Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
The private US based satellite company Maxar Technologies has been, reportedly, prohibited from sharing satellite images with Ukraine.

Edit: confirmed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/07/maxar-ukraine-sateliite-imagery/

>>>U.S. aerospace company Maxar Technologies has restricted Ukraine's access to its satellite imagery, the Ukrainian media outlet Militarnyi reported on March 7, citing unnamed users of the service.

Kyiv has relied on high-resolution satellite images for defense and strategic planning, tracking Russian troop movements, assessing battlefield conditions, and monitoring Russian infrastructure damage.

The alleged move follows the U.S. decision to halt intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a shift confirmed by CIA Director John Ratcliffe on March 5.

According to Militarnyi, the restriction was imposed under an order from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, with the State Department allegedly prohibiting U.S. companies from providing satellite data to Ukraine.

The Kyiv Independent was unable to verify the claims and has contacted Maxar Technologies for confirmation but has yet to receive a response.

Ukraine's cyber community Cyberboroshno also reported the restriction, claiming that free access to satellite reconnaissance had been cut off.

"According to our information, at least private companies can buy already ordered (satellite) images through the provider," Cyberboroshno wrote on Telegram.

Washington has also frozen military aid to Kyiv as part of a broader effort to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky into peace talks with Russia.

Ukraine's Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said on March 6 that Kyiv is working on alternatives to counter the loss of U.S. intelligence, including potential cooperation with European partners.<<<

 
Last edited:
N

nicoleise

Junior Audioholic
I agree with you. You should read his post in the context that he is against supporting Ukraine.
Thanks for the clarification. If that's true, it makes very little sense still, though.

Ukraine supported the US with over 6 000 soldiers in the Iraq war, without any obligation to do so.

Now, the US is "returning the favor" by actively sabotaging the Ukrainians defense of their own country. Talk about growing up or growing a spine.

One thing is cutting military aid, at least there's a cost to use as reason. But Starlink and both the halt on sharing intelligence as well as the alledged interfering with other countries sharing intelligence with Ukraine in my perspective is hard to rationally justify as anything other than favours to Putin/Russia (at the expense of one's allies).
 
T

trochetier

Full Audioholic
This is grossly oversimplified and frankly insulting.

The US has called upon its allies to help with it's military engagements the world over countless times. Every time, Denmark (for one) responded.

Our entire defence sector was converted for this purpose; special forces, light reactionary forces, multi purpose frigates, etc.

We didn't buy hundreds of tanks, because the needs the US (exclusively) asked of us were not tanks.

Because the need wasn't to defend Denmarks physical borders, the need was to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to help the US with your battles there. And remember just how short time ago we were all still in Iraq? In the context of changing an entire army, it was seconds ago.

Obviously all this took place expecting the NATO treaties (and others) to be honoured, to allow for this vulnerability to exist in the first place. And with an understanding that a small country like Denmark can't do both.

We could obviously have responded differently. We could have said "Nope, you have fun in the big sand box, we'd love to join, but we need to buy tanks and bunkers. But we do sympathise with your losses, too bad about 9/11. We wish you the best of luck."


If we had done that, your post wouldn't be remotely relevant because we would have prioritised our own defense.

But from a US point of view, would that have been any better, knowing that Denmark per capita suffered the same losses as the US did in those conflicts?


A substantial portion of our defense spendings were spent directly supporting the US in armed conflicts. Just as you now see us spending by far the most on supporting Ukraine directly (over 2% of our GDP).

Again, we could buy tanks and park them in garages, but they would only make a difference if we were invaded. Instead, we put our money where the need is.

Hopefully this illustrates why military alliances shouldn't be reduced to simple statements?


Don't get me wrong, the EU needs to, and is, stepping it up. And all things point to the defence strategically being anchored in the EU rather than NATO in the future. How this is a win for the US, I cannot see though?

Especially not when Trump managed to alienate essentially everyone, and thus essentially write the US out of the equation in what is likely the largest defense purchase of a high number of US allies all at the same time.

This could - in real terms, not just in Trumps head - have been a trillion dollar deal for the US easily. Many European countries bought US equipment (Denmark for example bought F16 and is replacing them with F35 currently being commissioned and deployed). But no European government can realistically suggest touching equipment that the US essentially controls with a ten foot pole now, if some alternative exists.

But of course, this - like many other things - is more of a biproduct. I simply felt your simplified post lacks taking a bunch of things into account.
I stand by my comment. It is not a matter of benefiting US but a matter of Europe being more responsible for its own defense. We alone spend $850 billion on defense, more than the next 7 countries combined. We still maintain a huge footprint in Europe - https://www.cfr.org/article/where-are-us-forces-deployed-europe

Bush invoking Article 5 required NATO to to send troops to Afghanistan that's true. But that also caused consternation in Europe when the Afghan war went on and on. https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-still-living-with-consequences-article-5-invocation-after-911-2021-9?op=1

Brussels EU leaders meeting March 6, committing to 850 million Euros to build up Europe's own capacity independent of US confirms that finally Europe is starting to stand on its own two feet. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/live-special-european-council-summit-march-6-2025/

Now that Russia's military has proven to be tissue paper bear - I personally see no reason why Europe should still depend upon US for its defense. From US perspective with China as the rising economic and military power in the east I see more of a reason for US to reform SEATO refocus on Asia and retrograde from NATO.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
I stand by my comment. It is not a matter of benefiting US but a matter of Europe being more responsible for its own defense. We alone spend $850 billion on defense, more than the next 7 countries combined. We still maintain a huge footprint in Europe - https://www.cfr.org/article/where-are-us-forces-deployed-europe

Bush invoking Article 5 required NATO to to send troops to Afghanistan that's true. But that also caused consternation in Europe when the Afghan war went on and on. https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-still-living-with-consequences-article-5-invocation-after-911-2021-9?op=1

Brussels EU leaders meeting March 6, committing to 850 million Euros to build up Europe's own capacity independent of US confirms that finally Europe is starting to stand on its own two feet. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/live-special-european-council-summit-march-6-2025/

Now that Russia's military has proven to be tissue paper bear - I personally see no reason why Europe should still depend upon US for its defense. From US perspective with China as the rising economic and military power in the east I see more of a reason for US to reform SEATO refocus on Asia and retrograde from NATO.
So, you're fine with the US invoking article 5 and the rest of NATO responding, but Europe should look after themselves? It's not that Europe "depends" on the US for their defence. It's that NATO is an alliance and for it to have any power of detterence, all members need to stand by their commitments.

NOBODY badgered the US to spend $850 billion on defence. The US government made that choice. If you want to spend less, spend less. But, the US is still a member and should stand by her commitments, if called upon.
 
T

trochetier

Full Audioholic
So, you're fine with the US invoking article 5 and the rest of NATO responding, but Europe should look after themselves? It's not that Europe "depends" on the US for their defence. It's that NATO is an alliance and for it to have any power of detterence, all members need to stand by their commitments.

NOBODY badgered the US to spend $850 billion on defence. The US government made that choice. If you want to spend less, spend less. But, the US is still a member and should stand by her commitments, if called upon.
As long as US is a member of NATO Article 5 commitment should be honored. I am saying that US should no longer be the big dog, the leader of NATO. US as the leader in NATO made sense after WW2 when Europe was broken and USSR was the other big dog. Now Europe is wealthy and put together through EU, EC etc. Europe should now take on the bigger burden of NATO for its own defenses and US should be just another NATO member but not the lead.

IMO the reason US spends $850B in defense is because it still needs to maintain a very large foot print in Europe. Europe taking on more NATO responsibility will allow US to reposition more towards counteracting China, restarting SEATO without having to spend a lot more on defense and running up even higher on top of already huge national debt.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Warlord
As long as US is a member of NATO Article 5 commitment should be honored. I am saying that US should no longer be the big dog, the leader of NATO. US as the leader in NATO made sense after WW2 when Europe was broken and USSR was the other big dog. Now Europe is wealthy and put together through EU, EC etc. Europe should now take on the bigger burden of NATO for its own defenses and US should be just another NATO member but not the lead.

IMO the reason US spends $850B in defense is because it still needs to maintain a very large foot print in Europe. Europe taking on more NATO responsibility will allow US to reposition more towards counteracting China, restarting SEATO without having to spend a lot more on defense and running up even higher on top of already huge national debt.
I agree that the US doesn't necessarily need to "lead" NATO. I'd be happy just to know that she will honour her commitment to mutual defence.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
As long as US is a member of NATO Article 5 commitment should be honored. I am saying that US should no longer be the big dog, the leader of NATO. US as the leader in NATO made sense after WW2 when Europe was broken and USSR was the other big dog. Now Europe is wealthy and put together through EU, EC etc. Europe should now take on the bigger burden of NATO for its own defenses and US should be just another NATO member but not the lead.

IMO the reason US spends $850B in defense is because it still needs to maintain a very large foot print in Europe. Europe taking on more NATO responsibility will allow US to reposition more towards counteracting China, restarting SEATO without having to spend a lot more on defense and running up even higher on top of already huge national debt.
This is not handouts to Europe but a mutual beneficial security arrangement since WWII! It's not just military but economic and political as well.

You ought to watch the following YouTube clip by a professor who studies war and game theory that should dispel a number of your misconceptions.

 
T

trochetier

Full Audioholic
This is not handouts to Europe but a mutual beneficial security arrangement since WWII! It's not just military but economic and political as well.

You ought to watch the following YouTube clip by a professor who studies war and game theory that should dispel a number of your misconceptions.

What the professor is saying is known. What I am saying is that US should no longer be the leader now be just another NATO member just like Denmark or France or Germany. US leadership made sense after WW2 but now that European economy is just as big as US, Europe should take on more of the burden. Clinton, Obama said this to NATO but then it fell on deaf ears. Now that Trump has said it bluntly with his usual bluster it has got Europe's attention, so much so that EU on 3/6 in Brussels agreed to spend $850B (equal to US defense budget for FY 2024) on their defense.

IMO US should honor Article 5.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Warlord
What the professor is saying is known. What I am saying is that US should no longer be the leader now be just another NATO member just like Denmark or France or Germany. US leadership made sense after WW2 but now that European economy is just as big as US, Europe should take on more of the burden. Clinton, Obama said this to NATO but then it fell on deaf ears. Now that Trump has said it bluntly with his usual bluster it has got Europe's attention, so much so that EU on 3/6 in Brussels agreed to spend $850B (equal to US defense budget for FY 2024) on their defense.

IMO US should honor Article 5.
It's a roundabout way of achieving your aims given the deplorable tv meeting. Trump has a talent for turning success into failures given his tone.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
This is the speech from the French Senate a few days ago. This needs to be widely circulated.



Transcript below of an incredibly powerful and deadly accurate speech in the French Senate two days ago by Mr. Claude Malhuret. (3/04/25). This may some day take its rightful place alongside the best of Sir Winston Churchill and President John F Kennedy.
Brace yourself:
“President, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, My dear colleagues,
Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, Russia strengthened.
Washington has become the court of Nero, a fiery emperor, submissive courtiers and a ketamine-fueled jester in charge of purging the civil service.
This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you, he will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies and will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.
The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin, but Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.
Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media.
This is not an illiberal drift, it is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution.
I have faith in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor.
Eight days ago, at the very moment that Trump was rubbing Macron’s back in the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops.
Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign.
Tonight, he took another step into infamy by stopping the delivery of weapons that had been promised. What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it.
And first of all, let’s not be mistaken. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia, Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin.
The countries of the South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it.
What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with its first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territory by force.
This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the attacked, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries.
Mine is Greenland, Panama and Canada, you are Ukraine, the Baltics and Eastern Europe, he is Taiwan and the China Sea.
At the parties of the oligarchs of the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago, this is called “diplomatic realism.”
So we are alone. But the talk that Putin cannot be resisted is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is in bad shape. In three years, the so-called second largest army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country three times less populated.
Interest rates at 25%, the collapse of foreign exchange and gold reserves, the demographic collapse show that it is on the brink of the abyss. The American helping hand to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made in a war.
The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands and that they have three imperatives.
Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American abandonment, so that it holds, and of course to impose its presence and that of Europe in any negotiation.
This will be expensive. It will be necessary to end the taboo of the use of frozen Russian assets. It will be necessary to circumvent Moscow’s accomplices within Europe itself by a coalition of only the willing countries, with of course the United Kingdom.
Second, demand that any agreement be accompanied by the return of kidnapped children, prisoners and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia and Minsk, we know what agreements with Putin are worth. These guarantees require sufficient military force to prevent a new invasion.
Finally, and this is the most urgent, because it is what will take the most time, we must build the neglected European defence, to the benefit of the American umbrella since 1945 and scuttled since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the leaders of today’s democratic Europe will be judged in the history books.
Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. This is to recognize that France has been right for decades in arguing for strategic autonomy.
It remains to be built. It will be necessary to invest massively, to strengthen the European Defence Fund outside the Maastricht debt criteria, to harmonize weapons and munitions systems, to accelerate the entry into the Union of Ukraine, which is today the leading European army, to rethink the place and conditions of nuclear deterrence based on French and British capabilities, to relaunch the anti-missile shield and satellite programs.
The plan announced yesterday by Ursula von der Leyen is a very good starting point. And much more will be needed.
Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power again. In a word, the Draghi report will have to be implemented. For good.
But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament.
We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and especially in the face of Putin’s cronies, the extreme right and the extreme left.
They argued again yesterday in the National Assembly, Mr Prime Minister, before you, against European unity, against European defence.
They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain at the beck and call of Putin.
Peace for the collaborators who have refused any aid to the Ukrainians for three years.
Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in the last few days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and all the crazy decisions taken in the last month have finally made the Americans react.
Polls are falling. Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical.
The Trumpists are no longer in their majesty. They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and social networks.
But in American history, the freedom fighters have always prevailed. They are beginning to raise their heads.
The fate of Ukraine is being played out in the trenches, but it also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy, and here on our ability to unite Europeans, to find the means for their common defense, and to make Europe the power that it once was in history and that it hesitates to become again.
Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost.
The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century.
Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.”
-Claude Malhuret speaking to the French Senate Tuesday March 4 2025. You have just read the transcript of a speech that will live forever in the history books.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
This is the speech from the French Senate a few days ago. This needs to be widely circulated.
I saw this speech earlier. I agree, it is a powerful speech and will have historical significance. It's surreal seeing the USA being spoken of in this manner. Fascism is swallowing this country. We could make comparisons to Nazi Germany, but they didn't have the benefit of hindsight about the consequences of fascism. We do, yet we are slipping into it with so little resistance. My theory is since the USA didn't really suffer the consequencies of fascism, there isn't an immunity built into this culture as it was into Europe after WW2. WW2 rewarded the USA, not punished it. It's possible we need to feel the same level of devastation that fascism will inevitably lead to in order to have a real understanding, and thus repulsion, of its evil.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top