|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On November 26 2025 07:21 Sent. wrote:
But it's already clear to Russia, Dutch jets shot down like 4 of their drones in Poland in September. Why would you need to write that down?
Because it will be a mandate. European jets is much broader than US and NATO.
Poland is against it, so it isn't something that is implied.
|
On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye.
It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia.
This point was way too vague.
|
On November 26 2025 07:24 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye. It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia. This point was way too vague.
Is that from any gov officials or just off top of your head.
Because Poland PM just said it's about not having polish input before this being a mandate.
Happy to be wrong.
|
On November 26 2025 07:28 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 07:24 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye. It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia. This point was way too vague. Is that from any gov officials or just off top of your head. Because Poland PM just said it's about not having polish input before this being a mandate. Happy to be wrong.
This quote from Tusk makes it seem like they are right and you are wrong, so be happy.
“There is no agreement that military weakening, i.e., so-called limits on the number of troops in Ukraine, is a condition for peace. No one wants to discourage the Americans and Donald Trump from having the US on our side in this process. As you can see, it’s not that clear-cut or easy. Everyone is choosing their words very carefully,” Tusk said.
Tusk's remarks come amid growing concern in Warsaw that certain proposals under consideration, such as troop limits and the stationing of foreign jets, could be used by Moscow to exploit divisions with NATO.
Everything indicates that this is a Russian perspective, and it is a form of manipulation or a trap, Tusk said, adding: "No one will fall for it. We can assume that this point no longer exists."
|
On November 26 2025 07:40 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 07:28 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:24 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye. It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia. This point was way too vague. Is that from any gov officials or just off top of your head. Because Poland PM just said it's about not having polish input before this being a mandate. Happy to be wrong. This quote from Tusk makes it seem like they are right and you are wrong, so be happy. Show nested quote + “There is no agreement that military weakening, i.e., so-called limits on the number of troops in Ukraine, is a condition for peace. No one wants to discourage the Americans and Donald Trump from having the US on our side in this process. As you can see, it’s not that clear-cut or easy. Everyone is choosing their words very carefully,” Tusk said.
Tusk's remarks come amid growing concern in Warsaw that certain proposals under consideration, such as troop limits and the stationing of foreign jets, could be used by Moscow to exploit divisions with NATO.
Everything indicates that this is a Russian perspective, and it is a form of manipulation or a trap, Tusk said, adding: "No one will fall for it. We can assume that this point no longer exists."
You mean "divisions with NATO"?
Poland already stations NATO jets and some European jets as some pointed out here.
Making this a mandate reduce uncertainty even.
But I guess it's worse than ukraine troop limits which is still in the Europe revised plan.
sure, happy to be wrong.
|
In other news. Russia's economic woes continue:
- Russia has started selling its gold reserves for the first time to pay for the war. They have sold 57% of their gold stockpile and 55% of their liquid assets in total. This brings their reserves down to 1.9% of GDP from pre-war 7.3%.
- Bulgaria has seized Russian oil refineries and other assets belonging to Lukoil and Neftohim. They have revoked their shareholder rights and appointed a manager to potentially sell those off to someone else or take them over themselves. The same thing might be happening in Serbia.
- India's biggest oil industry has stopped importing Russian crude since 20th of November to get ahead of sanctions that start on the 1st of December.
- 74% of Russian coal companies are now unprofitable. Production down by 5 million tons since 2022. Losses hit 263B rubles, projected to grow to 350B by the end of the year. The largest coal mining firm in Russia cut output by 55% in Q3 2025 and is spiraling into oblivion.
- 70% of Russians now claim they have no savings at all. That's an 8-year low.
- Russian Central Bank has found a 10 trillion ruble gap in unpaid loans (that's 28% of Russia's entire budget gone).
- Yakutia's finance minister said that payments to combat veterans in Ukraine have been stopped due to lack of funds.
- Russia's oil and gas revenues in November are expected to fall 35% YOY.
- Tax authorities in Russia will begin a "hunt" for people renting out apartments.
- Sales of smartphones, laptops and television have plummeted in Russia.
- Kazakhstan shut down its border with Russia, stranding over 5000 trucks delivering Chinese goods to Russian factories and warehouses. Moscow issued an emergency decree to clear the backlog but Russian companies suffered multi-million losses as goods spoil and contracts fail. And the backlog returned. Kkazakhstan has upgraded its customs thanks to USAID and are now targeting banned/sanctioned cargo. This is a big problem for Russia since it's their biggest land bridge for importing goods.
|
On November 26 2025 07:44 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 07:40 Billyboy wrote:On November 26 2025 07:28 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:24 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye. It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia. This point was way too vague. Is that from any gov officials or just off top of your head. Because Poland PM just said it's about not having polish input before this being a mandate. Happy to be wrong. This quote from Tusk makes it seem like they are right and you are wrong, so be happy. “There is no agreement that military weakening, i.e., so-called limits on the number of troops in Ukraine, is a condition for peace. No one wants to discourage the Americans and Donald Trump from having the US on our side in this process. As you can see, it’s not that clear-cut or easy. Everyone is choosing their words very carefully,” Tusk said.
Tusk's remarks come amid growing concern in Warsaw that certain proposals under consideration, such as troop limits and the stationing of foreign jets, could be used by Moscow to exploit divisions with NATO.
Everything indicates that this is a Russian perspective, and it is a form of manipulation or a trap, Tusk said, adding: "No one will fall for it. We can assume that this point no longer exists." You mean "divisions with NATO"? Poland already stations NATO jets and some European jets as some pointed out here. Making this a mandate reduce uncertainty even. But I guess it's worse than ukraine troop limits which is still in the Europe revised plan. sure, happy to be wrong.
It doesn't reduce uncertainty, it creates more and seems completely unnecessary. Also, the original issue with this is that Russia and US can't make statements about Poland without getting Poland's assent first. They can't just arbitrarily decide what Poland can or can't do. I really don't know what's so hard to understand here...
|
On November 26 2025 07:58 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 07:44 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:40 Billyboy wrote:On November 26 2025 07:28 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:24 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye. It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia. This point was way too vague. Is that from any gov officials or just off top of your head. Because Poland PM just said it's about not having polish input before this being a mandate. Happy to be wrong. This quote from Tusk makes it seem like they are right and you are wrong, so be happy. “There is no agreement that military weakening, i.e., so-called limits on the number of troops in Ukraine, is a condition for peace. No one wants to discourage the Americans and Donald Trump from having the US on our side in this process. As you can see, it’s not that clear-cut or easy. Everyone is choosing their words very carefully,” Tusk said.
Tusk's remarks come amid growing concern in Warsaw that certain proposals under consideration, such as troop limits and the stationing of foreign jets, could be used by Moscow to exploit divisions with NATO.
Everything indicates that this is a Russian perspective, and it is a form of manipulation or a trap, Tusk said, adding: "No one will fall for it. We can assume that this point no longer exists." You mean "divisions with NATO"? Poland already stations NATO jets and some European jets as some pointed out here. Making this a mandate reduce uncertainty even. But I guess it's worse than ukraine troop limits which is still in the Europe revised plan. sure, happy to be wrong. It doesn't reduce uncertainty, it creates more and seems completely unnecessary. Also, the original issue with this is that Russia and US can't make statements about Poland without getting Poland's assent first. They can't just arbitrarily decide what Poland can or can't do.
Pretty much any of the 28 points that involved NATO, Europe are without their consultation.
No one is saying Poland or Europe can't reject or amend it, like they have been doing.
I am saying it's a big deal to have a mandate for Poland to host any European jets.
I don't know why you telling me why Poland was opposing it, when I already said thats precisely what Poland PM said in public.
|
On November 26 2025 08:01 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 07:58 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:44 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:40 Billyboy wrote:On November 26 2025 07:28 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:24 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye. It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia. This point was way too vague. Is that from any gov officials or just off top of your head. Because Poland PM just said it's about not having polish input before this being a mandate. Happy to be wrong. This quote from Tusk makes it seem like they are right and you are wrong, so be happy. “There is no agreement that military weakening, i.e., so-called limits on the number of troops in Ukraine, is a condition for peace. No one wants to discourage the Americans and Donald Trump from having the US on our side in this process. As you can see, it’s not that clear-cut or easy. Everyone is choosing their words very carefully,” Tusk said.
Tusk's remarks come amid growing concern in Warsaw that certain proposals under consideration, such as troop limits and the stationing of foreign jets, could be used by Moscow to exploit divisions with NATO.
Everything indicates that this is a Russian perspective, and it is a form of manipulation or a trap, Tusk said, adding: "No one will fall for it. We can assume that this point no longer exists." You mean "divisions with NATO"? Poland already stations NATO jets and some European jets as some pointed out here. Making this a mandate reduce uncertainty even. But I guess it's worse than ukraine troop limits which is still in the Europe revised plan. sure, happy to be wrong. It doesn't reduce uncertainty, it creates more and seems completely unnecessary. Also, the original issue with this is that Russia and US can't make statements about Poland without getting Poland's assent first. They can't just arbitrarily decide what Poland can or can't do. Pretty much any of the 28 points that involved NATO, Europe are without their consultation. No one is saying Poland or Europe can't reject or amend it, like they have been doing. I don't know why you telling me why Poland was opposing it, when I already said thats precisely what Poland PM said in public.
So any of the 28 points involving NATO or Europe without consultation are invalid by default.
|
On November 26 2025 08:02 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 08:01 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:58 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:44 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:40 Billyboy wrote:On November 26 2025 07:28 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 07:24 Manit0u wrote:On November 26 2025 07:20 ETisME wrote:
Also if this isn't as big of a deal, then :
Poland has rejected this, PM said ""Nothing about us without us,"
And the EU revision of the 28 points have removed this.
Guess Poland has a lot of objections against what many here considered not a big deal aye. It is a big deal because that would actually limit what can be stationed in Poland. Now there is no such limit. It might also seem like European jets may be stationed in Poland but may not be stationed in say Finland and Estonia. This point was way too vague. Is that from any gov officials or just off top of your head. Because Poland PM just said it's about not having polish input before this being a mandate. Happy to be wrong. This quote from Tusk makes it seem like they are right and you are wrong, so be happy. “There is no agreement that military weakening, i.e., so-called limits on the number of troops in Ukraine, is a condition for peace. No one wants to discourage the Americans and Donald Trump from having the US on our side in this process. As you can see, it’s not that clear-cut or easy. Everyone is choosing their words very carefully,” Tusk said.
Tusk's remarks come amid growing concern in Warsaw that certain proposals under consideration, such as troop limits and the stationing of foreign jets, could be used by Moscow to exploit divisions with NATO.
Everything indicates that this is a Russian perspective, and it is a form of manipulation or a trap, Tusk said, adding: "No one will fall for it. We can assume that this point no longer exists." You mean "divisions with NATO"? Poland already stations NATO jets and some European jets as some pointed out here. Making this a mandate reduce uncertainty even. But I guess it's worse than ukraine troop limits which is still in the Europe revised plan. sure, happy to be wrong. It doesn't reduce uncertainty, it creates more and seems completely unnecessary. Also, the original issue with this is that Russia and US can't make statements about Poland without getting Poland's assent first. They can't just arbitrarily decide what Poland can or can't do. Pretty much any of the 28 points that involved NATO, Europe are without their consultation. No one is saying Poland or Europe can't reject or amend it, like they have been doing. I don't know why you telling me why Poland was opposing it, when I already said thats precisely what Poland PM said in public. So any of the 28 points involving NATO or Europe without consultation are invalid by default.
What's your point? Who said it's a done deal with final terms and conditions
|
My point is I'm not going to reply to you any more because it's pointless.
|
On November 26 2025 08:05 Manit0u wrote:
My point is I'm not going to reply to you any more because it's pointless.
Yes, you are arguing against points I never made lol
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On November 26 2025 08:07 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 08:05 Manit0u wrote:
My point is I'm not going to reply to you any more because it's pointless. Yes, you are arguing against points I never made lol
Well no, you’re making out that these are good ideas and the fact the actual stakeholders in question weren’t even consulted is an afterthought
If you weren’t arguing in such a manner people wouldn’t be criticising your points on that basis
|
On November 26 2025 08:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2025 08:07 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2025 08:05 Manit0u wrote:
My point is I'm not going to reply to you any more because it's pointless. Yes, you are arguing against points I never made lol Well no, you’re making out that these are good ideas and the fact the actual stakeholders in question weren’t even consulted is an afterthought If you weren’t arguing in such a manner people wouldn’t be criticising your points on that basis
if we want a deal, Europe will always be an afterthought.
This deal is highly between Russia and Ukraine, the "actual stakeholders".
However Europe wants to play around the terms they are in, theres no point until both Russia and Ukraine are settled on the major points. But they can at least talk amongst themselves now.
|
United States44191 Posts
You simply have no understanding of this war. Putin refuses to negotiate with Ukraine on principle. The entire Russian war rationale relies on Ukraine having no agency and being used by western powers to undermine Russia. Their stance is that the US is controlling Ukraine when really it should be Russia. That Ukraine has no sovereignty, that it is not capable of independent action, that it is not really choosing to resist Russia, that it cannot express its own wishes and policy.
Russia is very clear about this point, their entire intervention in Ukraine rests upon it. And yet you’re here saying idiocy like that they’re going to work out a deal. Which sovereign nation would Russia make a deal with?
|
On November 26 2025 09:49 KwarK wrote:
You simply have no understanding of this war. Putin refuses to negotiate with Ukraine on principle. The entire Russian war rationale relies on Ukraine having no agency and being used by western powers to undermine Russia. Their stance is that the US is controlling Ukraine when really it should be Russia. That Ukraine has no sovereignty, that it is not capable of independent action, that it is not really choosing to resist Russia, that it cannot express its own wishes and policy.
Russia is very clear about this point, their entire intervention in Ukraine rests upon it. And yet you’re here saying idiocy like that they’re going to work out a deal. Which sovereign nation would Russia make a deal with?
Yeah and multiple European officials called the war is "an existential threat to Europe." and then throw out a counter offer. Why not an all out world war 3 between Europe and Russia then.
Negotiation is happening.
Whether you think it's legit attempt or not, simply don't matter. Who cares.
You don't have to stomach it, it's not up to you to stomach it.
The war is ending one way or another. You prefer waiting the war to be over by either Ukraine de factor loses or russia to give up.
I like seeing negotiation attempts to settle it.
It's not like russia or ukraine are on halt and you don't get the war you like ending your way.
|
United States44191 Posts
|
On November 26 2025 11:12 KwarK wrote:
Simply no understanding.
I understand it as much as EU understand what "existential crisis for Europe" means.
|
There is no existential crisis for Europe here. There might be for Russia though if they continue doing what they're doing.
|
On November 26 2025 11:29 Manit0u wrote:
There is no existential crisis for Europe here. There might be for Russia though if they continue doing what they're doing.
EU Foreign Policy Chief: Kaja Kallas (at the time) stated, "Russia's war against Ukraine is an existential threat to Europe. We all want this war to end. But how it ends matters."
European Commission Officials: Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice President of the European Commission, characterized the invasion as an "existential crisis" for Europe.
Baltic and Eastern European Leaders: Leaders from countries like Lithuania and Estonia—who feel the direct threat most acutely—have consistently used the term "existential threat" for both Ukraine and Europe.
French President Emmanuel Macron has also hit back at Russian reactions to his own description of Moscow as an "existential threat to Europe," defending his statement by saying the Kremlin was piqued because the truth had been uncovered.
A collective statement signed by foreign policy leaders from nations like France, Ireland, Poland, Spain, and the UK warned that the war—and the peace that follows—"will shape European security for generations and affect the existential interests of all Europeans."
not only is the war is called existential threat, France said Moscow itself is an existential threat, and how the war ends is an existential threat.
And look, EU gave a counter offer to the existential threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
98
EPT
