Article What's next for Ukraine, after clash & London meet with Starmer? (crystal ball style)

[C C]

After Trump and Zelenskyy's heated clash in the Oval Office, what now for Ukraine?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-02/a.../104999758

EXCERPTS: Could Starmer be a bridge between Washington and Kyiv? He is certainly trying. The UK prime minister's own meeting in the Oval Office a mere 24 hours before Zelenskyy's was widely viewed as a success, with Starmer and Trump speaking warmly in front of the cameras and behind closed doors.

Starmer even delivered an invitation to Trump from King Charles for an unprecedented second state visit to the UK. And it helped that earlier in the week he had set out plans for the UK to increase defence spending — something Trump had been pushing European countries to do.

[...] The meeting to watch now is the scheduled security summit of European leaders that will get underway in London on Sunday afternoon local time. It was already shaping up to be crucial, but now takes on even more significance.

[...] The group is expected to discuss what happened in Washington, where the US-Ukraine-Europe relationship sits in its wake, strengthening Ukraine’s position now, and the need for a strong, lasting peace deal.

There are two scenarios to discuss — do they try to get the US back to the negotiating table? Or look to move on without it? Would the latter even be feasible? Or affordable?

The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has said she believes Europe must step up. In a social media post [...] the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, wrote: "Ukraine is Europe! We stand by Ukraine. We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor. Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge..."

As the security summit gets underway, European leaders will warmly welcome Zelenskyy and reiterate their support for his war-torn country, but the president will want action, not just words.

As Ukraine's ambassador to Australia, Vasyl Myroshnychenko, told the ABC in December and has repeatedly said, "there is just enough assistance for us not to fail, but we're not getting enough of that assistance to be able to prevail".

If the US decides to pull the pin on continued military aid for Ukraine, European assistance will need to fill the void.

[...] And what of Russia's reaction to the extraordinary breakdown in the US Ukraine relationship? The Kremlin would have seen what went down in the Oval Office between Trump, Vance and Zelenskyy as a gift. Russian television stations played the heated exchange in full, with one describing it as a "diplomatic train wreck".

[...] "With his outrageously rude behaviour during his stay in Washington, Zelenskyy confirmed that he is the most dangerous threat to the world community as an irresponsible instigator of a major war," Zakharova said. "The sooner Kyiv and certain European capitals realise this, the closer a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis will be."

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the deputy head of the Russian security council, said Russia was ready for flexibility in talks on Ukraine, but only in accordance with realities on the ground, state news agency RIA Novosti reported. [...] Medvedev said Russia was ready to discuss a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, but only with those "who are ready to communicate".

The US-Ukraine relationship may have broken down, but President Zelenskyy appears to have hope that it can be repaired. In his flurry of social media posts upon landing in London, he said Ukraine was "ready to sign the minerals agreement" but said that was a "first step towards security guarantees". (MORE - missing details)

---

Zelensky says £2.26 billion UK loan will support weapons production in Ukraine
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-new...89208.html

RELEASE: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday said the £2.26 billion ($2.84 billion) loan from the UK would be used to manufacture weapons in Ukraine. The loan agreement was signed by UK chancellor Rachel Reeves and Ukraine's finance minister Sergii Marchenko, with the first tranche expected next week.

Britain said the loan to Kyiv would be funded by profits from frozen Russian assets as part of a $50 billion support package pledged by the G-7 nations. Zelensky thanked the UK government for its ongoing support since the war's start.

“The funds will be directed toward weapons production in Ukraine,” Zelensky said on X, adding, “I thank the people and government of the United Kingdom for their tremendous support from the very beginning of this war.”

Zelensky met British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London on Saturday, following a verbal clash with US President Donald Trump over Ukraine’s handling of US support.

The meeting, which was rescheduled after Zelensky’s visit to Washington, comes amid tensions between the Ukrainian president and US leaders, including criticism from Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Zelensky had been set to sign a deal on mineral resources but left Washington without finalising the agreement.

The Ukrainian President will meet with King Charles III on Sunday before attending a meeting at Lancaster House, a 200-year-old mansion near Buckingham Palace.

Starmer spoke to both US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday evening following his meeting with Zelensky, according to the prime minister's office.

Earlier, when Zelensky arrived outside 10 Downing Street, a firm hug marked his meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He was cheered by the crowd outside.

“And as you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom,” Starmer told Zelensky. “We stand with you, with Ukraine, for as long as it may take,” he added.

[stryder]

One potential solution (Which would be ideal but it would require all moving parts to align):

• This requires the agreement by the people of Ukraine, that the following can be acted on. (So this is not forced on them)
  
• Get the UN into a session to create a vote for setting up a UN Protectorate state of Ukraine (with Ukraine being the host country).
  (All countries should vote, the majority would define the outcome. Ideally this should be done before more countries fall to the various sways of disinformation and infowars.)
  
• All hostilities must cease (considering it's not just a direct attack on the sovereignty of the host state but the UN overall.)
  
• All previously taken territories must be receded back to the sovereign territory of Ukraine (including Crimea.)
  
• As a Protectorate state the UN should be allowed to conduct training for it's forces for Global Peacekeeping missions (This means year round forces on station).
  
• On ceasation of hostilities, arrangements can be made about the rebuilding of the destroyed regions (such as investments, mineral right appraisals and repartition).
  
• NATO troops do not have to occupy Ukraine at a peacekeeping capacity (however those countries can still supply troops via the UN for training)
  

Further to that there is other considerations (and not necessarily attached to above):

• Ideally those Russians that didn't want to fight and left their country, along with those imprisoned for disagreeing with the war in general should be granted amnesty. They should either be allowed to return to their homes and live unhindered, or should Ukraine allow find a new home there (but only if).
  
• Prisoners of war should be returned unless they have committed atrocities identified internationally.
  
• Russia's childrens Schoolbooks identifying NATO in a negative way should be reworked not to imply that. (Allowing the continued propaganda will cause generations of Russians to hate and cause future conflicts that could spill into NATO territories.)
  

[Syne]

"Ukraine is Europe! We stand by Ukraine. We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor. Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge..."

Sounds like more of the same endless war.

---

One potential solution (Which would be ideal but it would require all moving parts to align):

• All hostilities must cease (considering it's not just a direct attack on the sovereignty of the host state but the UN overall.)
  
• All previously taken territories must be receded back to the sovereign territory of Ukraine (including Crimea.)
  

By whose authority using what leverage?

• As a Protectorate state the UN should be allowed to conduct training for it's forces for Global Peacekeeping missions (This means year round forces on station).
  

"Peacekeepers," but no pitching in to fight the actual war. Pansy ass Europeans.

Further to that there is other considerations (and not necessarily attached to above):

• Russia's childrens Schoolbooks identifying NATO in a negative way should be reworked not to imply that.  (Allowing the continued propaganda will cause generations of Russians to hate and cause future conflicts that could spill into NATO territories.)
  

Again, what leverage do you think anyone, even the US, has to force Russia to change how they educate their children?

See, unlike your nanny-state government, world powers can't just be told what to do.
You're living in a delusional pipe dream. A sure-fire way to fail is failing to appreciate reality. All these ideas, but no idea how any of them could even remotely be accomplished.

[stryder]

One potential solution (Which would be ideal but it would require all moving parts to align):

• All hostilities must cease (considering it's not just a direct attack on the sovereignty of the host state but the UN overall.)
  
• All previously taken territories must be receded back to the sovereign territory of Ukraine (including Crimea.)
  

By whose authority using what leverage?

 
The authority of the UN, supported by the countries of the UN.  There shouldn't need to be any other leverage.

• As a Protectorate state the UN should be allowed to conduct training for it's forces for Global Peacekeeping missions (This means year round forces on station).
  

"Peacekeepers," but no pitching in to fight the actual war. Pansy ass Europeans.

This is where you are being a contradiction. You have expressed how the continued fight isn't in the best interest of anyone. When it's suggested there is a way where no more fighting needs to happen, you in turn call Europeans pansy for not needing to fight!?! Do you or do you not want to see the end to hostilities, or are you are warhawk for WWIII?

Further to that there is other considerations (and not necessarily attached to above):

• Russia's childrens Schoolbooks identifying NATO in a negative way should be reworked not to imply that.  (Allowing the continued propaganda will cause generations of Russians to hate and cause future conflicts that could spill into NATO territories.)
  

Again, what leverage do you think anyone, even the US, has to force Russia to change how they educate their children?

See, unlike your nanny-state government, world powers can't just be told what to do.
You're living in a delusional pipe dream. A sure-fire way to fail is failing to appreciate reality. All these ideas, but no idea how any of them could even remotely be accomplished.

As noted they were "other considerations", whether there is leverage or not isn't the point. The actual point is it's possible to conjecture the direction that the current methodologies will eventually needlessly lead to if they are allowed. If it continues the way it is, then it should be known so money and training can be placed into effect to deal with the direction so it's not so much of a sudden, unknown of variable or burden in the future.

[Zinjanthropos]

I’m basically apolitical but IMHO, US is going broke, if not already there. Even Canada owns US debt. Throw in China, UK, and even Luxembourg, all in the top five holders although Luxembourg is a foreign financial centre. Simply can’t afford to do much except some in house cleansing and tell foreign govts to stop asking for more, but not directly.

[confused2]

Back in 1939 we had a choice between fighting and learning to speak German.
We fought.
Is this the same existential threat..
Support Ukraine or learn to speak Russian?

[Syne]

By whose authority using what leverage?

 
The authority of the UN, supported by the countries of the UN.  There shouldn't need to be any other leverage.

So the threat of world war, with China, North Korea, Iran, etc. siding with Russia?
The UN doesn't have the military might without the US involved, and that definitely risks world war.

"Peacekeepers," but no pitching in to fight the actual war. Pansy ass Europeans.

This is where you are being a contradiction.  You have expressed how the continued fight isn't in the best interest of anyone.  When it's suggested there is a way where no more fighting needs to happen, you in turn call Europeans pansy for not needing to fight!?!  Do you or do you not want to see the end to hostilities, or are you are warhawk for WWIII? 

Not at all. I'm simply exhausting the options.

1. Continue to fund Ukraine for defense only, and continue this endless war of attrition
   
2. Europe send troops to help a Ukrainian offensive, so maybe Putin realizes Europe isn't just pussyfooting around
   
3. Use diplomacy to negotiate a peace deal, with requires the bulk of the compromises being made by the weakest party
   

You misguidedly think you can get peace either without a deal with Russia, without Europeans fighting a hot war, or without risking all out world war.
You're the war hawk (wanting to continue the war of attrition) and wanting WWIII (with direct US-Russia conflict).
All it takes to avoid both is negotiating a peace deal with Russia. You seem to want anything, including more war, as long as it means Russia doesn't get anything it wants. 

Again, what leverage do you think anyone, even the US, has to force Russia to change how they educate their children?

See, unlike your nanny-state government, world powers can't just be told what to do.
You're living in a delusional pipe dream. A sure-fire way to fail is failing to appreciate reality. All these ideas, but no idea how any of them could even remotely be accomplished.

As noted they were "other considerations", whether there is leverage or not isn't the point.  The actual point is it's possible to conjecture the direction that the current methodologies will eventually needlessly lead to if they are allowed.  If it continues the way it is, then it should be known so money and training can be placed into effect to deal with the direction so it's not so much of a sudden, unknown of variable or burden in the future.

So you have no solution. Just useless pipe dreams. Got it.

[stryder]

By whose authority using what leverage?

 
The authority of the UN, supported by the countries of the UN.  There shouldn't need to be any other leverage.

So the threat of world war, with China, North Korea, Iran, etc. siding with Russia?
The UN doesn't have the military might without the US involved, and that definitely risks world war.

"Peacekeepers," but no pitching in to fight the actual war. Pansy ass Europeans.

This is where you are being a contradiction.  You have expressed how the continued fight isn't in the best interest of anyone.  When it's suggested there is a way where no more fighting needs to happen, you in turn call Europeans pansy for not needing to fight!?!  Do you or do you not want to see the end to hostilities, or are you are warhawk for WWIII? 

Not at all. I'm simply exhausting the options.

1. Continue to fund Ukraine for defense only, and continue this endless war of attrition
   
2. Europe send troops to help a Ukrainian offensive, so maybe Putin realizes Europe isn't just pussyfooting around
   
3. Use diplomacy to negotiate a peace deal, with requires the bulk of the compromises being made by the weakest party
   

You misguidedly think you can get peace either without a deal with Russia, without Europeans fighting a hot war, or without risking all out world war.
You're the war hawk (wanting to continue the war of attrition) and wanting WWIII (with direct US-Russia conflict).
All it takes to avoid both is negotiating a peace deal with Russia. You seem to want anything, including more war, as long as it means Russia doesn't get anything it wants. 

Again, what leverage do you think anyone, even the US, has to force Russia to change how they educate their children?

See, unlike your nanny-state government, world powers can't just be told what to do.
You're living in a delusional pipe dream. A sure-fire way to fail is failing to appreciate reality. All these ideas, but no idea how any of them could even remotely be accomplished.

As noted they were "other considerations", whether there is leverage or not isn't the point.  The actual point is it's possible to conjecture the direction that the current methodologies will eventually needlessly lead to if they are allowed.  If it continues the way it is, then it should be known so money and training can be placed into effect to deal with the direction so it's not so much of a sudden, unknown of variable or burden in the future.

So you have no solution. Just useless pipe dreams. Got it.

I put more of a solution forwards than you or Trump has.
At least I'm not pushing a hotel and golfcourse down someones neck or shouting down someone who's country has been suffering from the war.

The only fix for the situation is to fix it a way that hasn't been done before, as every other way will have already been considered and roadblocks will have been thrown up.

[Syne]

All you've offered is wholly unworkable pipe dreams.