suds

More news from Sunday's summit.... European Commission President makes clear that EU will not accept any deal that cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia seized since full scale invasion in 2022. Starmer announces a finance deal to help Ukraine purchase 5000 missiles and that the UK is prepared to put boots on the ground and planes in the air, but insists any deal must have strong U.S. backing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-ukraine-peace-deal-trump-b2707585.html

I doubt anyone knows for sure. But Lindsay Graham claims he told Zalensky before the meeting at the Oval Office.... 'Don't fall for the bait'. Whatever that meant.

Perhaps. But if you can get UK, France, and U.S. to arrive at some understanding it is significant that they are all nuclear powers.

I tried to make myself clear on why Zelenski should apologize. There's also an old saying about not shitting in someone else's house.

UK, France and Ukraine will present peace deal to Trump, Starmer says.... Britain and France will work on a peace deal with Ukraine and present it to Donald Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Sunday, describing it as a step in the right direction following Friday's explosive meeting in the White House. Starmer, due to host Western leaders in London in a bid to revive a peace deal, said he hoped a European "coalition of the willing" would come together to support Kyiv, but that any ceasefire had to be underpinned by the United States to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine again. "In other words, we've got to find those countries in Europe that are prepared to be a bit more forward leaning," he told BBC television. "The UK and France are the most advanced on the thinking of this and that is why President Macron and I are working on this plan, which we will then discuss with the US." Starmer spoke to Macron and Trump on Saturday after he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Downing Street, a day after Trump and Zelenskiy clashed in an extraordinary meeting at the White House. Starmer repeated his assertion that a peace deal would only work in Ukraine if a possible European peacekeeping force had a security guarantee from the United States. "I've always been clear that that is going to need a US backstop, because I don't think it would be a guarantee without it," he said. https://www.tbsnews.net/world/uk-france-and-ukraine-will-present-peace-deal-trump-starmer-says-1082401

Yep, you saw a 'live feed' with your own eyes and are still blind. Why in hell would anyone want to sabotage a deal that they themselves proposed in the first place?????

The minerals deal is an extremely important aspect of bringing Russia to the negotiations table. For one thing it helps get them off the hook in regards to reparations for damages done to Ukraine.

I agree that when J.D. jumped in everything started going downhill. On the other hand maybe everyone should have just stuck to the script. Or had the deal signing first and then the question and answer period afterwards.

Things are beginning to make a bit more sense now. So this meeting in the Oval Office with the press and television crews present was a lead up to the signing of the 'minerals deal' which was to take place shortly after a question and answer period. That was supposed to be it as everything was agreed on beforehand. It was understood that any security commitments to Ukraine would be discussed later as they also involved Nato, and Europe (in particular U.K. and France). And In Lindsay Graham's own words it turned out to be a disaster. Maybe the meeting should have been cut a lot shorter. I can understand emotions running a little high on everyone's part, but there was nothing nefarious about it, what happened, happened. If I was Zelenski I'd apologize and arrange another meeting simply because Ukraine in my opinion has the most to lose. To be clear though, I'm not blaming either Zelenski or Trump for the disengagement.

Yeah, pretty stupid thing to say all right. But for Biden.... perfectly normal.

Oh, ok.

Yeah, I'm sure they really appreciated the blankets.

Silly answer. Trump's attempting a diplomatic solution to the war. Yours is what? Last man standing? WW3? Making Russia pay for Hillary's defeat in 2016? C'mon, tell me how you really feel.

'Aiding a country' can mean a number of different things. Sort of like when Obama gave the Ukraine blankets when they were invaded by Russia in 2014. 'Opting into a proxy war' requires no further explanation. That's what 'spin' is.

Well of course. At least that's the way I've seen it all along. But sometimes depending on the situation, diplomacy demands a different set of rules. We can either keep arming Ukraine with the hope of Russia running out of bullets and missiles, or try and find a diplomatic way.

You can spin it that way I guess. In reality these 'democratic countries' opted into a proxy war with Russia and no endgame in sight. At the very least, Trump's plan offers some type of endgame although the details are still rather sketchy. Both sides are likely going to have to give things up, and a means to finance the rebuild of Ukraine. I cant speak for Ukrainians but at this point I fail to see any better alternatives.

I agree. This was a meeting that should have best been held behind closed doors and not televised because it puts Zelenski in an extremely awkward situation. Some may argue that sometimes the truth hurts but why publicly rip the guy to shreds? I'm not saying that Trump or J.D. are wrong in their assertions only I don't like the way they did it.

Well at least he got Panama to boot the Chinese out. Maybe he can come to some agreement with Denmark to establish U.S. military bases in Greenland as they did during WW2. As for us, let's not do anything stupid like adding fuel to the fire and starting a trade war.

I hear ya! That's the way it maybe should have been done to begin with. But if you look at any map of the U.S. and Canada that shows all the oil/gas pipelines and electrical transmission networks you would see right away how tied to the hip we really are with the U.S. First impressions would be it looks like a giant spiderweb. I don't know if there's any way of getting around that. I'd be happy with not being forced to sell western crude to U.S. refiners at a discount and having eastern Canada buy it back at a premium. Refine it in Canada, keep it in Canada, and sell any surplus at standard prices. And if there's no business case for it then let the government get involved.

There may not be a 'business case' for investing in Canadian oil (or in exporting liquid natural gas for that matter). But then again you never know. As history tells us, things don't often turn out the way we expect they should. Ask the Europeans betting all their marbles on importing Russian gas. But what about from a 'risk management' point of view? There's no real business case for supply management either is there? But it's sort of reassuring knowing that a major part of our food supply is being controlled domestically. Covid opened our eyes to how easily international supply chains could be broken down and critical shortages of necessities result. World War III might break out. The U.S. has a huge strategic petroleum reserve for example. Could we? Should we? What about utilizing a Canada East pipeline in terms of risk management? Exactly how much do certain parts of Canada depend on imported oil? The gas pipeline (which was supposed to be converted to transporting diluted bitumen) which runs from western Canada to the Ontario/Quebec border is still there isn't it? Are we doing enough to protect ourselves against supply shortages that may be beyond our control? We haven't weeded ourselves off fossil fuels yet, and we still have a long way to go.

You nailed it bud. Just follow the money!

Yes of course. The federal government can't order the the Province of Ontario to build more nuclear power plants or wind/solar farms. But we have to get our act together on this. It's taken over 100 years to build the infrastructure we have today for power generation when money and resources were fairly cheap. Now we're going to more than double it over the next 25 with no concrete plans in sight other than the feds asking for input from industry and the provinces? This is the problem with democracy, politicians can't see past the next 4 years or the next election. And power lines along with oil/gas pipelines which cross provincial or international borders are regulated, licensed, and supervised by federal agencies. I would say the feds are as deep in this as the provinces are.

According to a recent study done by the Fraser Institute.... Canada produced 636 TWh of power generation in 2024. 1 TWh is a unit of energy that represents 1,000,000,000,000 watts of power used for 1 hour. The 'Canada Energy Regulator' estimates we will require an additional 191 TWh over the next 25 years. The 'Canadian Climate Institute' estimates an additional 1526 TWh, and 'Canada's Department of Finance' an additional 700 TWh. A rough average of the 3 estimates calls for an additional 684 TWh of power generation capacity by 2050 to meet our needs (which is more than double 2024 levels). To put things into perspective, we would require the power generated by another 52 Niagara Falls, or another 16 Bruce Power Nuclear facilities with its 4 reactors. The 3 estimates given above vary so wildly due to the difficulty in estimating economic growth and population. Not to mention such wild cards as electrified transportation and home heating. While the physical construction of new energy projects is fairly straight forward, it doesn't include the planning stages or the time to build new energy transport infrastructure. This is what's staring us in the face and 2050 is fast approaching. This... should be our #1 priority because our economy depends on power and such mega projects and infrastructure are not built overnight. Talk is cheap. Action requires some foresight. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/rapid-decarbonization-of-electricity-and-future-supply-constraints.pdf

Maybe he should tax imports from deadbeat countries that don't meet their Nato comitments. Errrr, wait a second...

Russia invaded Georgia at the beginning of Obama's first term in office and invaded and annexed Crimea during the latter part of Obama's second term. Obama did basically nothing. Then of course Russia invaded Ukraine while Biden was in office. So why didn't Putin invade Ukraine while Trump was in office? According to your theory it would have been the logical thing to do. No? Perhaps you can offer some kind of explanation?