over the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in exchange for a promise not to go to war. Of course, Hitler invaded Poland less than a year later. But I think that Chamberlain was sincere.

I think that Trump, unlike Chamberlain, is happily throwing Ukraine under the bus because he is allied with Putin. I'm sure that Trump will pull out of NATO when Russia invades the Baltic States and Poland. I'm sure that Trump has no illusions that Putin will stop with taking over the Donbas region of Ukraine. But he doesn't care.

I'm sure that Zelenskyy has no illusions either. He has already turned to Europe for help. I would bet a quarter that he won't sign the minerals agreement with the U.S.

Friday's contentious meeting will turn out to be a true inflection point in world history. The result will be contention and possibly spreading war. Trump was right when he said it might lead to World War 3.

It's not often that the battleship of a Great Power turns on a dime. The geopolitical and macroeconomic impact of the meeting are potentially immense.

China will probably read this as a go-ahead to take over Taiwan. If Trump abandons Ukraine he probably won't defend Taiwan.

Update:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/03/us/trump-n...
Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. Suspends All Military Aid to Ukraine, Trump Official Says

Trump has pressed Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), the world’s largest chip manufacturer to bring more of its operations to the United States. TSMC announced plans on Monday to invest $100 billion in the United States over the next four years. Given Trump's transactional nature, he has probably written off the rest of Taiwan. China's military is stronger than the U.S. in that area. The U.S. does not have a treaty to protect Taiwan. China plans to take over Taiwan by the end of the decade. I don't think that Trump will see any reason to risk World War 3 over Taiwan any more than Ukraine.

The Great Power alignment has shifted radically. Instead of the U.S. as sole superpower the world will return to the past. The new alignment will be the U.S. and Russia. Since Russia is closely allied with China this may reduce the antagonism between the U.S. and China, which plans to dominate the rest of the 21st century. Europe will be left to defend Ukraine...and defend against the inevitable Russian encroachment into the Baltics, Poland and maybe even Finland.

Rivalry over polar resources will heat up (no pun intended) as the polar icecap melts.

History will mark the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting as a significant turning point.

Wendy

Hi Wendy,

While I agree with almost everything in your post I would like to disagree about this:
At the time of the breakup of the USSR, Ukraine had many nuclear warheads -- it was the third-largest nuclear power on Earth. Ukraine voluntarily transferred its nukes to Russia in exchange for a security guarantee.

The folks in the arms control community have discussed this at length, for instance here:
https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/207316/ukr...

And according to these much more knowledgable people there is a big difference between having weapons stationed on your soil and having control of those weapons. From the above link:
While it had physical control, it’s not clear former Soviet military personnel would have executed Ukrainian launch orders, and regardless Kiev lacked the codes to overcome the permissive action links, electronically encrypted locks to prevent unauthorized use.

So I think the proper analogy is that yes, North Dakota has many nuclear weapons stationed in its borders but that doesn't make NDak a nuclear power.

It is perfectly clear that Putin abrogated the terms of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the Ukrainians cannot and should not trust the Russians to maintain a new agreement.

Rgds,
HH/Sean

Let Marco Rubio explain it to you.
https://youtu.be/3ADT1DVnvK4?si=jQ4YMWB8CWve83e9

This video is from last year when Rubio was a Senator. It also is probably why he tried to disappear into the couch at the White House gang bang.

So I think the proper analogy is that yes, North Dakota has many nuclear weapons stationed in its borders but that doesn't make NDak a nuclear power.

North Dakota is not a sovereign power, Ukraine is, at least for a little while yet. That’s a big difference, since North Dakota, by definition, would not “control” the nukes within its borders, but Ukraine would.

Now it may or may not be that Ukraine would have the manpower, expertise, or even interest in maintaining since a large nuclear stock (1700+ warheads), but I’d submit they wouldn’t have to. The could maintain 500. Or 200. Or 10.

Or maybe they wouldn’t even have to maintain them. As we have seen ever since ever 1946 it is the threat of nuclear missiles, not the actual use of them that seems to keep others in line. (Israel surely has them but doesn’t admit it as they don’t want to start an arms race there. That is “skilled diplomacy”, unlike the rampaging bull in a china shop variety that we are now employing.)

If Ukraine had 10 missiles, and let’s pretend they are all buried in concrete cylinders somewhere in a vast open expanse - but nobody knows that - does anyone think Putin would have invaded?

As I understand it Ukraine had physical control of the missiles/warheads, but they didn't have the launch codes and whatnot needed to use them.

They could have potentially kept the weapons and created a workaround so that they could arm and use them. Might have been a good idea to keep 100 of them and work on the problem.

Ukraine voluntarily transferred its nukes to Russia in exchange for a security guarantee.

I've been reading a little about this security guarantee and one thing mystifies me about it. Why was it the US (and the UK) who gave the security guarantee and not Europe? Or at the very least, why didn't Europe join in providing that security guarantee? Seems curious to me.

If Ukraine had 10 missiles, and let’s pretend they are all buried in concrete cylinders somewhere in a vast open expanse - but nobody knows that - does anyone think Putin would have invaded?

I think the point was that if he (Putin) knew that the launch codes were encrypted, and that nobody loyal to Ukraine had access to those codes, then yes, he would have invaded.

I think the point was that if he (Putin) knew that the launch codes were encrypted, and that nobody loyal to Ukraine had access to those codes, then yes, he would have invaded.

Somewhere, somehow, there is a box which does the encryption and then pushes a button (connects a relay) which says ‘go”. If you have the physical missile, warhead, and box - and if you have *some* capability in mechanicals and computers (which Ukraine does) and if you have 20 years to figure it out, I suspect this would not be an insurmountable problem.

And again, if you[re Putin you don’t know if they did or not . That’s “deterrence”, and apparently worth more than a “we’ll stand by you” from the US.

[Here’s what Google AI answers to “Does Ukraine have a computer industry?”


Yes, Ukraine has a thriving computer industry that's a key part of its economy. Ukraine is a global leader in IT outsourcing, and its tech sector is a major exporter of services.
Key facts

Ukraine's tech sector is one of the country's largest exporters of services, behind only food products.
Ukraine has over 285,000 skilled software developers, one of the largest pools in Eastern Europe.
Major tech hubs include Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro.

The tech sector accounts for nearly 13% of total exports, generating over $7 billion in revenue in 2024.
The tech sector contributes significantly to foreign exchange inflows.

The tech sector has preserved approximately 663,000-668,000 jobs.

I don’t know if 20 years is enough time to solve the problem, but I suspect you could make a pretty good dog and pony show of doing so.

Somewhere, somehow, there is a box which does the encryption and then pushes a button (connects a relay) which says ‘go”. If you have the physical missile, warhead, and box - and if you have *some* capability in mechanicals and computers (which Ukraine does) and if you have 20 years to figure it out, I suspect this would not be an insurmountable problem.

I suppose clever people might be able to circumvent all the protections put around nuclear warheads. I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one or five movies where that was the main part of the plot. But keep in mind that of ALL things in the world, nuclear warheads tend to have the best protections of all. Even better protections than electronic money has.

I suppose clever people might be able to circumvent all the protections put around nuclear warheads. I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one or five movies where that was the main part of the plot. But keep in mind that of ALL things in the world, nuclear warheads tend to have the best protections of all. Even better protections than electronic money has.

I don't think it would be that hard. By far the hardest part of constructing a nuclear warhead is enriching the uranium or manufacturing the plutonium. If you have an existing warhead that is encrypted nine ways to Sunday, you could disassemble it, harvest the fissile material, and put it in a bomb of your own design.

At the time, the plan was to scoop up as many nuclear weapons as possible from the former Soviet Union (including Russia) and dispose of them by burning the fissile material in reactors in the United States.

Even in hindsight I think that was the correct action.

History will mark the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting as a significant turning point.

Hooray, Wendy is here. This place feels like home now. New Echota, Albaby, Mungofich, (hoping WTH will come back), and the rest of the crew, would be nice to get Rational Walk, Manlobbi, and I also agree with the Wendy's analysis.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.