While you’re correct in the long run to some degree or the other. Based upon how Trump describe his phone call with Putin yesterday. I’m not sure Ukraine could broker any kind of deal with him right now.
www.nbcnews.com
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to confirm the claim. “It’s hard to say. There were no phone calls at that time. As far as I understand, we’re talking about a period when Trump was not yet president of the United States,” he said.
www.reuters.com
thedefensepost.com
I wasn't aware the UK had their own nuclear weapons. Aren't they under control of the US?I thought I'd post this item here....
UK, France to Enable ‘Coordinated’ Nuclear Deterrent
The UK and France will declare that the two nations' nuclear deterrents, while independent, can be co-ordinated and that they will jointly respond to any "extreme threat to Europe," both countries said Wednesday.UK, France to Enable ‘Coordinated’ Nuclear Deterrent
“As close partners and NATO allies, the UK and France have a deep history of defense collaboration and today’s agreements take our partnership to the next level,” Starmer said in the statement.
Starmer and Macron will also on Thursday dial into a meeting of the so-called “coalition of the willing” on Ukraine, a group of countries backing the embattled nation.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
| Command Authority | The Prime Minister has ultimate authority over the use of nuclear weapons. |
| Operational Independence | British submarines are manned by British crews and operate independently, despite U.S. involvement. |
| U.S. Involvement | The UK leases its Trident missiles from the United States, and much of the technology is U.S.-supplied. |
| Maintenance and Testing | British submarines require maintenance and testing at U.S. facilities, indicating a reliance on U.S. support. |
If I recall correctly, though I’m not sure if this is still the case, during the Cold War, if UK leadership were to become incapacitated during a nuclear war, the US would assume control of the UK military under NATO command, including its nuclear forces.
GPT:
Partially True: Indeed, in extreme circumstances where the UK’s leadership is incapacitated, SSBN commanders may be explicitly instructed to seek U.S. direction — but only if that is what the PM decreed in their letter of last resort.
Don't trust GPT or AI. Most of the time, it doesn't know what it's talking about. Not that it's incorrect in this case.GPT:
I looked at the sources it used, as I always do. I use GPT in place of a simple Google search and nothing serious. Just more convenient then a Google search as GPT can search 50 websites in seconds and get me the most relevant sources & information I'm looking for.
Was it Hegseth or this guyHegseth halted weapons for Ukraine despite military analysis that the aid wouldn’t jeopardize U.S. readiness
The move blindsided the State Department, Ukraine, European allies and members of Congress, who demanded an explanation from the Pentagon.
Hegseth halted weapons for Ukraine despite military analysis that the aid wouldn’t jeopardize U.S. readiness
The move blindsided the State Department, Ukraine, European allies and members of Congress, who demanded an explanation from the Pentagon.
The question is did Colby do it on his own? The saying of "the buck stops here" stands true to this day and Pete will take the heat for this. Hegseth was an actual trigger puller and Colby was not.
Pete Hegseth - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Elbridge Colby - Wikipedia
More like discussion but if you're referring to Ukraine yes, US, not really. Supportive move but nothing akin to the Biden government.
Sending missiles to strike deep in Russia is an escalation.
He doesn't specify with what.
