Live updates: Trump threatens 100 percent secondary tariffs on Russia trade

I was referring to US trade with Russia, which would be the trade subject to US tariffs, which is what this thread is about.

US exports to Russia in 2024: about $500M. Imports from Russia (which would be impacted by the tariffs): around $3 Bn. In nation-state terms, that's back-of-the-sofa money.

By comparison, US imports from the EU that same year were a little over $600 Bn.

Not sure where you got that from. China, Iran and frankly most of the world is still trading with Russia. Either openly or varying degrees of hidden. Otherwise Russia would have collapsed a long time ago.

Truth brother, but for some reason the peace price is a complete farce: if you don't start a war or two you can't even be considered for it.

Its absurd that either of them would be considered for it in the first place.

Puto's already given him a Nibble Prize, for outstanding work on his taint.

He can put it next to his World Cup trophy.

EU tried to get its own minerals deal with Ukraine in the wake of Trump demands.

Apples and oranges.

The US minerals deal was "give us all your minerals, we will build our own mines on them that will not be subject to your own country's laws. You may keep some of the proceeds."

The EU minerals deal was "we will give you money and know-how to build your own mines, in exchange for long-term supply agreements. The resources and the mines will remain yours."

The difference is the one between someone extorting you to become an indentured taxi driver, and someone offering you a car in exchange for driving them to the airport once in a while. EU support was also not contingent on the deal, while it was made apparent that US support was.

Also Ukraine joining the EU would not make a “buffer”

That was indeed bad wording, I apologise. What I meant was that the EU would gain strategic depth and more advantageous launch site arrangements for missile warfare and whatnot, which would be useful for deterrence. I am from the Eastern periphery as well, and TBH I feel that there indeed is a first/second class EU citizen divide mainly along whether your country joined before or after 2004 (which would make me a second class citizen), but I feel that that particular division is getting less pronounced.

>The EU is not trying to “buy up Ukraine at a discount”, they are pushing for Ukrainian EU membership, which would be mutually beneficial. On the one hand, the EU would gain massive strategic food production and a large experienced military, and further buffer area towards Russia.

EU tried to get its own minerals deal with Ukraine in the wake of Trump demands.

https://www.politico.eu/article/critical-minerals-rare-earths-deal-eu-not-donald-trump/

Also Ukraine joining the EU would not make a "buffer", unless you would argue in terms of first and second class EU countries, with Ukraine being designated to become a second class one. Ukraine currently is the "buffer" as it is aligned with the EU, but not part of it, so the EU does not bear the same responsibilities towards Ukraine as to other EU members.

Russia is gaining so little territory that it really doesn't matter with regards to the overall war. The frontlines shifted single towns in the past three years, and there are still Ukrainian forces even on Russian territory. For example, one of the largest frontline movements in a straight line was from Avdiivka to Udachne in the past 18 months.

That is 70 kilometers towards Kyiv, so let's round up to around 50 kilometers over a year. Kyiv is another 600 kilometers, so if they kept this pace, they would get there by 2037. Extrapolating their current - verified, so again a very low estimate - loss rate, it would require around 15000 more tanks, and around half a million people dead, and even more wounded, again, by a very, very low estimate done by BBC et al., these are the people they found by name.

So all this is an incredibly Russian-tilted assessment, as Avdiivka was an Ukrainian salient closed by Russians, while Udachne is a Russian salient, so this rate of advancement could not even be sustained in the vicinity of Avdiivka, much less the entire frontline. Much less while outperforming the peacetime production of the whole USSR in its heyday.

Zelensky's administration - it is incorrect to call it his "rule", as he has been elected in a democratic and transparent manner that anyone could audit, unlike Putin - is going to end certainly either way shortly after the war ends, and is not really a factor in ceasefire negotiations for two reasons.

One, after a definite end to the war, he only has another 5 year term at maximum, so he is not going to be a perpetual dictator like Putin, it's more like a Churchill situation there, the country is at war so it's impossible to hold elections The other reason is that a simple ceasefire will not make elections viable again, as the martial law will not end until the war does, so Zelensky will stay in office.

The EU is not trying to "buy up Ukraine at a discount", they are pushing for Ukrainian EU membership, which would be mutually beneficial. On the one hand, the EU would gain massive strategic food production and a large experienced military, and further buffer area towards Russia.

Ukraine would in turn get direct security guarantees going way beyond NATO, a nuclear deterrent, and immense amounts of monetary support, as in free money intended to build up Ukraine to be a good trading partner. They would both gain full entry to each other's markets, so in that regard, Ukraine would not be "bought up" by the EU, they would *become* the EU, with full voting rights and representation in government.

Tariffs and weapons are needed yesterday, not in 50 days which will become 100 and later 365 and ... The Orange has been enabling Putin for like a half year now and he isn't stopping. He doesn't care about Ukraine at all, he just wants to appease Putin 🤷‍♂️

The main goal is to stop people from dying with hopes of making the stopping of the dying permanent. Considering Russia wants all of Ukraine and Ukraine obviously doesn't want to be taken over by Russia, there isn't much middle ground to build upon a ceasefire.

The best way to ensure peace is to give Ukraine the tools they need to repel the invader. Secondary tariffs on anyone helping Russia is certainly helpful in repelling the invader.

There can be various purposes to a ceasefire.

• The most direct one is that a ceasefire gives a space in which diplomatic options can be discussed as both sides believe that there could be an opening where they gain more than with continued fighting.

• The other direct option is that both sides believe that they can achieve a temporary ceasefire to rearm/regroup for subsequent fighting, believing that they can do so better than the enemy.

• There could be external or internal political pressure to attempt diplomatic options, which will subsequently be derailed

• There could be humanitarian reasons, albeit that seems to not be relevant these days, with humanitarian reasons being given as pretense at best

• There could be religious reasons, such as the observation of a shared holiday, albeit that also seems to not be relevant these days

For Ukraine as it stands there is little reason to believe that Ukraine will be able to retake their territory fully, unless the support from the West would come in the shape of boots on the ground and massive amounts of arms. As for Russia it seems Russia is slowly gaining territory while incurring high losses and taking very bad economic hits at home. So there could come a point of collapse of the Russian army. From Ukraines perspective however, unless that happens, if Russia gets weaker, they could always retreat to a reinforced line and take the gains they have made.

Accepting defeat probably will not be taken lightly and will be the certain end to Zelensky's rule, so i don't think he's to enthusiastic about a ceasefire. But it also seems that the Western Allies, in particular the US are not willing to give Ukraine what it takes and rather see an end to the war, with the EU countries probably following the US in trying to recoup some of the military spending by buying up Ukraine at a discount.

For Putin on the other hand it is questionable, if he can sell the current state as a "victory" that justifies the losses. I guess for Russia to agree to a long term ceasefire they would demand to keep the current territories and be immediately relieved of sanctions.

Aaaaaaaaaand it's gone.

HE is the biggest and only tool and he's not even in a toolbox.

So he's threatening to tariff China again. Chickening out in three... Two... One ...

Not only doesn't understand what a tariff is, he thinks it's some magic word to make anything change and him get credit for it.

If he didn't have full blown dementia I'd say he's an idiot. The ones around him going along with it, they ARE idiots.

It would be more impressive if he implemented the tariffs first and promise to remove them when a cease fire has been achieved. Everybody will assume he'll chicken out otherwise, including Russia.

One of the only things he's ever said that (almost) makes sense but he sure doesn't understand the concept of using *all* the tools in his toolbox.

There is almost no Russia trade, so this is meaningless bullshit.

Nice distraction from Epstein files!

He just really really really want that nobel prize, just to spite Obama.

So sanctions are no good now?

Taco taco man! I wanna be a taco man!

Trump should stuff it

I don't understand the long-term purpose of a cease-fire. Is it an admission that Ukraine will not be able to retake occupied territory and an attempt to limit further losses?