Russia attacks Ukraine

[Ulrich]

Watched a bit of that, I got to say Merz had the courage to disagree with Trump, while most others just said "thank you for doing this"...

President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders arrived at the White House on Monday to meet US President Donald Trump for fresh talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine.

Here are some of the key takeaways.

A Putin-Zelensky meeting on the cards? Trump said that he had called Putin to arrange bilateral talks between the Russian leader and Zelensky. Following this, there would be a trilateral meeting including Trump, the US president said

Trump and Europeans disagree over ceasefire - Trump seemed to dismiss the need for a ceasefire before further negotiations to end the war, a stance that drew opposition from European leaders. "I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire," said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. "So, let's work on that and let's try to put pressure on Russia"

Trump hints at security guarantees - the US would help guarantee Ukraine's security, Trump said. This is the most decisive he has ever sounded on the issue of security guarantees, which are a key concern for Ukraine. It is not clear what form those would take, with possibilities including foreign troops deployed on the ground, joint air and sea patrols, intelligence sharing or logistical support - more on this from security correspondent Frank Gardner here

Zelensky launches charm offensive - in a shift from his acrimonious last visit to the White House, Zelensky dialled up the charm today, dressed in a suit, armed with a personal letter from his wife and a flurry of six "thank yous" in the first few minutes of the meeting

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cz93ve1p952t

[MeltingMan]

Apparently, Melania wrote a letter to Putin.

Indeed. The letter was handed to Vladimir at the meeting in Alaska. I wonder if he'll be impressed? The signature looks like she authorized her husband to sign on her behalf. Hmm...

[dsanchez]

PS: Renounce Crimea? No. Renounce NATO membership? No. Renounce nuclear weapons? No. Demilitarize Crimea? Yes. Demilitarize the four fully or partially occupied provinces? Yes.

Then the war will continue, more Ukranians will die, US military companies will make nice profits (Trump said Europeans will buy American weapons that will be supplied to Ukraine) and as Mearsheimer correctly forecasted nine years ago, Ukraine will be wrecked (43:39 onward):

[Ulrich]

Then the war will continue...

Who is the aggressor again?
(Silly question, it says so in the topic title you created long ago.) 

Btw, not just Ukrainians will die, Russians too and their "helpers" from North Korea and other countries. Time for them to say "stop" as well?

[dsanchez]

Who is the aggressor again?

Russia is the aggressor and Russia is winning the war, so Ukraine can continue fighting back (with a high probability of losing more territories and lives) or focus on a diplomatic option.

However, if they continue on their stance on wanting to join NATO, the war will inevitably continue. Not sure if that's what most Ukrainians want: In Gallup's most recent poll of Ukraine, 69% say they favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, compared with 24% who support continuing to fight until victory:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx

[Ulrich]

...or focus on a diplomatic option.

Which is what they're doing at the moment. (Sadly Trump was needed to get through to Putin!)

And it's also why a German chancellor (among others) demands a ceasefire, because he is aware that negotiations can take long!

Trump adds that he wouldn't say Zelensky and Putin are ever going to be "best friends", but observes that the two leaders are the ones that "have to call the shots".

A call among members of the "coalition of the willing" to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine appears to have concluded, with some participants posting their reactions on social media.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says his country "welcomes ongoing efforts towards achieving a just and enduring piece, including yesterday's discussions with Washington".

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says that leaders of Canada, Japan, Turkey, New Zealand, and European countries assessed the outcomes of the Alaska meeting "very realistically".

"We all confirmed the need for continued support for Ukraine in the war with Russia," he adds.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cz93ve1p952t

[MeltingMan]

Zelensky launches charm offensive - in a shift from his acrimonious last visit to the White House, Zelensky dialled up the charm today, dressed in a suit, armed with a personal letter from his wife and a flurry of six "thank yous" in the first few minutes of the meeting

It may seem superficial, but he was once again wearing only black. The Ukrainian costume, on the other hand, suits him perfectly. We're still a long way from a "bathrobe meeting". 

[MeltingMan]

Russia is winning the war,

I wouldn't be so sure. What is clear is that both countries don't want/can't continue this war indefinitely. That's the good news. Negotiations taking place while weapons are simultaneously being used may be unusual. A ceasefire would only provide both sides with a reprieve (sorry Mr. Merz). Furthermore, it must be maintained and monitored. In other words: the threat of war hasn't been permanently averted, and Europe has seen enough wars! Anyone who still says "This isn't our war" is extremely naive, in my opinion. 

[Ulrich]

The aggressor can win, if we let him.
As I pointed out further above, it's not just Europe, many other countries (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand) are part of the "coalition" which stands on side of Ukraine.

Fortunately Mearsheimer & co. are not involved in the negotiations or in the decision-making, they're "only" analysts/scientists. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5299829-a-realist-academic-embarrasses-himself-again-on-russia/

The editors of Switzerland's leading newspaper, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, knew they had a terrific headline when political scientist John Mearsheimer said, "I would have done the same as Putin. I would have attacked Ukraine even earlier."

As the paper no doubt realized, the controversy-loving University of Chicago professor had made an outrageous statement even by his own standards. It's one thing to accuse the West of provoking Russia's illegitimate president to invade Ukraine in defense of Russia's strategic interests. It's a whole different ball game actually to endorse Putin's invasion by associating oneself with it so clearly and openly.

In effect, Mearsheimer has justified and legitimized Putin's war and genocide, thereby making himself complicit in the Russian dictator's crimes. This is where Mearsheimer's brand of so-called geopolitical "realism" ultimately leads: not just indifference to morality, but the wholesale rejection of morality and its replacement with immorality.

It is important to note that this statement is Mearsheimer's personal endorsement not only of Putin's war but also of his genocide of Ukrainians.
...

It is at least unclear how one can characterize as a brilliant strategic move a three-year war that has cost Russia close to a million dead and wounded and thousands of tanks and personnel carriers destroyed; revealed its armed forces as incompetent and third-rate; induced Sweden and Finland to join NATO; ruined Russia's economy; and transformed Russia into a rogue state dependent on North Korea and China. If this is smart behavior by a rational Putin, then heaven help us if he ever rejects Mearsheimer's advice and begins to act irrationally.

Equally absurd is the notion, now a tenet within MAGA world, that Ukraine was marching toward NATO membership before the invasion. The exact opposite was the case. NATO and its member states had expressly rejected membership for Ukraine.

(Read more at the link above)

[MeltingMan]

I stumbled across this in the subtitles yesterday. 

EU imports more Russian gas by mid-year than in the same period in 2024;
EU imports Russian gas worth €4.48 billion by mid-year

 

[dsanchez]

Good analysis from Paul:

[MeltingMan]

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says that leaders of Canada, Japan, Turkey, New Zealand, and European countries assessed the outcomes of the Alaska meeting "very realistically".

Turkey generally has good relations with Russia. Canada is flirting with the EU. Japan is already much further ahead in terms of its military buildup, which doesn't surprise me. The German Foreign Minister was there at the right time. I think China's protests against this are quite remarkable and it allows certain conclusions. When countries like Australia and New Zealand say "the conflict is too far away," I can even understand that. Australia recently delivered main battle tanks again. The Asian part of Russia, on the other hand, is huge compared to Ukraine. So the countries mentioned above are also more or less involved. 

[MeltingMan]