Posted on 09/23/2025 1:45:11 PM PDT by marcusmaximus
For a good while, those “slobs” were not doing a lot of funding because the price of Russian oil was barely above (total) costs to get it to their customers, who were passing it on, in various ways, to the Euro’s.
The Euro’s have moved the price cap down, and added additional measures, essentially in concert with Trump’s demands. In addition, the Gulf states have agreed to increase oil production, generating a few “why would they do that?” comments here on FR, but, the answer / “deal” is obvious: The US will not, at least at this point, put up a big fuss about Euro countries recognizing a “Palestinian State”.
Even if the above is all carried out so well that Russia is selling oil at cost, will it stop Putin, as many supporters of Ukraine suppose? I do not think so, at least not anytime soon. There is a lot of wealth still left in Russia that the gov’t can tap, and until things get very bad, the bulk of the citizenry will likely keep the faith.
What WILL stop Russia is the upward trend of successful Ukie hits on critical refinery infrastructure. Russia has a large export margin of refined products, but recent attack successes indicate the Ukies are likely to be able to soon take out 2 refineries a day. And while Ukie drone tech is ahead of the USA in some areas, there are at least a couple areas where rather “old” US tech, added to the Ukies’ drones, would make them far more likely to “get through” to Russian targets. Now you can triple or more the hits on distillation towers, and the Ukies can free up some heavy missiles and drones to work on major rail bridges.
Russia in response will try to take out “drone factories” - which are readily replaced or repaired (as the Ukies have found out trying to take out Russian drone production). They will continue to pound Ukraine’s energy and refined products infrastructure, which is increasingly dispersed to supply from its supporting neighbors - NATO counties Putin would be insane to effectively hit.
No country of substance can get by without refined oil products, and Russia is particularly vulnerable due to its vast area. Erecting proper defenses to stealthy, AI “smart” terrain navigating target recognizing drones would take trillions (in US dollars) and years. China may take note.
Putin “could” respond with a (likely goes global) nuclear war, but it’s rather hard to see how destruction of the entire Northern Hemisphere advances Russia’s security interests... Russia would be much better off for Putin to get the best deal he can from Trump, NOW. But, I don’t expect Putin to listen, and Russia will get a worse deal, later, unfortunately for the Russian people. :-(
HAVE FUN WITH YOU DUMB WAR EUROPE, WE ARE OUT!đđ
**********
Europe is an economic wasteland. The only way it has out is to wage war, commit robbery and takeovers.
The Russia/Ukraine war is all smoke-and-mirrors, at the expense of the Ukrainian people. Many of the European slob nations still by $billions in Russian Natural Gas and oil. They are, along with China and India, directly funding Russiaâs war.
*****
This is correct. DJT’s demand that nations quit funding Russia’s war by refraining from purchasing Russia’s filthy natural gas is a legitimate one.
No, Putin gave Trump a chance and everything he told him went in one ear and out the other. Trump at this point owns the Wars and the new one he wants with Venezuela.
**********
Hahahaha. Lol.
Pres. Trump has never called it "Europe's dumb war".
That's because, for one thing, in Trump-world, only a babbling idiot would think of his customers as "dumb", much less call them that publicly.
For another, Trump has repeatedly condemned Russia, not Ukraine, much less Europe, for the war.
Finally, Trump will speak of our European allies (and customers) with all the respect they are genuinely due.
He will not respect them if they fail to meet their pledges of 5% of GDP on defense, but he will also not abandon them if/when Mad-Vlad the Invader's Kremlin minions attack our NATO allies.
His message was clear: Good luck to all. I don’t care about either Nation.
I think that is a point that many don't grasp about the current economy in Russia...
"at cost" is a deceptive term - as Russia produces oil far cheaper than many nations - they don't care about environmental regulations or protections - they don't care about property rights or royalties. They don't care about working conditions or wages. And lest we forget - most of the petroleum industry in Russia is functionally state-owned. Meaning the cost of production is irrelevant - as the revenue still gets channeled to the military production/war fighting. But another aspect of the Russian economy -they are in what is known as a "war economy". - the majority of their industry is tooled for and geared towards the war fighting effort. They have been at it long enough, that the economy is now dependent on the war itself to keep people working. Selling at a loss is far better than not selling at all.
Britain and France had the upper hand on Germany until they let Hitler rearm. Until mid September 1939, the option of a two front war with Germany in the vice was possible, but they declined it.
You are mistaken as to the facts: England wanted desperately to avoid war with Germany, war was not a desired or viable option. Even then when it engaged England was not initially combative. It could be argued neither did France, want war, look at how quickly it collapsed when engaged.
By all accounts, Chamberlain truly believed that he had made peace with Hitler,
and that he did - best as he could with the limitations he had together with recommendations from his colleagues. Churchill, who was at the time out of office was critical, but once burdened with the war effort was grateful for Chamberlainâs achievement.
and Hitler clearly duped him.
That is not so clear since we do not know with certainty Chamberlainâs goals.
No deal was ever possible with such an evil man.
See Ronald Reagan in this regard.
Trump wanted the glory of making a deal vainly hoping for a Nobel Peace Prize.
That certainly doesnât sound like the words of a Trump supporter, as you claim to be.
What journalist's quesion? There was no journalist who asked Trump a question which resulted in the comment.
I had in mind the answer Trump gave with regard to NATO action, but it doesnât touch directly on our discussion.
For example, your statement that Chamberlain was duped by Hitler was perhaps the exact image sought by Chamblerlain ("we mean you no harm").
1) Hitler expressed regret soon after the Munich agreement that England had not been provoked presumably because he correctly believed conquering England in those days would have been an easy matter.
2) As a matter of fact, more than a year later Hitler canceled his well-advanced plans to invade England simply because he did not have control of the skies. Only a few days before, unbeknownst to Hitler, of course, England's air commander remarked to Churchill that the Battle of Britain had exhausted his reserve - and that was after a frenzied year of building an air fleet that was suffering daily losses.
With that, one could argue Chamberlain had "appeased" no more than necessary, and it was Hitler who was duped.
It may yet be a Lady or Tiger scenario for you and me, but thank you for the exercise; it's been fun.*
* You can have the last word, if you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.