The Sum of All Fears: Trump will announce a U.S.arms embargo on Ukraine,

[speak easy]

and further embargo any NATO member that continues to supply U.S. Arms to Ukraine.

One possible scenario : Trump will negotiate a deal will give Putin all that Russia wants then will tell Zelensky that if he does not agree, he will get no more U.S. arms. If Ukraine rejects the offer, the arms embargo will go into effect.

This is the view of former UK minister Rory Steward, on The Rest is Politics podcast @19:10; A worst case scenario is likely.

https://www.youtube.com/live/P07-8ZLiChI?si=8WcR0VX6UFxSDX3k

[lapfog_1]

1. if that were to happen... Europe will dissolve NATO

start a new pact, kick US forces out of Europe, but keep the bases and US weapons stationed there...

and tell Trump to pound sand.

Might even start the civil war here that the right has so long desired.

[cachukis]

2. Be wary. The US is the armorer of the world.

The NATO countries have been supplied by US for years. We are saying to every nation what Trump said to Zelenskyy. You don't have the cards.
Trump is an evil, vengeful bastard supported by millions of Americans who support his "policies."
Trump wants to be the big dog autocrat. Remember, how pissed off he was after Obama's ribbing?
This is not going well for humanity.
Looks like our hurricane warning system will be left to wind vanes and chimes.

[newdeal2]

3. US will lose billions of dollars in contracts too

Someone else will be the ultimate winner from Trump’s foolishness.

[cachukis]

10. Ultimately, but when you need bombs today?

It will take time for countries to adjust to today's upheaval.
Trump is pissed at being beholden to Putin. Putin laundered lots of money through trump and was bailed out of his ineptitude. Trump knows the truth that he has kept on the sidelines.
Putin's army is in disarray and his economy is causing pains to Russians. Trump wants to "rescue" Putin and prove he is baddest ass.
Listen to his degradation of Zelenskyy yesterday. He needed JD as a lead in because he is chicken, but his toadies are everywhere. Listen to Rubio and Graham.
This is our government on full display to the trest of the world.
Nobody wanted this coming and the gish galloping is hard to counter. The army of C students resentful of the complicators with brains who think things through are in charge.

[Cha]

16. Isn't that what poot face wants..

To destroy America? Burn it All Down?

But there might be some Billionaires Hurt in the process.

[cachukis]

44. Trump has to show his autocratic chops.

He admires Orban and is using his methods to destroy democracy.
Big issue with trump is his methodology as a reality TV guru. No understanding of cause and effect because he lives in a world of his own creation. He wields so much power and by gumming up works feels more powerful.
Cannot anticipate the next avalanche.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. China.

[ancianita]

26. Contractors will not uphold what the CiC says. They'll continue to sell arms to NATO and/or EU countries.

[stillcool]

31. the military is probably the only thing of value

especially with the way things are going. I guess that's the Putin-prize. Manufacturers can sell their tanks and bombs anywhere.

[Initech]

4. I wish whatever state wanted to secede would do it already.

Trump and his shitty ass kissing propaganda channels can go run that new country into the ground. Then leave those of us who want to live in the United States alone.

[MayReasonRule]

6. It's Not Like That Y'all...

So called RED states are states that where the populace is suppressed, the vote is suppressed, and fascists rule through intimidation, incarceration and extermination.

Abandoning your fellow Americans is not the way.

I say that as someone living in a state that is ruled by Y'all Qaeda's Nat-C Fascist Criminals.

[lapfog_1]

8. sorry, but we must reduce the resources that the "USA" ( Trump ) can command

The Blue states that join Canada or create the PSA ( Pacific States of America ) or whatever have very large economies, not to mention manufacturing resources that will be needed by the democracies of the world in the coming global war.

We are open to immigration by freedom loving people from Red States.

[Initech]

13. Then what can be done?

Reasoning hasn't worked. Finding common ground hasn't worked. What will?

[MayReasonRule]

15. Forming Bonds Across State Lines To Accomplish Our National And Local Goals

The DNC is the party fighting for ALL of our mutual freedoms.

Truly together we stand, divided we fall.

May reason rule.

FFS

[Initech]

18. The bad thing is no matter what we do, the propaganda will still be shitty.

And I don't know what we can do about that, because that would be curtailing speech. Though surprisingly what Fuckhead did to the Kennedy Center and the media going full ass kissing mode isn't a deal breaker for some.

[yardwork]

7. I was musing about that possibility for the first time today.

I used to think it would never happen. Now I wonder...

California alone has a GDP larger than many nations. Combine CA, OR, and WA with the northeastern states and the handful of other blue states, you get a liberal, educated, fairly affluent population with a lot of research universities and tech industries. You get an agricultural powerhouse, and positive trade agreements with your border neighbors Canada and Mexico.

On the other side, you'd have some big, powerful states, yes, but you'd also get a lot of desperately poor states with lousy infrastructures and little tax base, especially when Trump gets through gutting the military and research institutions. Faced with that burden, a bunch of purple states might join our new nation. Hell, Virginia and DC might join (we'll make DC a state) and we'll get to keep the White House, the Mall, and the Capitol. They can move their center of government to Mar-a-Lago.

We could write a better Constitution and take care of our people. The fact that the country would be non-contiguous is less of an issue now. Direct flights and virtual communication make it possible.

I wonder if this idea will get more traction now.

[brush]

39. They don't have to dissolve NATO as trump has effectively pulled us out and side with Russia.

[DENVERPOPS]

5. That has been a forgone conclusion all along.

That is why called Trump and Vance out so flagrantly. He knew Trump was just toying with him and expecting if he was nice to Trump that he might give him a little financial help and a token amount of weapons.....
Of course, if Trump had given Ukraine/Zellinski anything, Putin would do a whole lot more than just slap Trump's wrist or spanked him.

The worst part is that Musk is for sure going to cut off his satellite internet and military communications for all of Ukraine........

Bravo for Zellenski

Trump may have pleased his Trumphumpers, but this was a giant fuckup, and turned the rest of the entire free world against him permanently........

[lapfog_1]

11. two things that might help Ukraine

First... AI drones. Quit depending on communication with operators. Program the target, put a $100 to $500 usd AI computer on the drone and tell it what to look for and strike.

Second, a huge deployment of wifi mesh independent ground stations ( Try for no wires between them, battery operated, etc ). mostly used to provide AI drones with GPS. Also there are other GPS like systems. These will get your drone to the front lines, as for deep strikes behind the lines, depend on your AI.

[DENVERPOPS]

17. Good ideas

but the biggest problem is probably The U.S. Defense satellites were more than likely watching areas 24/7 and communicating the GPS coordinates to Ukraine to program their drones......At least under Biden. You can be sure the minute Trump got "installed" all that changed. Plus Elon and Trump are probably now using all their satellites to tell Putin what is going on, and help him......

[Ritabert]

9. Europe should kick the US out of NATO

...and supply arms themselves.

[lapfog_1]

14. They have and they will

but for massive amounts of tanks, armor, etc... that takes time to develop the infrastructure to make such things.

OTOH, Germans make some very good tanks, so does Sweden. And English Stormshadow guided missiles are, in my opinion, better than what the USA has been giving to Ukraine.

[DENVERPOPS]

19. With those,

you don't need no stinking tanks........

Even before this current shit, NATO had already figured it out, and knew Trump would provide them absolute ZERO financial or military help.....so the NATO countries stepped up, and last week told Ukraine that they could count on them to supply them with what they could.....

[Dynamic Unicorn]

22. NATO can not afford to kick the US out.

The US makes up for 2/3 of NATO expenditures, meaning the US currently spends twice as much on defense as all of the other NATO countries combined.

Unfortunately, until Europe really steps up to arm themselves again, they need the US to remain in NATO. Europe is on the right track, but building the defense infrastructure takes time.

[PortTack]

25. Dumpy can't unilaterally end our NATO membership, but I think I saw where rubio is planning on defunding it

[Dynamic Unicorn]

37. I think you are correct. I'm not sure what can be done without congress.

Hopefully they can’t defund too much. I think the NATO guidelines are for 2% of GDP to be allocated to defense. Some European countries have only recently gotten to that level, and a couple, like Poland, are closer to 4%. The US was around 3.8%, so even if we cut in half, we still meet the guidelines and would be contributing the same amount as all other NATO countries combined.

[PortTack]

66. Yes, President Biden saw the bill signed into law b4 the last midterms.

[Celerity]

35. The US provides 15.8% of Nato expenditures, not 2/3rds. The 2/3rds claim is RW disinfo.

Fact Check: US contributes 16% of NATO annual budget, not two-thirds



https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-contributes-16-nato-annual-budget-not-two-thirds-2024-05-31/

The U.S. contributes about one-sixth of NATO’s annual budget, not two-thirds, as claimed in social media posts. Washington finances 15.8% of the military alliance’s yearly expenditure of around $3.5 billion. It’s the joint largest share, alongside Germany’s, according to a NATO breakdown for 2024.

Widely viewed posts said the U.S. paid $860 billion to NATO, making up 66% of a budget of $1.3 trillion, which garnered some angry comments, including: “It’s got to stop USA can’t afford doing this.”



But the post conflates total U.S. annual defense spending with its contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) budget, while also exaggerating NATO’s budget.

Washington allotted $816.7 billion for defense spending in 2023, according to the Pentagon. In the same year, NATO’s budget was 3.3 billion euros ($3.59 billion), according to its website. The U.S. contributed 15.8% of the NATO tab, which is around 521 million euros ($567 million).

snip

[Dynamic Unicorn]

40. You are correct, that is the NATO budget.

But the amount spent on actual defense by the countries in NATO is the number that is important here. The budget of NATO at $3.5 billion doesn’t buy anything, and is likely just their operating budget. How much has the US given to Ukraine for defense in the last 2 years? $250+ billion?

We are in a precarious spot, and the recent shit show at the WH isn’t helping. Europe needs the US, and we need Europe.

[Emrys]

47. You've just been corrected once on spreading misinformation. Prepare to be corrected again.

The $250+ billion you've cited is plain propaganda, and doesn't belong on this forum.

How much has the US given to Ukraine?
...
Has the United States spent $300-$350bn on Ukraine aid?

President Trump has made this claim on a number of occasions - including when he hosted France's President Macron in the White House this week.

Short answer: Figures suggest the actual spend is much lower.

BBC Verify can find no evidence to back up the claim. There are different calculations on US spending in or related to Ukraine - and they produce a much lower figure.



The Kiel Institute is a German-based think tank tracking support going into Ukraine. It calculated that the United States spent $119.7bn (£94.3bn) on aid between January 2022 and December 2024.

Others have reached a higher figure - but with a broader definition of what counts as spending on Ukraine.

The US Department of Defense has provided a figure looking at all spending on Operation Atlantic Resolve - a response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

It says $182.8bn has been "appropriated" - a figure that covers US military training in Europe and replenishment of US defence stocks.

Either way, both figures are considerably lower than claimed by the president.

We asked the White House about the basis for the $350bn claim. So far, it hasn't provided an explanation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o

Even of that US spending figure, a large proportion of it never left the US, either because it was calculated on the replacement cost of antiquated materiel that was sent to Ukraine, because it was spent in US factories to produce armaments, or it's plain never been delivered despite being allocated, and if Trump has his way, quite possibly will never make it to the war zone.

The very recent article from BBC Verify quoted above continues, giving a more detailed analysis of spending on Ukraine. Here's a comparison of the US's spending with that of European countries and countries elsewhere in the world.

[Dynamic Unicorn]

49. You have missed the entire point of what I said.

I said 250? Because I didn’t know the exact figure, but I never quoted the $350 that trump said. I’ll use your cited numbers to try and make my point again.

At $182 billion provided to Ukraine, that is still over 50x the quoted entire yearly budget of NATO that i was responding to. My point was simply that NATO needs the US, and Europe needs to ramp up defense spending so that they can be autonomous before things go completely sideways with the US.

[Emrys]

53. The article I cited, if you bother to read it, also covers lesser claims.

I led with those paras because it's hard to include representative content while trying not to infringe the forum's copyright rules.

As the article says, $182 billion is an inflated claim. Another poster has replied to you reiterating my arguments for why that is.

Europe is well aware of its need to increase defence spending (I live in Scotland). It's going to lead ot some painful choices along the way, but there really isn't an alternative unless Putin and his lackeys, wherever they are, go up in puffs of smoke.

The question is whether the US's priorities any longer agree with those of the other NATO countries. The other countries in NATO need all their energies and resources to contend with the challenges ahead, and trying to herd an unwilling and increasingly hostile, if not plain treacherous and counterproductive, US that thinks it alone runs the show is a drain on that.

The other NATO countries and their allies can also likely make better use of their budgets if they're not tied to paying inflated prices to US manufacturers under the guise of "standardization". The F-35 has not been a success story for many client countries so far, for instance, and arguably better craft like the Eurofighter Typhoon are available.

One problem is that you're unclear about what funding you're talking about and conflating countries' expenditure on defence and their contributions to NATO. NATO itself may provide some clarity on funding: https://www.nato.int/cps/uk/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en

[Dynamic Unicorn]

60. With this further clarification, I think you and I agree on these issues.

We both agree that Europe needs to increase defense spending so it can be autonomous without the US. Many EU nations have already started to do so and I believe will continue to increase defense spending in the short term. I see this as a positive thing.

We also agree on the crazy pricing of US supplied arms. The defense industry mirrors the healthcare industry in the US. A fighter plane cost over $100 million dollars to produce, and that doesn’t count any of the operating expenses! The costs are artificially inflated.

I do understand the difference between total defense expenditure and direct contribution to the NATO budget. My point has been that NATO isn’t fighting and winning wars on their “budget.” That budget is for direct NATO expenses, and the yearly budget probably wouldn't cover a month of Ukraine war spending.

Having said all that, I would like to thank you for your well written counterpoints. Your post reads as a discussion instead of an argument, and I appreciate the objectivity. Thank you.

[Emrys]

62. I think we do in general, and yes, discussion's always good, and encourages me, at least, to stretch myself

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2025, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)

and try to clarify my thinking.

I think a few of us get touchy about some of the figures bandied about because there's so much misinformation, and the more it gets repeated in reputable outlets, the more credibility it gains.

Europe isn't by any means immune from overpricing armaments. I'd comfort myself by thinking at least the money'd be staying in European economies, but the tentacles of US multinationals spread far and wide, so that's not 100% true.

What I hope may happen is that as our populations come to terms with some of the economic pressures of the coming inevitable militarization and the effect of it hits home (e.g. the UK economy's struggling, and Starmer raided the overeas aid budget to bump up defence expenditure - too much to ask that he could have chased the unpaid billions in tax by some of the country's richest, obviously), there may be more scrutiny of who's making a packet out of the racket of war, and that might drive prices down. Some of the more effective armamants may not be as prohibitively expensive - like drones, for instance, much as the thought of mechanizing warfare is somewhat chilling.

Profiteering should be a dirty word anyway, but even more so when the chips are down. At the moment, our Trident "deterrent" is looking pretty useless, partly because we're doubting its functionality as the submarines malfunction with age, and anyway it doesn't seem to be deterring Putin's mouthpieces from fantasizing about nuking us. It's long been a bone of contention in our armed forces that the massive cost of our nuclear force has taken away investment in our conventional forces. Making the argument for doing away with Trident at the moment is no doubt a non-starter for obvious reasons, but given its dependence on US technology, it's an uneasy thought that it's now in the gift of Trump. We've also spent a lot of money on projects that are ill fitted for modern military challenges because deployment always lags far behind need - like our massive and ailing new aircraft carriers that front a severely depleted fleet that's having trouble with recruitment.

One sick benefit of the Ukraine conflict is that it's forced some of Europe's leaders to look outside the box when seeking arms to supply to Ukraine - e.g., neither the US nor any other single ally could provide enough shells of certain archaic calibres to the Ukrainians at one point, so the Czechs did some intelligent digging and managed to source large quantities of them from a variety of shady sources. It's also led to the opening up of production lines that had been mothballed during the myth of the peace dividend.

[Dynamic Unicorn]

63. Excellent post and again, we agree.

It is clear that the defense expenditures could be better managed and that our tax dollars are not going as far as they should. I would love to see more scrutiny and accountability for how this money is spent.

Also, your comment about drones is spot on. Terrifying to think about how the landscape of future conflict is changing. Future battlefields may be completely remote and given the rise of AI, may even be autonomous.

[Emrys]

64. They have literally saved the war for Ukraine

For that and the lives they've saved, I'm very appreciative. But like all armaments, they're two-edged, and yes, AI is already being deployed in their final targeting.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Real number estimates range between 114 billion

and somewhat less than 100 billion, and includes money given to US arms manufacturers, and grossly inflated estimates of the monetary worth of weapons that were heading for the scrap heap. The numbers also include non-military aid.

The massive numbers people cite are RW propaganda.

[Dynamic Unicorn]

54. I have little doubt that the reported numbers are inflated

And that the money is not getting to the people in need, but that money has been allocated to Ukraine. Why is Ukraine only receiving 60% of what has been allocated to them? Link below from .gov webpage shows the same $182 billion as the Reuters link that corrected me above.

https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/

My original point remains the same. NATO can’t currently support an ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine without US support.

[Emrys]

55. It's not made it to Ukraine because it or the materiel it represents has never left the US

You may remember a right-wing meme that was doing the rounds a few weeks ago that alleged Zelensky said he couldn't account for $100 billion or so in aid, shock horror. What he actually said was that amount of aid allocated had never been supplied.

There have been bottlenecks like that over the whole course of the conflict, some because of obstruction and stalling by the Republicans under Biden, and some more likely a result of a dysfunctional bureaucracy and some of the more innocent practicalities of marshalling resources, which obviously takes time, though I don't know if anyone's come up with a definitive explanation.

[Crunchy Frog]

59. There's a big difference between allocated and distributed.

I've got some material saved to my hard drive, but unfortunately I'm on my phone right now.

Most of the figures that I've seen say around 66 billion over 3 years in military aid, and are pretty consistent.

If we had gone all in early on, instead of walking on eggshells due to Putin's saber rattling, I believe this war could have been over a long time ago.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. And BTW, looking at your profile, I see that you've been here a whole...

3 weeks?

People who are that new tend to keep their heads down a little, especially when it comes to subjects they don't have a lot of specialized knowledge on.

[sakabatou]

12. And Dump has just handed Ukraine over to his best pal, Pootie-Poot

[DENVERPOPS]

21. I read somewhere

that Ukraine has taken delivery of 4,000 quality drones just recently........If Putin is coming for them, Russia is going to seriously suffer trying to do it.......

If Zelenski/Ukraine are going down, Zellenski is sure as hell gonna make sure a whole big bunch of Russians go down too....

[lapfog_1]

27. they largely build their own drones

in thousands of homes and basements around the country. They have small teams of 3 to 5 people... and assemble and arm these drones. They are trying to use parts they can source easily from Western Europe... and even China ( shhhh ). I mean an electric motor is an electric motor, right?

They only need any outside drones for large payloads and deep missions. And even there they are starting to build their own.

The biggest problem is that they mostly depend on drone operators and starlink to fly the drones... and that can be ended ( likely will be ended ) very quickly.

[DENVERPOPS]

38. They certainly could come from elsewhere

as NATO has just stepped up since Trump's Ambush of Zelinski, and said they will help Ukraine to make up for support being withdrawn from Ukraine by the U.S.

[Emrys]

50. Ukraine does have a growing domestic drone manufacturing set-up, largely decentralized,

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2025, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

but becoming more industrialized. It probably isn't an exaggeration to say they lead the world in drone development and deployment.

In addition to that, other countries have been supplying large numbers. Both streams of supply are growing more and more sophisticated. A recent consignment has swarm capabilities that will aim to overwhelm Russian defences, and Ukraine's own production has introduced AI for final targeting.

Ukraine is not solely dependent on Starlink - there are other systems from a variety of countries it's explored and deployed for the last year or so because it's not daft enough to rely on one system, especially one run by Elon Musk.

[PortTack]

20. I'm sure President Zelensky and all of the EU expected this. I believe that's why Zelensky was so able to keep

His cool against those two fucking moronic bullies.

Anyone that has dealt with trump knows expect nothing and plan for the absolute worst.

[GoCubsGo]

23. I'm sure all of the arms manufacturers here are going to love that.

Can't wait to see them cut off the campaign donations of all of the GOPer Congresspeople who go along with this bullshit.

[bluestarone]

24. This i mentioned yesterday.

I fully expect TSF to something along that line!

[Diraven]

28. I think an even.worse scenario is possible

Not only will they embargo Ukraine, but Trump will threaten Ukraine that if they don't surrender the US will directly supply arms to Russia "to end the war quicker".

[stillcool]

29. Breaking - UK pledges 2.26bn to Ukraine as Zelensky says it will be used for weapons

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20088110

https://www.bbc.com/news

[ancianita]

30. It's bluster. Even if the felon directed an embargo on Ukraine

all the other countries that had previously joined the US under Biden would continue their own sanctions against Russia. Russia's sanctions against the EU haven't hurt the EU at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_and_organizations_sanctioned_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_expulsions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War


And from the looks of the Major Arms Sales Defense site, sales are not trending downward.

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/archive-date/202502

[PortTack]

34. Thx for the informed opinion and info...sure makes me feel better!

[C_U_L8R]

32. That will break the country

and Trump will be satisfied that he's done his job.
Unless he is stopped.

[creon]

33. Dissolve NATO.

Create a new NATO excluding the USA.
Cut off the USA from all intelligence.
Cease all miltary cooperation.

[ancianita]

45. Wut? Just kick the US off the NATO list and there are still 31 NATO nations left.

[creon]

65. That can be done as well.

Either way, Europe divorces the USA.

[Norrrm]

36. and then Donald gives those arms to Russia to help misunderstood victim Vlad.

[ancianita]

46. Seriously? Current weapons contractors will just play along, but no, they won't take rubles.

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales

[Norrrm]

52. Well, they might take rubles if laundered through the NRA.

[JanMichael]

41. I have said it before. The USSR played a long game.

And it worked but the USSR is no more.

Like an echo coup.

[Oneironaut]

43. When JD Vance was little he hid the Sears catalog under his bed.

[elleng]

51. TRAITOR!

a person who betrays a friend, country, principle

[B.See]

56. Well, according to some legal experts,

Trump is already guilty of TREASON (by "giving aid and comfort to our enemy," Russia),

so 'Traitor' for him should be an EASY reach.

[elleng]

57. If that's so, mustn't it be followed up?

[B.See]

58. A whole LOT of

shit re. Donald Trump SHOULD'VE been followed up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. TSF is going to end up making China again.