/kc/ - Krautchan

gov2025-38 pdf
(182.47 KB, 0x0)

Here's the International Atomic Energy Agency's communication from three days ago, tho it says last update on the 16th (today).
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/statement-on-the-situation-in-iran-13-june-2025
They link a resolution from the 12th (pdf related) on Iran's safeguards obligations.
I'm quoting some parts of this 4 pages document:
Iran has failed to provide the co-operation required under its Safeguards Agreement, impeding Agency verification activities, sanitizing locations, and repeatedly failing to provide the Agency with technically credible explanations for the presence of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at several undeclared locations in Iran or information on the current location(s) of nuclear material and/or of contaminated equipment, instead stating, inconsistent with the Agency’s findings, that it has declared all nuclear material and activities required under its Safeguards Agreement,
Iran did not declare nuclear material and nuclear-related activities at three undeclared locations in Iran, specifically, Lavisan-Shian, Varamin, and Turquzabad, and that, because of the lack of technically credible answers by Iran, the Agency is not in a position to determine whether the nuclear material at these undeclared locations in Iran has been consumed, mixed with other declared material, or is still outside of Safeguards,
Iran retained unknown nuclear material and/or heavily contaminated equipment, and other assets, arising from the former undeclared structured nuclear programme, at Turquzabad in the period 2009 until 2018, after which items were removed from the location, the whereabouts of which remain unknown
Iran’s failure to provide the Agency with design and preliminary design information regarding new and planned nuclear facilities, as required
Iran’s failure on numerous occasions to co-operate to facilitate the implementation of Safeguards, while pursuing activities consistent with concealment efforts, including extensive sanitization and the provision of inaccurate explanations,
There are more in there.

Will China start large scale war games, landing practices near Taiwan?
Keeping it extwitter short.

Also feels like spiderweb was a rehearsal for the Israeli attack, at least for a couple of drone strikes.

Hell no

OSI-Iran-nuke-maybe png
(147.15 KB, 641x455)

Applying the stuff from the politics thread I'm gonna try to speculate what can we expect from the US to do in the Israel-Iran conflict. What policy tools the use has?
Could treat it as hostile intervention:
1. coup d'état
2. punctuated military operations (raids by exile proxy forces)
3. aid to internal armed opposition forces (local guerillas)
4. large-scale combat
5. sustained and asymmetrical attacks (bombing campaign)
6. combat operations alongside local insurgent forces
7. invasion
As for large-scale combat and invasion, they could do it from Iraq and Pakistan with some landing operations from the seas, but that'd need concentrating forces in these places, and surely we'd get soem news about these. There are no internal or exile groups that could be used/supported.
This leaves strategic bombing. Politicians give the armed forces a target list which they'll go over with bombers, rockets and drones, and they'll try to level everything. Outcome is questionable. It did not work with North Vietnam, and achievement of Kosovo's not really independence had several factors and can't really measure the impact of the bombing.
Shouldn't forget that the first three tools are covert and the rest overt. The US acts covertly when they want plausible deniability for the enemy has international recognition. The IAEA report and the Israeli claims about the nukes can give the US enough legitimacy to act overtly. Especially since this picrel - if it is how that twitter account says, that was a mistake by Iran. Huge mistake.
I wonder if we could consider Israel a proxy force, since their men are within Iran, executing various operations, drone strikes and whatnot, expanding the number of potential policy tools.

On the other hand we could approach from maintenance intervention angle.
In this case the US would intervene not against Iran, but on behalf of Israel. Problem with this: intervention is about taking over some function from the regime to keep the regime "alive". What could take over the US in this case? The military? And with Israel, it's always more like the tail wags the dog situation. Neeway.
As a summary maintenance intervention tools can be fit in these five categories.
1. emergency economic aid, mostly in the form of emergency loans and advice;
2. emergency covert political aid, mostly in the form of propaganda, material assistance to political parties, and encouragement of coups and insurrections;
3. emergency military aid;
4. U.S. ground troops;
5. proxy military forces (perhaps aided by U.S. air power).
Lots of actual maintenance intervention situations which don't fit, like jettisoning the president (in this case PM), or "Incompetent clients: basket cases". But let's list and see.
Emergency economic assistance.
I'm sure the US does that. Although Israel is rich, moar money can never hurt. Some monetary support surely on its way.
Emergency covert political assistance
Now losing the regime in some political way like via election isn't possible since whoever would came to power, Israel would still be a client to the US. On the other hand keeping Netanyahu in power would ensure that no moderate, dove-ish government could step back from this thrashing they are trying to give they are giving to Iran.
Jettisoning the president and Losing the client
No.
Emergency military aid and advisers
This is possible. Giving everything but ground combat troops. Do bombers count as advisors? 
Now when combat troops are involved see these  >>/54272/ ain't much fits. This would need Israel to be in ground combat.
The rest is when the US stops the intervention, and when they have to intervene against the leader to keep the regime. The situations just don't fit.

 >>/54335/
Strategic bombing campaigns are initiated by the US to pressure enemy regime to do something: withdraw from a place or stop a campaign. It is never done to overthrow the government. Milosevic was toppled a year after by the bulldozer revolution which can be considered as a color revolution and the Serbian army stance of not to defend him if anything happens.
Now what I'm hearing related to Iran, that only the US has the bunker buster munitions, and I'm getting the impression that this could be a one strike against certain targets to destroy nuclear capabilities Iran supposedly have. This reminds me more like the strike against Libya of 1986.
By the time Reagan was inaugurated in 1981 Libya was viewed as an enemy by Washington, infallible USian intel services claimed they wanted nukes. They started to support Chad rebel forces in areas Qadaffi's forces occupied. Then punctuated military operations were propped up from 1985. After these proved to be failures the US govt was itching for an excuse to finally act overtly end send their own military into action, but Libya wasn't a pariah state,
Then on April 5 of 1986 a club back then called a discotechque was bombed in Berlin, with a pack of Americans inside. Infallible USian intel services claimed it was Libya, and ten days after the attack the US initiated airstikes against two targets, Qaddaffi's tent and house essentially this was an assassination attempt, killing some civilians (among them kids). They put it down as great success, and that they sent a message.
Da book puts this action into the "Combat operations alongside local insurgent forces" category.

> Israel has to win but Iran only needs to survive
What is a win for Israel? They say their goal is to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities (weapons and/or the means to produce those not actually clear)
How does we know that Iran has nukes?
Israel said so.
How will we know Iran's nuke capabilities are destroyed?
Israel will says so.
Unless there is some serious proofs, or some kind of event in the future, Israel can just say anytime they won, they destroyed everything.

Beyond this the US can intervene, bomb some sites and then claim everything is destroyed, and declare it as a win.

2025-06-19-09-35-QEli... png
(188.28 KB, 634x647)

R08-HMS-Q-... mp4
(1.09 MB, 464x848 h264)

https://news.usni.org/2025/06/16/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-june-16-2025
News from three days ago, Washington sends the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group to the Middle East.
Then UK govt offered Washington to help out (I think this is yesterday's news).
Today HMS Queen Elizabeth is sailing through the Suez Canal. I'm not sure where were they previously, but surely they were on their way for a couple of days now.
At Arabia the USS Carl Vinson is cruising, so essentially three aircraft carriers will be grouped around there. Sounds like the firepower.

I wonder if there is a live tracker site for these.
I think there is a flight radar type of site for ships somewhere.

 >>/54340/
Wait. I don't think there is info where Queen Lizzy is heading. To the Med or to the Red.
Judging by the media above it's heading north...???
The shadows point to north..., no???

Found a bunch of ship trackers but they all use the same, this: https://www.kpler.com
And they don't show military vessels.

vessel-is-out-of-range png
(184.34 KB, 985x741)

https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/nato-navy-warships/United%20Kingdom
https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-(R08)/CURRENT-POSITION/4907892/232002833
> vessel is out of range
Have it sailed to another planet?

nimitz-n-vinson png
(84.75 KB, 1096x614)

Meanwhile according to this the Vinson was at Borneo 133 days ago. Now? Who knows.
Frankly I don't get this secrecy, there bound to be open source info on this giant monster of a ships. Beyond this does governments think that other governments doesn't have tech to check on their shit? Like 100% Russia and China knows where all the vessels of any navy of the Earth are, and I suspect Iran can get info on at least the aircraft carriers.
But ordinary people are the danger.
Can a UK citizen - who is essentially the employer of all governmental workers from the PM to the sailors on the Queen Elizabeth - can access this data? Can he know? Does he allowed to know? No he can't he is endangering the whole thing. Mr Smith will run to the Ayatollah blabbing about it.

When Trump says he wants unconditional surrender from Iran what does he mean? Surrender to whom? To Trump? Is currently Iran in the state of war with the US?

NATO summit next week, 24-25th
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/235800.htm
Page loads like dogshit.

Here's Putin's most recent press conference.
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=ak-iHhCaaJ4
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ak-iHhCaaJ4
He says the usual things. Kosovo, Istanbul 2022 and such.
However towards the end it becomes very interesting. He leans back and he looks all honest like he drops the facade. He says that all of these foreign journalists there and all their governments and all their men in Ukraine knows what's going on in Ukraine. He says the staffing of Ukrainian units is below 50% and that Kiev decided to mobilize  the youngest age brackets down to 18 years old. I did not hear about this, I wonder if any news is out.

President Trump... webm
(14.81 MB, 1280x720 vp9)

2025-06-22-Trump-bomb... png
(57.67 KB, 618x292)

trump-bullies-colombia png
(47.82 KB, 756x298)

0510 -... png
(40.96 KB, 636x237)

Well the US bombed three Iranian sites during the night. It could have been sometiems around 3am in Iran or something. Trump beat Reagan by one day (see Libya here:  >>/54337/) I'm sure it was a great success and they sent a message.

I have a new theory beyond the strong Israeli lobby in Washington, and that US always backs Israel why this is happened.
Trump was elected with the promise one of the promises he makes peace in Ukraine. They had to show he is strong in foreign politics, to get the impression he can put pressure on those who matter in the question of ending the war Putin.
First they started to send foreign criminals back to their home country. Noone wanted to take so they picked Colombia and they bullied them into submission. I'm sure everyone was impressed by the strength Trump showed. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgly1we7gx4o
Considering that Colombia is a US client some Putin might not have been too impressed.
They went on making peace in Ukraine, and they leaned on Zelensky hard your disrespecting muh authoritay!!!! and offered him a way forward with the rare earth deal. Kiev turned and they started to talk about negotiating with Russia.
Suddenly crisis in Kashmir. Some terrorist group kills some Indian civilians. Have to strike back but they are hiding in Pakistan! What will happen NUCLEAR WAR ON OUR HAND OH GOD SAVE US ALL!!! Trump visited them both. Considering Pakistan is a US client, they stuff them with weapons and money all the time as they did recently too  >>/54259/ (I think the deal was made in February https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/04/25/trump-us-pakistan-funding-foreign-aid/ the whole article is paywalled).
Anyway Indian planes took off, shot some rockets against ground targets, Pakistani planes took off shot some rockets against Indian planes. Both side claimed victory, Trump claimed it's all for his great mediation.

0511 -... png
(111.09 KB, 625x540)

0517 -... png
(68.8 KB, 620x295)

0622-Trump-bombing-Ir... png
(57.67 KB, 618x292)

0620 -... png
(177.54 KB, 638x751)

Now dressed in the nimbus of the peacemaker Trump had a chat with Putin, and the first meeting was done and the negotiations started. However this ain't going well. In fact it probably goes nowhere since what they offered to Moscow is just not enough and the Kremlin could very well think they can push the AFU into collapse, and make whatever peace they want.
Trump can pressure Zelensky since Ukraine's whole resistance depends on US help, but no pressuring Putin.
So now that Trump showed he is a great negotiator, deal- and peacemaker, he has to show the Lion also has claws and teeth. Even if there is no stick to hit Russia with, they can show US has sticks on her own.
Oh shit is the Israeli bombing campaign called Operation Rising Lion? I like the kohnincidence. Neeway.
So know the US throwing bombs. It's spectacular success everyone is very pleased teamwork never seen better wonderful job. God Bless.
Probably main message: we have weapons noone else has. US puffs himself up, showing they are the biggest boy still in the classroom.

Oh one thing I forgot. Trump (and Rubio) also made peace in Africa. Between Rwanda and Doctor Congo.
Well he surely won't get Nobel Peace Prize for the bombs now. But who know Obama got it for starting wars and shit.

So I think this whole crisis is a good excuse for the US to show force, and this is one more reason this strike had to happen.

Question is if they really could destroy the site? Fordow that is. I'm hearing it's 90 meters deep in rock, and the bunker busters only good for 60 in concrete (which is more punch-through-able than rock)
I read they destroyed the entrances. Trapping everyone under there they are good as dead. On the other hand with time the place can be excavated and save the stuff that was buried.
Everyone is waiting what Iran will do.
Now a general gives report live in the Pentagon.

> Trump authorized precision operation
So for now it was just one strike. I assume a strategic bombing campaign will follow if Iran "retaliates" whatever this means. Perhaps another missile salvo on Israel, perhaps against American targets.

What happens if Iran closes the strait of Hormus? Oil price goes up.
USA is happy
Russia is happy
Europe is fucked

Another awesome livestream from these three. About the US strike on Iran.
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=iR74mcLfnJ8
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iR74mcLfnJ8
I really liked how Rossi and Ker-Lindsay exchanged opinions until they got to a type of agreement in the first half hour.
Wanna quote Rossi:
> might doesn't make right, might make things happen

My observation is that liberals those who take the liberal view of international relations in the past they built at least they tried an international system to give states the possibility to settle their business with each other in an orderly, civilized way, building and international legal system, which states can refer to, keep themselves and each other to. Geneva conventions, Red Cross, UN, ICC, etc.
But now these actions of politicians more precisely: Putin, Trump, Netanyahu chucks the whole thing into the bin. There were always pushes back eg Kosovo but not so blatantly.
Ker-Lindsay says that Mearsheimer isn't taken seriously in international politics, but when those politicians who aren't just circeljerking but do actions that create change make things happen act along the principles Mearshimer describes, then he is more relevant then everyone else in international politics.

Defence Security Asia has nothing to do with our favoured DPA writes this on June 8th
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/half-a-mile-underground-irans-nuclear-bunkers-could-survive-first-strike-warns-iaea-chief/
A military confrontation would likely prompt Tehran to expel IAEA inspectors and halt remaining cooperation with international nuclear oversight bodies, effectively blinding the global community.
Such a move would echo North Korea’s past actions — a country that, after expelling IAEA inspectors, went on to successfully test nuclear weapons.
They literally pushing Iran to get nukes. Maybe they want this, and then they can say:
> lo Iran made nukes we warned you!!!

This is nice too:
> Rafael Grossi, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told The Financial Times that, “The most sensitive things are half a mile underground (about 800 meter) — I have been there many times,” adding, “To get there you take a spiral tunnel down, down, down.”

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-introductory-statement-to-the-board-of-governors-23-june-2025

20250624-aljazz-cea... png
(170.86 KB, 810x871)

20250624-special-rules png
(99.07 KB, 646x575)

20250624-ceas... png
(242.1 KB, 652x866)

Trump declared "ceasefire". Great success, war is over, see Putin this is how Trump makes peace, better sit to the negotiating table before you get hit...

Really weird tho. It seems stopping hostilities doesn't effect both sides equally, seems like some special rules is applied. Israel still can strike fir 12 hours but Iran has to sit and bear the attacks? Weird. And ofc Iran already violated this. Bad, Iran, bad! Quod licet Iovi...

Would be better to get some "official" definitions but quick rundown on the terminology:
https://www.dw.com/en/cease-fire-truce-armistice-whats-the-difference/a-67243219
Article explains:
- truce (suspension of hostilities)
- cessation of hostilities
- humanitarian pause
- cease-fire
- armistice
- days of tranquility
I assume it is not coincidence that the Americans publish about "ceasefire" since that "is generally meant to be binding", they can use it to deplore Iran when necessary.

20250624-one-sided-de... png
(49.72 KB, 649x331)

How is it a ceasefire when one side declares it?
Shouldn't be like all the parties step forward and say we declare ceasefire. In this case the belligerents are Israel, Iran, and US, they all have some representative who informs the public the world that they agreed on a ceasfire.
And if someone violates it, then it can be said that:
> you agreed on a ceasfire, but you did not ceased firing, whats up with that?
But this is nonsense:
> you violated my ceasfire I declared, how dare you
Sure I can find references that Iran agreed on it, but really have to start digging.

Some might say this is because of Trump's ego, he is the big dog ordering everyone to behave. But I think it's relevant to what I wrote above, Trump have to look like who can make peace after he failed on delivering on his one day promise between Ukraine and Russia.
Either way if I was in the Kremlin I would laff my ass off.

wait-a-sec-jew jpg
(90.11 KB, 600x578)

I don't get it: Bibi said they eliminated ballistic missile threat, how can Iran still shoot them with rockets? Did he lie? Did he lied about the nuclear threat too? I mean the elimination of it. And if it existed in the first place.

20250624-iranian-h... mp4
(1.44 MB, 480x544 h264)

20250624-i... mp4
(275.89 KB, 352x640 h264)

The Iranian missile strike today. Well, one of the rockets. Hypersonic I guess, hitting Beersheba in the Negev.
Beyond this "violation and they will pay" talk it seems all business as usual in this exchange, and the US bombing was just an intermezzo.
Both sides continue to strike back and forth.

Seems like the "ceasefire" holds.
All the belligerents at home they declared they won. Here noone never cites Iranian news, only Israeli and USian. What people here think what happened I wonder.

Trump's press conference from yesterday.
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=r67fOBkjLWw
https://youtube.com/watch?v=r67fOBkjLWw
From the wording of both Trump and Hegseth: they buried Fordow, there is no info whatever happened with the "contents" of the installation. They try to force the idea that with burying it they set the Iranian nuke program back by years.

Also very few journalist sound professional, most seem like nervous uni student doing their exam.

I think with adding the "buried" next to "obliterated" they are moving the goalpost carefully. I would not be surprised if the reporters from the CNN were actually made to ask the questions, part of the theatrics. They were giving Trump and Hegseth the opportunity to course correct in the communication so later they can still say they were saying the same thing - more reports will came out, more damage assessments, so they can align the communication with those.

How do we know if US... webm
(41.98 MB, 1280x720 vp9)

Which Path... pdf
(2.07 MB, 0x0)

How do we know if US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were successful? by Brookings institute
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=G3IlKgj3Rn4
https://youtube.com/watch?v=G3IlKgj3Rn4
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-do-we-know-if-us-strikes-on-irans-nuclear-facilities-were-successful/
tl;dr We don't. They talk some more.

The same institute published a book in 2009 titles Which Path To Persia? which details possibilities, scenarios how to handle Iran and her nuclear program pdf related but available on libgen - libgen.st and libgen.bz worked for me now. Have not yet read, but plan of this bombing was in the making for quite a while, in fact probably was complete, waiting just for a President that says: I wanna do this.
Even the Israeli option is discussed: Chapter 5: Leave it to Bibi, which option is basically about putting Israel in the way of blowback, so the US is not blamed for the attack and this issue don't gets in the way of other US plans in the Middle East.
I have to say Trump just adding the final blow, and step forward as the peacemaker perfectly fits into the picture.

Hmm. Heard in the radio that now Trump fearmongers that Iran doesn't want to give up the nuke program, doesn't want to cooperate and let IAEA in and whatever.
But I thought they totally destroyed everything. They said Iran ain't a threat no more.
Obliterated...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/07/05/iran-struck-five-israeli-military-bases-12-day-war/

Trump Asked： Are... webm
(13.36 MB, 1280x720 vp9)

Trump:
We're gonna send some more weapons, we have to, they have to be able to defend themselves, they are getting hit very hard now [...] defensive weapons primarily
> defensive weapons
Is it 2022 again? Have I dreamt the last three years? At the beginning of the war they talked about "defensive" weapons.

This was before the lunch with Bibi and the Israeli delegation. I dl'd the full vid, I can't fucking find this part, I'm gonna have to listen the whole thang...

 >>/54396/
Found it at about 21 mins in.
That dude on the right he looks like he is doped.

 >>/54396/
We will see if he actually does or if it's just more talk. His words don't mean much.

 >>/54398/
He can't do anything else.
They "finally figured out" they knew this very well at the start that the Kremlin doesn't negotiate for peace wholeheartedly in fact they don't give a crap. And Kiev too, the whole thing is just for the show, they had to talk about peace so Zelensky talked about it.
Russia feels they are winning, they aren't entirely wrong, Ukraine is wrecked: destroyed economy, decimated population not by the fighting directly, but by taken territory and emigration; two things left: the radicals who still have fighting spirit and the western supply. Lots of Russians feel fired up and support their SMO, so Kremlin can't stop now anyway. Russian economy is doing fine, no real sign of collapse.
In Ukraine many people feel they can fight on. Sure the majority aren't that enthusiastic, but enough hard liners who would coup the govt. if it wanted to make peace in earnest.
Washington knows this very well, and now they arrived to the point where they have to say it. War continues, weapons must flow to keep continue it, because Russia just won't stop. Not for the conditions Washington and Europe put forward. They want no conditions.

I still think however that this is Korean war situation, case #1 here:  >>/54274/. They decided in Washington that the war has to stop at some line, so they continue until the other side recognize that line. Problem I see is that in Korea, the US fought personally, Ukraine is not the US, they might just collapse before reaching that point.

 >>/54400/
Russian economy is not doing that well. But yeah. It's doing well enough to continue. War material output is also constantly increasing.
I agree. They see no reason to stop. The West has already sent most of what it could easily spare and has not ramped up production to the degree Russia has. Russia is winning the war of material and it only gets worse for Ukraine.

Yes. In order for there to be a line somebody has to enforce one. Nobody in the West will do that. They talk about sending troops after a peace deal but not to enforce one.

In his video from yesterday Matt of WillyOAM went through this article:
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/06/ukraines-new-theory-of-victory-should-be-strategic-neutralization?lang=en
I put it here so I can read it when I have the time. Perhaps should make a document out of it and put it on an ebook reader and read it on the loo.
From the sound of it, this looks like a Korea solution too. Arm Ukraine to the teeth so they can hold the line indefinitely, essentially deadlock the situation into a neverending war. Korea is still in the state of an armistice.
Matt pointed out that this article shifts the goalpost, and tries to paint something as a victory which is basically a fucking tragedy.

 >>/54403/
What I'm waiting now is how our govt will react to this. Now that Trump starts to say the reverse what he was saying, this ought to be uncomfortable for Orbán and co. since they are full on "with Trump finally the war is over", "new reality" and such.

Heard in the news this morning a Hungarian man (father of two) died in Ukraine. Our govt says he was beaten to death by Ukrainian soldiers who tried to force mobilize him. Ukrainian authorities say the cause of death was pulmonary embolism. They do not say what was the cause of that however.
As a reference:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pulmonary-embolism/symptoms-causes/syc-20354647
> A pulmonary embolism occurs when a clump of material, most often a blood clot, gets stuck in an artery in the lungs, blocking the flow of blood.

For both "Geran-style" drone attacks and ballistic missile barrage we have historical precedent: WWII - V1 and V2 campaigns.

20250714-Rutte-n-Trump jpg
(287.81 KB, 1280x720)

New changes. "Changes."
1. The US now will send weapons to Ukraine - by making Europeon countries to pay the bill.
2. The US will impose secondary sanctions and 100% tariffs on... China, India, and Brazil? not exactly sure on which countries yet, but these are the most likely ones.

We all knew the war will continue. The EU's next budget starting from 2028 shows this too. Even the Korea route shows that settling for an armistice can take quite some time, perhaps years. But until then Ukraine has to be propped up and supported as long as it takes. Europe cannot do this alone, since they can't and won't produce shit. But now Trump wants the US to produce shit, might as well be weapons if someone pays for 'em There! 5% spending achieved added to US treasury!
On the other hand can Ukraine keep fighting? There is certainly a strata who want to fight, and again EU surely calculates they will fight. Perhaps they try to go for that "steel porkypine" mentioned in the article:  >>/54405/

There is a 50 days deadline for the sanctions and tariffs. But what are they gonna embargo? And what products will be tariffed?
Frankly if the US can earn just like that, for years, strengthening their own economy why would they wanted the war to end?
> we make weapons, we sell em, weapons go boom, we make more and sell em again
> nice weapons, expensive weapons, several million dollars each and they spent instantly, europe open your wallet

 >>/54440/
Is this actually any different than before? Weren't the Europeans already buying American Weapons for Ukraine?

Europe is re Militarizing, it's military industry is going to get a boost from this too. 
This is what Trump has been pushing for but it's a mistake for the US. Europe was quite passive and had no real ability or motivation to throw their weight around globally. They were happy to let the US do that. But this is going to change now, the EU will have the ability to force it's will on other nations and that is often not going to be in the interests of the USA. They are creating a fourth super power.

It's possible Trump wants to curb that by redirecting EU spending from the EU military industrial base to the US one. But that would be giving him too much credit and also many of his other actions wouldn't support that.

Secondary sanctions could hurt Russia a lot. But I don't think in the end it will happen. AT least not to a serious degree. Yes Trump can put 100% Tariffs on India and Brazil as they are not majorly import to the US economy but they cannot tariff China like that, they already tried and already backed down and if they don't Tariff China it's not going to work.

 >>/54441/
I think the main change will be that the US won't give weapons by herself directly to Ukraine. All the shipments will be handed to the rest of the countries and they do with 'em whatever they want, equip themselves or pass it on to Ukraine.
How I see it it's a deal between the US and EU with some addition like UK. Trump wants to change the trade balance of the US with everyone essentially. The US had one of the shittiest trade balance against the world, they literally were buying from everyone (probably they still do mostly), they import more than they export. This is why he started to impose on tariffs on whoever, to control the trade flow. Btw DPA has a trade balance map on his site.
I think the US made a deal with Europe that they won't tariff them, but they have to buy more. So they told NATO, that they have to raise military spending to 5%, which is huge, 2,5 times more than 2%. This money has to be spent so the US can sell them weapons, huge amount of it, correcting the trade balance.

> Secondary sanctions could hurt Russia a lot.
If India stops buying their oil it can. India buys crude and either they resell it as it is to Germany and such, or refine it and then sell it to Germany and such. They want India stop doing that.
It seems they try to target BRICKS countries. I wonder if the US just pushes them together more, like how they pushed Russia into China's open arms.

 >>/54441/
> Europe was quite passive and had no real ability or motivation to throw their weight around globally. They were happy to let the US do that. But this is going to change now, the EU will have the ability to force it's will on other nations and that is often not going to be in the interests of the USA. They are creating a fourth super power.
I do think the US want to prevent it, and they have plans in motion already.
This would need a European unity, but there are always interests and fears to be exploited. Hungary is a useful tool to Washington, going against a centralized Europe. Possible other states can include Poland: sure in the question of Ukraine they go along with the Germans, but one thing that Poland fears as much as a Russian threat is a German threat. There is a reason why they are so pro-US. It's fine as long as Germany is nice and pacifist, but them turning hawkish will wake up suspicions. I'm sure all the countries have something to get turned against the common cause.

What I think whatever happens, it'll suck here on the Hungary, we are in a too precarious position with energy dependence. If prices hike Westerners still will be able to pay the bills, but here we have this utility bill subsidy, the whole country hooked on that, if it has to go, many will lose everything, like pulling the carpet from under us.

 >>/54443/
That's true. It's not likely they will all share one common foreign policy.

But even if they don't the states themselves will still individually be powerful enough to act.

France was always stubborn and independent and now it;s going to be stubborn and independent with 5% of GDP spend on defense. It's also likely that the states in Europe will work together to achieve goals.
Like if they want to invade Libya to put in a stable government so they can get the oil from there, it might not be the EU that does it but France and Italy might do it and maybe some other EU members(or even Britian) will contribute.

Yew, Hungary is in a bad situation. But if states in the EU do start going after energy like the Libya example IO mentioned then maybe there would be some way to wean them off of Russian imports.

 >>/54442/
Part of the reason for the US trade imbalance is the US dollar being the global reserve currency, which pushes up demand for it and makes it worth more than it otherwise would be, making US exports less competitive. That's not going to change, as there isn't a viable reserve currency other than the USD.

The US doesn't rely on Indian imports like it does with China. So it is viable to sanction them but likewise the Indians don't rely on the US either, so they effect of sanctions would not be sever and all it would do is cause diplomatic tensions and push them to working more with non-US aligned states like you mentioned.