Ukraine pushes for Europe to build defense system against ballistic weapons

ROFL!! Europe can’t even afford to put aside money for their own defense, especially NATO countries. Spain, who wasn’t even up to the 2% funding of their GDP, wouldn’t agree to the 5% recently agreed to by all the other nations. They whined, and got a special 3.5% rate. It’s good to be a communist, and have a wife charged with corruption.

Power it by electric motors and solar panels and windmills will they?

Why does *Ukraine* need to convince them of this? They can’t decide to do this themselves...like, yesterday?

i remember sdi, aka star wars, president reagan is a visionary

My reply from three days ago on a different thread that seems relevant here:

Rather than a supplicant for American aid, Ukraine has become a profit source from arms deals for this administration. Rather than becoming an orphan, Ukraine has formed partnerships for mutual weapons production with Europe. The world's foremost technician of drone warfare, Ukraine has positioned itself as the centerpiece of drone defense treaties in the Persian Gulf.

In about two years the world has gone from watching President Trump rudely dismissing the Ukrainian leader on television in the Oval Office, "you have no cards," to world leaders now half seriously joking among themselves if a surging Ukraine would actually accept association with NATO. History is vindicating Zelinski, not Trump.

It is noticeable how less and less frequently the disparagements of President Zelinski and of his courageous country are appearing in this forum.

Perhaps the inevitability of Russian victory is no longer so clear. Maybe the exaggerated costs of support of Ukraine are being understood as the propaganda they were when falsely uttered by the president. Could it be that the revelations by DOGE of endemic corruption in America and the revelations of corruption in Minnesota, California, Maine, and elsewhere are causing some conservatives to gain a less hypocritical perspective about the inflated allegations of corruption in Ukraine? Perhaps the diminutive size of President Zelinski is not as relevant as it was even a few months ago. Perhaps resourcefulness and ingenuity at a tactical and strategic level have caused President Zelinski to grow a few inches.

Maybe, just maybe, the extraordinary valor of Ukraine, its courageous struggle for its very existence in the face of great odds, its steadfastness in the face of desertion by America, is causing some conservatives here to question our misplaced arrogance?

Another (an even more unlikely maybe), maybe the resourcefulness of NATO and Europe in uniting and coming to the support of Ukraine in the wake of abandonment by America, will cause some conservatives to reassess our hubristic dismissal of NATO and Europe. Maybe we will begin to acknowledge that we consciously estranged NATO, rather than the other way around, even as we abandoned Ukraine, as we recognize that NATO and Europe did not abandon Ukraine. Perhaps we will see that Europe and NATO are in fact reforming and that maybe NATO could actually become one of our great assets and bulwarks against very dark forces.

The arrogance of the Zelensky crew is both breathtaking and astounding.

The US and Israel have invested 50 years and trillions of dollars to develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. To think that the EU is going to be able to come in and duplicate that effort with Ukraine taking the lead is absurd and the hubris is of the charts.

These people don't even know what they don't know.

Hold on to your wallets.

Ukraine is the foremost technician in drone warfare ?

You need to get out more.

The US is by far the world leader in drone warfare. Nobody else even cones close to second place.

The Ukraine has some expertise with battlefield applications of small drones and FPV systems in a low threat, permissive environment but they do not even come close to US drone capabilities.

The US has, as usual, leadership in exquisite, high-tech drone weapons that nobody can afford to use at scale, including the United States.

Modern drone warfare is won or lost not only on technical quality but on affordability to scale against swarms. Hence, even the United States is being tutored by Ukraine.

Once again, you are vehemently and proudly “EUSSR First”, “Ukraine First” and “America Last”.

You are an EUSSR toady who is rabidly Anti-American. You won’t be satisfied until the US sends troops to fight and die for your beloved dictator Zelensky and Ukraine.

I HATE Zelensky. He and the Ukrainian Nazis were involved in the Trump impeachment. Also, during the last election, he had the nerve to tour Pennsylvania and campaign for Kamala. That was UNFORGIVABLE and is proof that he seeks the destruction of the US.

Your TDS is unbecoming.

Also, death to the Orwellian and Islamic EUSSR and NATO. Western Europe, especially Spain, can burn in Hell.

I HATE Zelensky.

It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whom you hate. I am simply grateful that we don't make national policy on whom you hate.

“Maybe we will begin to acknowledge that we consciously estranged NATO, rather than the other way around, “

You’re putting the cart before the horse. Europe shafted us by not carrying their share of the load. They took the “peace dividend”, we didn’t. Why should our kids be put at risk for people who won’t defend themselves? President Trump was right to call them out.

Ukraine is gonna trust the Eurofags to defend them? Remember Bosnia and the NATO peacekeepers at Srebrenica. They really stepped up on that one. They’re likely to do the same for Ukraine.

Since being blasted off the front page by Iran, the slimy Dancing Queen™ is simply trying to stay relevant. Look at me! Look at me!

Ukraine can make all the money it wants with their drone business, as long as U.S. taxpayer dollars aren't propping it up. The reason the war won't end anytime soon is that the Ukraine government has overstayed its election terms, including Zelensky. Since they won't change the Constitution to hold elections, the people of Ukraine are stuck with what they have...no matter what that is. What benefit is there to the people of Ukraine, not having a say at the ballot box during this war? The only benefit goes to the people remaining in office past their "use by" date.

The reason Zelensky isn't being ridiculed much is because there haven't been a lot of articles about the war itself. Most of the articles posted have been about Zelensky urging Europe to get involved, co-creating a ballistic missile defense system, whining that U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have gone to Moscow, but haven't yet come to Kyiv, despite a meeting that is planned, crying that he needs security guarantees in peace talks, clapping along with the likes of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and other RATS over Hungary's Orban being defeated. Two weeks ago he was in Syria on a begging tour, trying to get Europe to loosen their purse strings, his security partnership with India, whining about oil sanctions relief for Russia, also whining about a shortage of Patriot air defense missiles. All the guy ever does is cry, and beg for money. If you've seen any of those articles, you'll still find derogatory remarks about Zelensky.

Personally, I don't give a crap about either country. They're Europe's problem, and Europe should have been dealing with it from the beginning. No American taxpayer money should be spent fighting another proxy war with Russia. We wasted lives and mucho bucks fighting commies in Korea and Vietnam. Neither war was a victory for this country. Proxy wars never lead to total victory. Best we stay out of them for good.

America is NATO, and always has been, and I hope President Trump follows through with his withdrawal from it. The rest of the member nations have sucked off American taxpayer's since the beginning, and even after all these years, there are still member nations who won't fund the 2% they agreed to put aside for their own defense back in 2014. Now it's 5%, and the majority of them will drag their feet on that too.

Yes, Trump was right to call them out just as every other president for the last 20 years had done. Trump was not the first nor is he unique in this but he was certainly the most offensive.

Worse than his belligerency, Trump undermined the deterrent power of NATO by allowing that he might not come to attacked nation's aid, as had been the common expectation for decades.

For decades, we Americans dutifully made please for Europeans to pay up and consciously looked away. Why? Because in the beginning a desolate Europe was incapable of defense and as the years passed we enjoyed controlling the foreign policy of Europe. So we paid the price and got what we paid for.

Europe did exactly what human nature dictated, they took the money, they played along, they got their healthcare.

Over the decades the arrangement was a win-win for both sides.

I remind you that the only time article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked to enlist many European countries to come to our aid in Afghanistan. Some of those countries not only "put their kids at risk" but suffered casualties disproportionately heavier than those suffered by America.

NATO is in the process of reforming, the nations are paying up 2 1/2% and many are paying up to 5%. Reform is underway, let's fix NATO and keep what works.

“Europe can’t even afford to put aside money for their own defense, especially NATO countries.”

Spain and other countries at the South and West of Europe have the luxury of not being of interest to any belligerent nation, and throw their money into socialist programs instead. I’d argue there’s a greater argument for kicking countries out of the alliance that are demonstrably not pulling their weight (based on proportion of GDP) but you do have to consider how wealthy and how large a country is - for example, castigating Hungary for not spending as many dollars as Germany would be quite ridiculous on multiple levels.

Zelensky’s message isn’t aimed at the freeloaders like Spain; it’s aimed at the UK, the former Eastern Bloc, Greece, Turkey, and Scandinavia - all of whom have been threatened either directly by Russia, or by the prospect of instability leading to regional conflict, AND who are willing to put their hands in their pockets.

However, it is disingenuous to argue that because the USA chooses to operate a global Military Industrial Complex with hundreds of bases (often in places they’re not even welcome), and therefore has to find over $600bn a year to keep that going, Europe should be doing the same! Only if Europe was doing the same as the USA in terms of self-promotion, force-projection, and actively (and enthusiastically) performing a “world police” role, would it make sense to demand they pay the same for it as the USA does.

“The US and Israel have invested 50 years and trillions of dollars to develop and deploy effective missile defense systems.”

Yes. The US systems are a bit like Bugatti Veyrons. Top dollar. But the problem is, the customer’s got far cheaper options that are nearly as good for the use case. For every one of your Veyron systems, they could order a whole fleet of Tesla Model S Plaid systems from somewhere else. The question you’re not asking is, why would someone continue to choose to buy your overpriced luxury system especially if your sales people start being rude to them?

Trump’s burned away so much goodwill in Nato and Five Eyes that countries are already asking if there are alternative partners who don’t act like having them as a customer entitles them to abuse you all the time, or drag you into their wars of choice.

“Europe shafted us by not carrying their share of the load.”

This is bollocks born of utter illiteracy and innumeracy from a POTUS whose grasp of math is so crap he bankrupted casinos in Atlantic City. Sorry.

Reality check: for every dollar the USA spent “defending” Europe it got $10 back in cultural capital, exports, and new markets. Decades of real analysis of the value of “pax Americana” and the “peace dividend” consistently show the benefits far outpaced the dollar cost.

For example, in 2024 the USA got $1.2tn a year in inward investment from European NATO and the UK, plus the NATO allies. The USA spent $980bn a year on military (for itself, for export, and a small bit of it for NATO and Ukraine).

If you look solely at NATO spending, the contributions of the UK, Poland and Germany together, are larger than America’s.

“They’re Europe’s problem, and Europe should have been dealing with it from the beginning. No American taxpayer money should be spent fighting another proxy war with Russia.”

Amen to the first bit, but to the second bit I would say, I could give a long list of conflicts involving NATO countries that America didn’t help with because it was NOT IN AMERICA’S INTEREST. Surely in an alliance that principle works for all? In effect, no country should be expected to spend a dime on America’s or Israel’s proxy wars, or wars of choice, if their determination is that it goes against their national interest.

Ukraine can make all the money it wants with their drone business, as long as U.S. taxpayer dollars aren't propping it up.

Until sometime into the second Trump administration it was the official policy of the United States, sanctified by federal law passed by Congress and signed by the president, to prop up Ukraine with American taxpayer dollars. Trump misled the American people telling them that the taxpayers were paying far more than they actually had paid and cut Ukraine off.

All the while President Trump maintained that his sole concern was the loss of life on the Ukrainian battlefield but I note that he has converted the supply of American arms to Ukraine from a considered policy advancing American national interests to a profit making arrangement when Trump declared no more arms to Ukraine unless paid for by NATO.

More, Trump insisted that America further profit from Ukraine when Ukraine was in a desperate existential war for survival when he suspended all arms and intelligence to Ukraine unless Zelinski signed a minerals deal. Subsequently, Trump restored intelligence but on the latest news it appears he has ceased supplying Ukraine with intelligence so vital for the prosecution of the war but, fortunately, much of the intelligence is now being rendered by European countries. The minerals deal done when Ukraine was desperate, when Zelinski was ambushed in the Oval Office and coupled with withdrawal of support and intelligence, comes close to extortion.

The point? It is rank hypocrisy for Trump to contend that Ukraine costs America money, it's the other way around. Yet day after day in this forum we read conservative after conservative complaining about the money that is allegedly going to Ukraine. They still believe it.

… they won't change the Constitution to hold elections

I complement you, you're one of the few here who acknowledge that there is a constitutional bar to holding elections. I note that Churchill held no elections during World War II – that by choice not by constitutional mandate. His country was being bombed and he was fighting for survival. Ukrainians are shivering in darkness as their country fights for its survival. Part of it is occupied, another part has been occupied since 1914. How do we conduct a referendum for a Constitution and enemy occupied land? How do we conduct an election?

The only benefit goes to the people remaining in office past their "use by" date

We conducted a successful American revolution against the greatest power on earth when only one third support of the revolution, one third was neutral, and one third was opposed. It is up to the people of Ukraine to determine who gets the benefit of their struggle. Of all people on earth Putin should have the least to say. How much should Donald Trump have to say? He presumes to pass judgment on the courage of a people to fight for their own freedom. A war that his country inveigled Ukraine to fight with promises of support and he abandoned.

…whining about a shortage of Patriot air defense missiles. All the guy ever does is cry, and beg for money.

His country standing alone, Churchill himself admits he was begging America for money and support. In one letter Churchill wrote Roosevelt, "“The moment approaches when we shall no longer be able to pay cash for shipping and other supplies…"

Roosevelt reacted by conceiving of Land-Lease to aid a country an ocean away in a war in which America was not involved. President Zelinski is doing precisely what Winston Churchill did for his country and he was lauded while doing it by virtually our whole nation and by a joint session of Congress when he addressed them. It is not unconnected the both were invited to jointly address Congress.

I support the war in Iran and I support the president's action there. I do not believe that Trump was inveigled into the war by Israel, but I do point out the disproportionate amount of money that is spent on the defense of Israel and great influence the Prime Minister Netanyahu and his party have enjoyed for decades in influencing United States foreign policy.

No American taxpayer money should be spent fighting another proxy war with Russia

I've already pointed out that no money is currently being spent in Ukraine. Money is in fact being spent fighting in Iran to a degree that dwarfs whatever was spent in fulfillment of our promises to Ukraine. I note one contributor in this thread has alleged that supporters of Ukraine wants to fight there. There is simply no evidence of any such indication by anyone in power to do anything like that.

America is NATO, and always has been, and I hope President Trump follows through with his withdrawal from it.

I have noted some thoughts concerning America's support of NATO in companion replies in this thread.

So Reagan had it right...Star Wars.

wy69