[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1895896267269808193

After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels. 

Haltbakk has called on other European companies to refuse service to American forces.

The shutdown may have already affected USS Virginia (SSN-774), which attempted to refuel in Norway today but turned around. 

(The Virginia class requires some marine diesel for its Caterpillar model 3512B V-12 auxiliary generator).

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1895896267269808193

After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels. 

Haltbakk has called on other European companies to refuse service to American forces.

The shutdown may have already affected USS Virginia (SSN-774), which attempted to refuel in Norway today but turned around. 

(The Virginia class requires some marine diesel for its Caterpillar model 3512B V-12 auxiliary generator).

[Goose]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1895896267269808193

After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels. 

Haltbakk has called on other European companies to refuse service to American forces.

The shutdown may have already affected USS Virginia (SSN-774), which attempted to refuel in Norway today but turned around. 

(The Virginia class requires some marine diesel for its Caterpillar model 3512B V-12 auxiliary generator).

Just what the world needs. Everyone turning on everyone else. Not that there is a lack of "reasons". However, participating in the race to the bottom IMO just makes the situation worse. Game theory does tell us there are many situations where collaboration is superior to a "greedy" algorithm of every man for himself. Too bad it appears few are aware of that ATM.

[Goose]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1895896267269808193

After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels. 

Haltbakk has called on other European companies to refuse service to American forces.

The shutdown may have already affected USS Virginia (SSN-774), which attempted to refuel in Norway today but turned around. 

(The Virginia class requires some marine diesel for its Caterpillar model 3512B V-12 auxiliary generator).

Just what the world needs. Everyone turning on everyone else. Not that there is a lack of "reasons". However, participating in the race to the bottom IMO just makes the situation worse. Game theory does tell us there are many situations where collaboration is superior to a "greedy" algorithm of every man for himself. Too bad it appears few are aware of that ATM.

[dabigv13]

The Trump administration has publicly and privately signaled that it does not believe Russia represents a cyber threat against US national security or critical infrastructure, marking a radical departure from longstanding intelligence assessments.

The shift in policy could make the US vulnerable to hacking attacks by Russia, experts warned, and appeared to reflect the warming of relations between Donald Trump and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.
......
A recent memo at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) set out new priorities for the agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and monitors cyber threats against US critical infrastructure. The new directive set out priorities that included China and protecting local systems. It did not mention Russia.

A person familiar with the matter who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity said analysts at the agency were verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.

The person said work that was being done on something “Russia-related” was in effect “nixed”.

“Russia and China are our biggest adversaries. With all the cuts being made to different agencies, a lot of cybersecurity personnel have been fired. Our systems are not going to be protected and our adversaries know this,” the person said.

The person added: “People are saying Russia is winning. Putin is on the inside now.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...r-security

[dabigv13]

The Trump administration has publicly and privately signaled that it does not believe Russia represents a cyber threat against US national security or critical infrastructure, marking a radical departure from longstanding intelligence assessments.

The shift in policy could make the US vulnerable to hacking attacks by Russia, experts warned, and appeared to reflect the warming of relations between Donald Trump and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.
......
A recent memo at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) set out new priorities for the agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and monitors cyber threats against US critical infrastructure. The new directive set out priorities that included China and protecting local systems. It did not mention Russia.

A person familiar with the matter who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity said analysts at the agency were verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.

The person said work that was being done on something “Russia-related” was in effect “nixed”.

“Russia and China are our biggest adversaries. With all the cuts being made to different agencies, a lot of cybersecurity personnel have been fired. Our systems are not going to be protected and our adversaries know this,” the person said.

The person added: “People are saying Russia is winning. Putin is on the inside now.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...r-security

[81alum]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1895896267269808193

After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels. 

Haltbakk has called on other European companies to refuse service to American forces.

The shutdown may have already affected USS Virginia (SSN-774), which attempted to refuel in Norway today but turned around. 

(The Virginia class requires some marine diesel for its Caterpillar model 3512B V-12 auxiliary generator).

Just what the world needs. Everyone turning on everyone else. Not that there is a lack of "reasons". However, participating in the race to the bottom IMO just makes the situation worse. Game theory does tell us there are many situations where collaboration is superior to a "greedy" algorithm of every man for himself. Too bad it appears few are aware of that ATM.

Does NATO require that member countries refuel the ships of NATO allies?  I supposed it is just a legal technicality, now that American membership in NATO is essentially meaningless....

[81alum]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1895896267269808193

After yesterday's events in the White House, Haltbakk Bunkers, one of Norway's largest marine fuel companies, appears to have announced that it will no longer refuel American Navy vessels. 

Haltbakk has called on other European companies to refuse service to American forces.

The shutdown may have already affected USS Virginia (SSN-774), which attempted to refuel in Norway today but turned around. 

(The Virginia class requires some marine diesel for its Caterpillar model 3512B V-12 auxiliary generator).

Just what the world needs. Everyone turning on everyone else. Not that there is a lack of "reasons". However, participating in the race to the bottom IMO just makes the situation worse. Game theory does tell us there are many situations where collaboration is superior to a "greedy" algorithm of every man for himself. Too bad it appears few are aware of that ATM.

Does NATO require that member countries refuel the ships of NATO allies?  I supposed it is just a legal technicality, now that American membership in NATO is essentially meaningless....

[dabigv13]

The Norwegian MOD put out a statement-

We have seen reports raising concerns about support for US Navy vessels in Norway. This is not in line with the Norwegian government’s policy.

I can confirm that all requested support has been provided. The U.S. and Norway maintain a close and strong defense cooperation. American forces will continue to receive the supply and support they require from Norway.

https://x.com/Forsvarsdep/status/1895981641207775274

[dabigv13]

The Norwegian MOD put out a statement-

We have seen reports raising concerns about support for US Navy vessels in Norway. This is not in line with the Norwegian government’s policy.

I can confirm that all requested support has been provided. The U.S. and Norway maintain a close and strong defense cooperation. American forces will continue to receive the supply and support they require from Norway.

https://x.com/Forsvarsdep/status/1895981641207775274

[M T]

Regarding the Friday Night Fights,  I was trying to figure out the motive for what transpired.

Perhaps the US administration figured out that the minerals would be too expensive & risky to pursue, but they already had the Ukrainian President coming to the White House to sign the deal.  Perhaps this is the current President's way to save face rather than to say "Oops, after reflecting for (2 weeks?) about this deal, we found out the finances aren't in our favor"

If someone has a more rational explanation for what transpired, I'd like to hear it.

[M T]

Regarding the Friday Night Fights,  I was trying to figure out the motive for what transpired.

Perhaps the US administration figured out that the minerals would be too expensive & risky to pursue, but they already had the Ukrainian President coming to the White House to sign the deal.  Perhaps this is the current President's way to save face rather than to say "Oops, after reflecting for (2 weeks?) about this deal, we found out the finances aren't in our favor"

If someone has a more rational explanation for what transpired, I'd like to hear it.

[ADPinWDC]

The meeting was manufactured by Zelensky, per account by SoS Rubio on CNN.  
"Zelensky was set to sign the Mineral Rights investment agreement at Munich, but he balked.
Zelensky asked for the meeting in WDC. Trump did not need the meeting." 

Zelensky is a TV actor also... (!). He wanted the staging to shore up his own standing in Kyiv, knowing that he will face an election this year... his five year term ended May 2024, but under martial law since 2022 there are no elections in Ukraine. 

Trump and Vance did not need the meeting. 
Zelensky did. Via the JV, Trump was offering Ukraine the investment capital needed for redevelopment... under an Armistice.  The priority is to end bloodshed first. 
Recovering any Ukraine territory means sending another 200,000 soldiers into the Eastern meat grinder and mine fields, for naught.  

What does UK and EU "support" mean at this juncture -- another 6-12 months of fruitless bombing and drone exchange?  How much bloodshed is enough?

Now, unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians want the conflict to end.  BASTA.

[ADPinWDC]

The meeting was manufactured by Zelensky, per account by SoS Rubio on CNN.  
"Zelensky was set to sign the Mineral Rights investment agreement at Munich, but he balked.
Zelensky asked for the meeting in WDC. Trump did not need the meeting." 

Zelensky is a TV actor also... (!). He wanted the staging to shore up his own standing in Kyiv, knowing that he will face an election this year... his five year term ended May 2024, but under martial law since 2022 there are no elections in Ukraine. 

Trump and Vance did not need the meeting. 
Zelensky did. Via the JV, Trump was offering Ukraine the investment capital needed for redevelopment... under an Armistice.  The priority is to end bloodshed first. 
Recovering any Ukraine territory means sending another 200,000 soldiers into the Eastern meat grinder and mine fields, for naught.  

What does UK and EU "support" mean at this juncture -- another 6-12 months of fruitless bombing and drone exchange?  How much bloodshed is enough?

Now, unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians want the conflict to end.  BASTA.

[dabigv13]

Ukrainians are now more open to a negotiated settlement. That doesn't mean they want to give up territory or mineral rights and get nothing in return, which was the "deal" on offer. Recent polling also indicates less than 10% would accept a negotiated settlement between Russia and US without the involvement of Ukraine, so if you want to look to polls on this you need to look at several and not just one to support your argument.

Without security guarantees, Ukraine would just be giving Putin time to rearm and attack again at the next opportunity, something he has demonstrated in practice with Ukraine time and again. Zelensky has seen the war crimes Russia is committing up close. Vance said he saw some videos so he understands the conflict (!). A ceasefire doesn't mean the bloodshed stops, it is only delayed. Ukraine knows that lesson very well.

More broadly, from an "art of the deal" standpoint, tearing down your own side in public (if you believe that the US is on Ukraine's side now), and cutting off arms deliveries, intelligence sharing, and logistical support, or threatening to do so, just makes the Russian negotiating position stronger. What is happening IMHO, can be seen in a more and less nefarious light. The less nefarious is that Trump sees himself as a dealmaker, wants to make a deal as soon as possible, and has much more leverage on Ukraine to make that happen. Why the US would reduce the leverage it has on Russia during talks for a settlement however isn't really answered by that hypothetical.

All the main Ukrainian opposition figures support Zelensky staying president until the end of the conflict, as does public polling. And Zelensky has said he would give up power if it would help to develop a satisfactory negotiated settlement, so I think the democratic legitimacy argument is a straw man, and also one that just doesn't make much sense to be making if your goal is trying to get Ukraine the best possible settlement. Why the administration's goal doesn't seem to be getting Ukraine the best deal is what seems so inexplicable.

Finally, from a bloodshed perspective, Ukraine will not stop fighting Russia even if the US cuts all aid. Even if the EU cuts aid, Ukraine will still fight. They will just have more civilian and military deaths because of the reduced aid. Maybe you don't accept that framing, but if your main goal is the number of Ukrainian lives saved, cutting off Ukrainian aid (the vast vast majority of which went to US companies to either replace old equipment or build new weapons) wouldn't seem to reduce bloodshed, only increase it.

Russia is not invincible, though they like to project that image. Their tank depots are empty. They use civilian cars and scooters for assaults. They are using donkeys for logistics.

[dabigv13]

Ukrainians are now more open to a negotiated settlement. That doesn't mean they want to give up territory or mineral rights and get nothing in return, which was the "deal" on offer. Recent polling also indicates less than 10% would accept a negotiated settlement between Russia and US without the involvement of Ukraine, so if you want to look to polls on this you need to look at several and not just one to support your argument.

Without security guarantees, Ukraine would just be giving Putin time to rearm and attack again at the next opportunity, something he has demonstrated in practice with Ukraine time and again. Zelensky has seen the war crimes Russia is committing up close. Vance said he saw some videos so he understands the conflict (!). A ceasefire doesn't mean the bloodshed stops, it is only delayed. Ukraine knows that lesson very well.

More broadly, from an "art of the deal" standpoint, tearing down your own side in public (if you believe that the US is on Ukraine's side now), and cutting off arms deliveries, intelligence sharing, and logistical support, or threatening to do so, just makes the Russian negotiating position stronger. What is happening IMHO, can be seen in a more and less nefarious light. The less nefarious is that Trump sees himself as a dealmaker, wants to make a deal as soon as possible, and has much more leverage on Ukraine to make that happen. Why the US would reduce the leverage it has on Russia during talks for a settlement however isn't really answered by that hypothetical.

All the main Ukrainian opposition figures support Zelensky staying president until the end of the conflict, as does public polling. And Zelensky has said he would give up power if it would help to develop a satisfactory negotiated settlement, so I think the democratic legitimacy argument is a straw man, and also one that just doesn't make much sense to be making if your goal is trying to get Ukraine the best possible settlement. Why the administration's goal doesn't seem to be getting Ukraine the best deal is what seems so inexplicable.

Finally, from a bloodshed perspective, Ukraine will not stop fighting Russia even if the US cuts all aid. Even if the EU cuts aid, Ukraine will still fight. They will just have more civilian and military deaths because of the reduced aid. Maybe you don't accept that framing, but if your main goal is the number of Ukrainian lives saved, cutting off Ukrainian aid (the vast vast majority of which went to US companies to either replace old equipment or build new weapons) wouldn't seem to reduce bloodshed, only increase it.

Russia is not invincible, though they like to project that image. Their tank depots are empty. They use civilian cars and scooters for assaults. They are using donkeys for logistics.

[GK3]

Ukrainians are now more open to a negotiated settlement. That doesn't mean they want to give up territory or mineral rights and get nothing in return, which was the "deal" on offer. Recent polling also indicates less than 10% would accept a negotiated settlement between Russia and US without the involvement of Ukraine, so if you want to look to polls on this you need to look at several and not just one to support your argument.

Without security guarantees, Ukraine would just be giving Putin time to rearm and attack again at the next opportunity, something he has demonstrated in practice with Ukraine time and again. Zelensky has seen the war crimes Russia is committing up close. Vance said he saw some videos so he understands the conflict (!). A ceasefire doesn't mean the bloodshed stops, it is only delayed. Ukraine knows that lesson very well.

More broadly, from an "art of the deal" standpoint, tearing down your own side in public (if you believe that the US is on Ukraine's side now), and cutting off arms deliveries, intelligence sharing, and logistical support, or threatening to do so, just makes the Russian negotiating position stronger. What is happening IMHO, can be seen in a more and less nefarious light. The less nefarious is that Trump sees himself as a dealmaker, wants to make a deal as soon as possible, and has much more leverage on Ukraine to make that happen. Why the US would reduce the leverage it has on Russia during talks for a settlement however isn't really answered by that hypothetical.

All the main Ukrainian opposition figures support Zelensky staying president until the end of the conflict, as does public polling. And Zelensky has said he would give up power if it would help to develop a satisfactory negotiated settlement, so I think the democratic legitimacy argument is a straw man, and also one that just doesn't make much sense to be making if your goal is trying to get Ukraine the best possible settlement. Why the administration's goal doesn't seem to be getting Ukraine the best deal is what seems so inexplicable.

Finally, from a bloodshed perspective, Ukraine will not stop fighting Russia even if the US cuts all aid. Even if the EU cuts aid, Ukraine will still fight. They will just have more civilian and military deaths because of the reduced aid. Maybe you don't accept that framing, but if your main goal is the number of Ukrainian lives saved, cutting off Ukrainian aid (the vast vast majority of which went to US companies to either replace old equipment or build new weapons) wouldn't seem to reduce bloodshed, only increase it.

Russia is not invincible, though they like to project that image. Their tank depots are empty. They use civilian cars and scooters for assaults. They are using donkeys for logistics.

This is I think going to be a way that changes how everyone fights the next one that isn't nuclear. Ukraine's ability to produce thousands of cheap drones FPV drones that can avoid jamming to a great extent, fly in the door of a Russian bunker, or hit the most sensitive part of a complicated thing like a refinery, bridges, tanks etc is I think not fully appreciated.  Why is Russia using donkeys, cars and scooters?  Mostly because they don't have too many of the more complex and expensive things left and if they use them, they will be killed.  You can build a million small drones much more easily than you can produce and train a million soldiers.  Ukraine has shown you don't need a sky full of very expensive things like reaper drones, and that you can kill a lot of Russians with a small drone with a kilo or two of explosives wrapped around a few hundred ball bearings. 
Regardless of Putin's power and position I do think he has a very finite limit to how much longer he can keep sending his recruits home in body bags with nothing to show for it. Think Claymore mines on steroids and that can fly in your front door.

[GK3]

Ukrainians are now more open to a negotiated settlement. That doesn't mean they want to give up territory or mineral rights and get nothing in return, which was the "deal" on offer. Recent polling also indicates less than 10% would accept a negotiated settlement between Russia and US without the involvement of Ukraine, so if you want to look to polls on this you need to look at several and not just one to support your argument.

Without security guarantees, Ukraine would just be giving Putin time to rearm and attack again at the next opportunity, something he has demonstrated in practice with Ukraine time and again. Zelensky has seen the war crimes Russia is committing up close. Vance said he saw some videos so he understands the conflict (!). A ceasefire doesn't mean the bloodshed stops, it is only delayed. Ukraine knows that lesson very well.

More broadly, from an "art of the deal" standpoint, tearing down your own side in public (if you believe that the US is on Ukraine's side now), and cutting off arms deliveries, intelligence sharing, and logistical support, or threatening to do so, just makes the Russian negotiating position stronger. What is happening IMHO, can be seen in a more and less nefarious light. The less nefarious is that Trump sees himself as a dealmaker, wants to make a deal as soon as possible, and has much more leverage on Ukraine to make that happen. Why the US would reduce the leverage it has on Russia during talks for a settlement however isn't really answered by that hypothetical.

All the main Ukrainian opposition figures support Zelensky staying president until the end of the conflict, as does public polling. And Zelensky has said he would give up power if it would help to develop a satisfactory negotiated settlement, so I think the democratic legitimacy argument is a straw man, and also one that just doesn't make much sense to be making if your goal is trying to get Ukraine the best possible settlement. Why the administration's goal doesn't seem to be getting Ukraine the best deal is what seems so inexplicable.

Finally, from a bloodshed perspective, Ukraine will not stop fighting Russia even if the US cuts all aid. Even if the EU cuts aid, Ukraine will still fight. They will just have more civilian and military deaths because of the reduced aid. Maybe you don't accept that framing, but if your main goal is the number of Ukrainian lives saved, cutting off Ukrainian aid (the vast vast majority of which went to US companies to either replace old equipment or build new weapons) wouldn't seem to reduce bloodshed, only increase it.

Russia is not invincible, though they like to project that image. Their tank depots are empty. They use civilian cars and scooters for assaults. They are using donkeys for logistics.

This is I think going to be a way that changes how everyone fights the next one that isn't nuclear. Ukraine's ability to produce thousands of cheap drones FPV drones that can avoid jamming to a great extent, fly in the door of a Russian bunker, or hit the most sensitive part of a complicated thing like a refinery, bridges, tanks etc is I think not fully appreciated.  Why is Russia using donkeys, cars and scooters?  Mostly because they don't have too many of the more complex and expensive things left and if they use them, they will be killed.  You can build a million small drones much more easily than you can produce and train a million soldiers.  Ukraine has shown you don't need a sky full of very expensive things like reaper drones, and that you can kill a lot of Russians with a small drone with a kilo or two of explosives wrapped around a few hundred ball bearings. 
Regardless of Putin's power and position I do think he has a very finite limit to how much longer he can keep sending his recruits home in body bags with nothing to show for it. Think Claymore mines on steroids and that can fly in your front door.

[M T]

The Trump administration has publicly and privately signaled that it does not believe Russia represents a cyber threat against US national security or critical infrastructure, marking a radical departure from longstanding intelligence assessments.
...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...r-security

As someone that's been involved in cyber security for many years, I try to stay current on this area (but it isn't my day job).  Other than this article's claim, I haven't seen anything about this internal memo.  Indeed, there was quite a bit of concern about the new administration removing all non-government people from an important committee that was investigating the (reportedly) Chinese attack on phone systems, involving phone calls of the Trump team.  The self-focus of this administration would suggest that they would want the focus on China.

The opening sentence quoted above is hard to believe, but so has been so much else recently.  It is headline grabbing, but that doesn't make it true  I looked through CISA's site and see no evidence that any of the information on Russia has been taken down.

However, I am more concerned about this report that Hegesth has ordered the US Cyber Command to stand down from planning involving Russia.  If this is true, I am worried that the US is wheeling a big horse into our city.

[M T]

The Trump administration has publicly and privately signaled that it does not believe Russia represents a cyber threat against US national security or critical infrastructure, marking a radical departure from longstanding intelligence assessments.
...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...r-security

As someone that's been involved in cyber security for many years, I try to stay current on this area (but it isn't my day job).  Other than this article's claim, I haven't seen anything about this internal memo.  Indeed, there was quite a bit of concern about the new administration removing all non-government people from an important committee that was investigating the (reportedly) Chinese attack on phone systems, involving phone calls of the Trump team.  The self-focus of this administration would suggest that they would want the focus on China.

The opening sentence quoted above is hard to believe, but so has been so much else recently.  It is headline grabbing, but that doesn't make it true  I looked through CISA's site and see no evidence that any of the information on Russia has been taken down.

However, I am more concerned about this report that Hegesth has ordered the US Cyber Command to stand down from planning involving Russia.  If this is true, I am worried that the US is wheeling a big horse into our city.

[newguy]

as far as why the meeting transpired the way it did.......difficult to know for sure.  the simplest explanation for the president's refusal to criticize putin would be that the latter has some dirt on him, but there's no proof of that, and there probably never will be.  another explanation would be that trump respects other strong leaders.  or maybe he believes that he can get a better deal for russian minerals, since russia has been selling them on the cheap.  who knows.

[newguy]

as far as why the meeting transpired the way it did.......difficult to know for sure.  the simplest explanation for the president's refusal to criticize putin would be that the latter has some dirt on him, but there's no proof of that, and there probably never will be.  another explanation would be that trump respects other strong leaders.  or maybe he believes that he can get a better deal for russian minerals, since russia has been selling them on the cheap.  who knows.

[fullmetal]

If this is true, I am worried that the US is wheeling a big horse into our city.

I started worrying about that a few months ago.  I'm gobsmacked at that very public announcement.

[fullmetal]

If this is true, I am worried that the US is wheeling a big horse into our city.

I started worrying about that a few months ago.  I'm gobsmacked at that very public announcement.

[dabigv13]

However, I am more concerned about this report that Hegesth has ordered the US Cyber Command to stand down from planning involving Russia.  If this is true, I am worried that the US is wheeling a big horse into our city.

CBS with the same reporting. Seems hard to envision a, uh, "good" reason for that development. Ukraine certainly won't be happy to be reading this reporting. I'm sure their intelligence sharing with the US has been changing of late.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-hegset...and-pause/

[dabigv13]

However, I am more concerned about this report that Hegesth has ordered the US Cyber Command to stand down from planning involving Russia.  If this is true, I am worried that the US is wheeling a big horse into our city.

CBS with the same reporting. Seems hard to envision a, uh, "good" reason for that development. Ukraine certainly won't be happy to be reading this reporting. I'm sure their intelligence sharing with the US has been changing of late.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-hegset...and-pause/

[paloalto]

I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference.  I just can't see how that would end well.

BC

Tapping the sign. I just don’t see how this doesn’t turn into a back and forth over what was or was not the administrations intention.

A lot of people here have strong opinions, myself included. Happy to chat about the meeting with others who feel strongly by PM.  But we’ve already gotten one request to take down a post for violating the no politics rule and I really don’t want to see this thread shut down. I’ve learned more in here from people that know a lot more than I do about the conflict and war fighting than I could almost anywhere else, and I want to continue this as a place where I can learn.

BC

This thread was almost entirely about military equipment and tactics used in the Ukraine/Russia war.  As someone with 45 years experience in the defense industry I found this commentary exceptionally interesting.  Goose always has contributed excellent and informative posts along with other non-partisan posters.  

This thread continues now with these outstanding comments floating on a cesspool of political commentary.    Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

[paloalto]

I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference.  I just can't see how that would end well.

BC

Tapping the sign. I just don’t see how this doesn’t turn into a back and forth over what was or was not the administrations intention.

A lot of people here have strong opinions, myself included. Happy to chat about the meeting with others who feel strongly by PM.  But we’ve already gotten one request to take down a post for violating the no politics rule and I really don’t want to see this thread shut down. I’ve learned more in here from people that know a lot more than I do about the conflict and war fighting than I could almost anywhere else, and I want to continue this as a place where I can learn.

BC

This thread was almost entirely about military equipment and tactics used in the Ukraine/Russia war.  As someone with 45 years experience in the defense industry I found this commentary exceptionally interesting.  Goose always has contributed excellent and informative posts along with other non-partisan posters.  

This thread continues now with these outstanding comments floating on a cesspool of political commentary.    Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

[M T]

This BBC interview with Zelensky has a BBC reporter quoting from a French newspaper: "The paper reports the French president as saying he and Sir Keir Starmer do not believe in a ceasefire signed by the US and Russia and have put an alternative month-long truce on the table."

The reporter asked if Zelensky was aware of this.  Zelensky replied that he was aware of everything.  He ended the interview at that point.

[M T]

This BBC interview with Zelensky has a BBC reporter quoting from a French newspaper: "The paper reports the French president as saying he and Sir Keir Starmer do not believe in a ceasefire signed by the US and Russia and have put an alternative month-long truce on the table."

The reporter asked if Zelensky was aware of this.  Zelensky replied that he was aware of everything.  He ended the interview at that point.

[chrisk]

I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference.  I just can't see how that would end well.

BC

Tapping the sign. I just don’t see how this doesn’t turn into a back and forth over what was or was not the administrations intention.

A lot of people here have strong opinions, myself included. Happy to chat about the meeting with others who feel strongly by PM.  But we’ve already gotten one request to take down a post for violating the no politics rule and I really don’t want to see this thread shut down. I’ve learned more in here from people that know a lot more than I do about the conflict and war fighting than I could almost anywhere else, and I want to continue this as a place where I can learn.

BC

This thread was almost entirely about military equipment and tactics used in the Ukraine/Russia war.  As someone with 45 years experience in the defense industry I found this commentary exceptionally interesting.  Goose always has contributed excellent and informative posts along with other non-partisan posters.  

This thread continues now with these outstanding comments floating on a cesspool of political commentary.    Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

The WSJ in Momday's editorial states that the President needs to be explicit about his seeming move to a New World Order in Tuesday's speech to Congress. The reason that rumors are swirling is because of a lack of transparency.
That is a matter of policy hygiene, not politics. The President could put a rest to rumors if he were to put forward a policy dirction by which he could be judged and measured.

[chrisk]

I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference.  I just can't see how that would end well.

BC

Tapping the sign. I just don’t see how this doesn’t turn into a back and forth over what was or was not the administrations intention.

A lot of people here have strong opinions, myself included. Happy to chat about the meeting with others who feel strongly by PM.  But we’ve already gotten one request to take down a post for violating the no politics rule and I really don’t want to see this thread shut down. I’ve learned more in here from people that know a lot more than I do about the conflict and war fighting than I could almost anywhere else, and I want to continue this as a place where I can learn.

BC

This thread was almost entirely about military equipment and tactics used in the Ukraine/Russia war.  As someone with 45 years experience in the defense industry I found this commentary exceptionally interesting.  Goose always has contributed excellent and informative posts along with other non-partisan posters.  

This thread continues now with these outstanding comments floating on a cesspool of political commentary.    Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

The WSJ in Momday's editorial states that the President needs to be explicit about his seeming move to a New World Order in Tuesday's speech to Congress. The reason that rumors are swirling is because of a lack of transparency.
That is a matter of policy hygiene, not politics. The President could put a rest to rumors if he were to put forward a policy dirction by which he could be judged and measured.

[dabigv13]

Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

Just to clarify, it sounds like your concern is that these reports about the US unilaterally stopping cyber operations against Russia are unsubstantiated rumors. But you do agree it would be bad if those news reports are true, right?

Also BTW the NYT has it now too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/us/po...putin.html

[dabigv13]

Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

Just to clarify, it sounds like your concern is that these reports about the US unilaterally stopping cyber operations against Russia are unsubstantiated rumors. But you do agree it would be bad if those news reports are true, right?

Also BTW the NYT has it now too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/us/po...putin.html

[GK3]

Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

Just to clarify, it sounds like your concern is that these reports about the US unilaterally stopping cyber operations against Russia are unsubstantiated rumors. But you do agree it would be bad if those news reports are true, right?

Also BTW the NYT has it now too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/us/po...putin.html

If this report is true then I would call the SecDef's action close to a word that starts with "T".  So boot me off the board but I gave too many years of my life to seeing this never happened to suddenly see it happening.  Good Night

[GK3]

Too much has devolved into political opinions based on unsubstantiated rumors about the current administration.

Just to clarify, it sounds like your concern is that these reports about the US unilaterally stopping cyber operations against Russia are unsubstantiated rumors. But you do agree it would be bad if those news reports are true, right?

Also BTW the NYT has it now too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/us/po...putin.html

If this report is true then I would call the SecDef's action close to a word that starts with "T".  So boot me off the board but I gave too many years of my life to seeing this never happened to suddenly see it happening.  Good Night

[dabigv13]

March 3 (Reuters) - The United States is drawing up a plan to potentially give Russia sanctions relief as President Donald Trump seeks to restore ties with Moscow and stop the war in Ukraine, a U.S. official and another person familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The White House has asked the State and Treasury departments to draft a list of sanctions that could be eased for U.S. officials to discuss with Russian representatives in the coming days as part of the administration's broad talks with Moscow on improving diplomatic and economic relations, the sources said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/white-hous...025-03-03/

Also paloalto, as you mentioned working in the defense industry, I thought you might be interested in these charts. The first is European defense companies, which I saw online. The second I made aa a frame of reference, with US companies. YTD stock prices.

---

The Trump administration has stopped financing new weapons sales to Ukraine and is considering freezing weapons shipments from U.S. stockpiles, moves that threaten Kyiv’s ability to fight at a critical time in its battle against Russian forces, current and former U.S. officials said.
.....
Secretary of State Marco Rubio in recent weeks signed a waiver to exempt Ukraine from the ban Trump imposed on foreign assistance, but senior State Department official Peter Marocco hasn’t sent a required letter to the Pentagon to allow the aid to flow to Kyiv, current officials said.  

Withholding the letter has resulted in a de facto halt to new weapons deals for Ukraine using the U.S. Foreign Military Financing system, which is managed by the State Department and pays for weapons for some countries, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the situation.
.... 
Ukraine is able to get weapons from the U.S. through several means, including Foreign Military Financing, which provides loans and grants for nations to buy weapons from U.S. defense companies, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which allows the Pentagon to buy weapons for Kyiv but is currently out of funds. However, presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Defense Department to pull directly from its own stockpiles, has been the most significant tool for arming Ukraine.  

On Monday, the White House is holding a meeting to consider suspending shipments using the drawdown authority, a congressional aide and a second person familiar with the matter said. 
.....
European allies and Ukraine’s own growing defense industry can make up for some of the potential shortfall, but an end to U.S. aid would cut Ukraine’s access to advanced weapons systems that are important to its broader strategy of countering Russia’s full-scale assault on its territory.
.....
Over time, Ukraine could find it harder to make longer term plans for its military arsenal or to buy parts for its existing systems. Ukraine currently builds or finances about 55% of its military hardware. The U.S. supplies around 20%, while Europe supplies 25%.

Patriot missiles probably the most important weapon that only the US can provide I would think. Eventually if they run out, a higher percentage of Russian ballistic missiles will start leaking through, though Russia is probably only able to use a trickle of these as they are produced, and NASAMS also has some capability here as well.


https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-980a71d1

[dabigv13]

March 3 (Reuters) - The United States is drawing up a plan to potentially give Russia sanctions relief as President Donald Trump seeks to restore ties with Moscow and stop the war in Ukraine, a U.S. official and another person familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The White House has asked the State and Treasury departments to draft a list of sanctions that could be eased for U.S. officials to discuss with Russian representatives in the coming days as part of the administration's broad talks with Moscow on improving diplomatic and economic relations, the sources said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/white-hous...025-03-03/

Also paloalto, as you mentioned working in the defense industry, I thought you might be interested in these charts. The first is European defense companies, which I saw online. The second I made aa a frame of reference, with US companies. YTD stock prices.

---

The Trump administration has stopped financing new weapons sales to Ukraine and is considering freezing weapons shipments from U.S. stockpiles, moves that threaten Kyiv’s ability to fight at a critical time in its battle against Russian forces, current and former U.S. officials said.
.....
Secretary of State Marco Rubio in recent weeks signed a waiver to exempt Ukraine from the ban Trump imposed on foreign assistance, but senior State Department official Peter Marocco hasn’t sent a required letter to the Pentagon to allow the aid to flow to Kyiv, current officials said.  

Withholding the letter has resulted in a de facto halt to new weapons deals for Ukraine using the U.S. Foreign Military Financing system, which is managed by the State Department and pays for weapons for some countries, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the situation.
.... 
Ukraine is able to get weapons from the U.S. through several means, including Foreign Military Financing, which provides loans and grants for nations to buy weapons from U.S. defense companies, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which allows the Pentagon to buy weapons for Kyiv but is currently out of funds. However, presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Defense Department to pull directly from its own stockpiles, has been the most significant tool for arming Ukraine.  

On Monday, the White House is holding a meeting to consider suspending shipments using the drawdown authority, a congressional aide and a second person familiar with the matter said. 
.....
European allies and Ukraine’s own growing defense industry can make up for some of the potential shortfall, but an end to U.S. aid would cut Ukraine’s access to advanced weapons systems that are important to its broader strategy of countering Russia’s full-scale assault on its territory.
.....
Over time, Ukraine could find it harder to make longer term plans for its military arsenal or to buy parts for its existing systems. Ukraine currently builds or finances about 55% of its military hardware. The U.S. supplies around 20%, while Europe supplies 25%.

Patriot missiles probably the most important weapon that only the US can provide I would think. Eventually if they run out, a higher percentage of Russian ballistic missiles will start leaking through, though Russia is probably only able to use a trickle of these as they are produced, and NASAMS also has some capability here as well.


https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-980a71d1

[Goose]

Patriot missiles probably the most important weapon that only the US can provide I would think. Eventually if they run out, a higher percentage of Russian ballistic missiles will start leaking through, though Russia is probably only able to use a trickle of these as they are produced, and NASAMS also has some capability here as well.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-980a71d1

Unfortunately all the missiles used by the NASAMS contain US IP (and actual hardware in almost all cases) that is subject to ITAR regulations. Even if it is possible to manufacture say AMRAAMs overseas, those products are subject to ITAR control and cannot be shipped to a "foreign" end user without US consent. The AN/MPQ-64 radar on the NASAMS is an RTX product and clearly subject to ITAR control.

I don't even want to imagine what will happen if the US denies permission for any ITAR controlled systems/materials being shipped to Ukraine going forward. If some countries then decide to ignore ITAR regulations the potential for a cascade of diplomatic disasters is daunting indeed. In particular, BAE and Leonardo will definitely be in a world of hurt, as will all their customers, foreign and domestic.

[Goose]

Patriot missiles probably the most important weapon that only the US can provide I would think. Eventually if they run out, a higher percentage of Russian ballistic missiles will start leaking through, though Russia is probably only able to use a trickle of these as they are produced, and NASAMS also has some capability here as well.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-se...e-980a71d1

Unfortunately all the missiles used by the NASAMS contain US IP (and actual hardware in almost all cases) that is subject to ITAR regulations. Even if it is possible to manufacture say AMRAAMs overseas, those products are subject to ITAR control and cannot be shipped to a "foreign" end user without US consent. The AN/MPQ-64 radar on the NASAMS is an RTX product and clearly subject to ITAR control.

I don't even want to imagine what will happen if the US denies permission for any ITAR controlled systems/materials being shipped to Ukraine going forward. If some countries then decide to ignore ITAR regulations the potential for a cascade of diplomatic disasters is daunting indeed. In particular, BAE and Leonardo will definitely be in a world of hurt, as will all their customers, foreign and domestic.