Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Ukraine War

Jump to new
Would Winston Churchill have signed such a deal when the UK was on its knees? World has gone soft I can hear the knees knocking from here there is only one answer to Putin and that’s strength something the current cowards in the white don’t have
 
IFocus said:
Would Winston Churchill have signed such a deal when the UK was on its knees? World has gone soft I can hear the knees knocking from here there is only one answer to Putin and that’s strength something the current cowards in the white don’t have
Click to expand...

Look up Neville Chamberlain
 
Then you had the Australian Government, that wanted to hang the flag at half mast, as a show of respect when Hirohito passed away.
 
IFocus said:
Would Winston Churchill have signed such a deal when the UK was on its knees? World has gone soft I can hear the knees knocking from here there is only one answer to Putin and that’s strength something the current cowards in the white don’t have
Click to expand...
Winston Churchill did, England finally paid back the U.S for WW2 support, in 2006.


When did Britain pay off the Lend-Lease?
Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States, which were finally repaid in 2006.

Also
In July 1940 newly appointed Prime Minister Churchill requested help from FDR, after Britain had sustained the loss of 11 destroyers to the German Navy over a 10-day period. Roosevelt responded by exchanging 50 destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and Newfoundland.
A bit of history on the U.S pre WW2:

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov
During World War II, the United States began to provide significant military supplies and other assistance to the Allies in September 1940, even though the United States did not enter the war until December 1941. Much of this aid flowed to the United Kingdom and other nations already at war with Germany and Japan through an innovative program known as Lend-Lease.

FDR Signing the Lend-Lease Bill
When war broke out in Europe in September 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that while the United States would remain neutral in law, he could “not ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.” Roosevelt himself made significant efforts to help nations engaged in the struggle against Nazi Germany and wanted to extend a helping hand to those countries that lacked the supplies necessary to fight against the Germans. The United Kingdom, in particular, desperately needed help, as it was short of hard currency to pay for the military goods, food, and raw materials it needed from the United States.

Though President Roosevelt wanted to provide assistance to the British, both American law and public fears that the United States would be drawn into the conflict blocked his plans. The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The American military opposed the diversion of military supplies to the United Kingdom. The Army’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, anticipated that Britain would surrender following the collapse of France, and thus American supplies sent to the British would fall into German hands. Marshall and others therefore argued that U.S. national security would be better served by reserving military supplies for the defense of the Western Hemisphere. American public opinion also limited Roosevelt’s options. Many Americans opposed involving the United States in another war. Even though American public opinion generally supported the British rather than the Germans, President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in the European conflict.



You are definitely correct that the World has gone soft, there is now an expectation that if you make a bad choice, someone will start a 'go fund me' to fix it.
The expectation that someone will take responsibility for your poor choices, permeates through Western society now and is one of the more notable achievements of the left.
 
Last edited:
IFocus said:
Exactly “ peace in our time “ appeasement to Hitler didn’t work same as Trumps appeasement to Putin Trumps a coward couldn’t go to Vietnam because of a broken toe nail
Click to expand...
So now the debate has moved on from actual financial war related debts and how they are dealt with, to personal attacks on the individual, how unusual. Not.
The tried and true response of the rusted on. Lol
 
IFocus said:
Exactly “ peace in our time “ appeasement to Hitler didn’t work same as Trumps appeasement to Putin Trumps a coward couldn’t go to Vietnam because of a broken toe nail
Click to expand...

farmerge said:
@sptrawler At least the British PM showed some warmth and humanity.
A bit more than that Mad Man POTUS
Click to expand...

OK I will frame it another way, if you two are happy for Trump to give more taxpayers money to the Ukraine, for nothing in return.
You must also be happy for Australia, to do the same, so following on from that.

In 2023, the gross federal debt in the United States amounted to around 93,500 U.S. dollars per capita or $150,661.24 AUD per person.

In 2023 , the gross government debt in Australia is around 31,768 U.S dollars per capita or $51,189.37 AUD per person


So if Albo wanted to give Ukraine $100,000 AUD per person in Australia as a gift, which would put us in the same per capita financial position as each and every U.S taxpayer, you two would be fine with that? Actually you would be bagging him if he didn't.

So that would be Albo giving Ukraine a gift of $2.7 trillion AUD, that should give them the ability to kick Russia's butt.

Nice, nothing like giving away other peoples money, the loonie left having a great time until they run out of other peoples money, to give away ( as Margaret Thatcher once said ). :roflmao:

Sign us up for some of that, or whatever you are smoking. 😂


www.statista.com

Topic: National debt of the U.S.

Find the most up-to-date statistics and facts on the national debt of the United States.
www.statista.com www.statista.com


www.worlddata.info

Debts an budget deficits in Australia

Public debt and budget deficit over the last 23 years in Australia incl. comparison with EU average
www.worlddata.info www.worlddata.info


Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com worldpopulationreview.com

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Debt-to-GDP Ratios (%)​

CountryDebt to GDP Ratio (%)
Japan264%
Venezuela241%
Sudan186%
Greece173%
Singapore168%
Eritrea164%
Lebanon151%
Italy142%
United States129%
Cape Verde127%


In 2022-23, all Australia general government net debt (L2) was 30.6% of GDP. It has: fallen from 33.4% in 2021-22.

Who is richer, the United States or Australia?


In terms of mean wealth, the average Australian adult had US$550,110 in 2021 after seeing an annual increase of US$66,350 in their net worth. This put Australia at number four in the world, after Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong.
 
Last edited:
Apologies, Australia's mean wealth has increased since 2021, we now are near the top of the pops.

Another 400,000 Australians to become millionaires by 2028

And a further 400,000 Australians are expected to become millionaires by 2028, data from UBS' Global Wealth Report, shows.
www.forbes.com.au www.forbes.com.au

Top 10 countries for median wealth​

  1. Luxembourg: US$372,258
  2. Australia: US$261,805
  3. Belgium: US$256,185
  4. Hong Kong SAR: US$206,859
  5. New Zealand: US$202,525
  6. Denmark: US$193,669
  7. Switzerland: US$171,035
  8. United Kingdom: US$163,515
  9. Norway: US$152,233
  10. Canada: US$142,587

Top 10 countries for average wealth​

  1. Switzerland: US$706,612
  2. Luxembourg: US$607,524
  3. Hong Kong SAR: US$582,000
  4. United States: US$564,862
  5. Australia: US$546,184
  6. Denmark: US$448,802
  7. New Zealand: US$408,231
  8. Singapore: US$397,708
  9. Norway: US$382,575
  10. Canada: US$375,800
 
Dona Ferentes said:
off topic

don't do drugs
Click to expand...
I would never believe that you don't. 😂

And it's very on topic, when our posters are taking moral high ground, on an immoral basis. ;)

But that is very common on ASF these days, as you know, everyone wants to be a moderator. 😂
 
Last edited:
IFocus said:
Would Winston Churchill have signed such a deal when the UK was on its knees? World has gone soft I can hear the knees knocking from here there is only one answer to Putin and that’s strength something the current cowards in the white don’t have
Click to expand...
He literally did sign a deal that eventually bankrupt the British. I'm sure they didn't pay it off till the mid 2000s
Nevermind SP already wrote it up.
 
sptrawler said:
I would never believe that you don't. 😂

And it's very on topic, when our posters are taking moral high ground, on an immoral basis. ;)

But that is very common on ASF these days, as you know, everyone wants to be a moderator. 😂
Click to expand...

The problem with the deal as previously mentioned is not that the USA get half the mining assets. Zelensky himself offered it.

The problem is that in exchange Ukraine only gets a ceasefire from Putin which will only allow Russia to re-arm and attack in a couple of months time and no more help from the USA.

This is existential for Ukraine. Russia will conquer them. Wipe out their language and kill or transport to Siberia the remaining Ukrainians.

They need a peace treaty with at least some backing from the USA if Putin breaks it. Europe needs to be part of it also.

Trump hates Zelensky which is a problem. I am sure they can get him to resign on the spot if they offered a better deal for Ukraine.

I am scared Trump has done a deal with Russia and this deal is just a distraction. Why did they set him up otherwise?
 
Interesting that UK and Europe think they can fight Russia, when they won't even defend their own borders.

I keep asking myself, to what end? All the sovereignty arguments are BS and European boots on the ground will end in a pan European war, if not ww3 outright.

This is not mid 20th century folks and an upscale conflagration would be disaster for the world... over a sliver of land and a few ethnic Russians?

What's in this for us, the West?
 
Knobby22 said:
The problem with the deal as previously mentioned is not that the USA get half the mining assets. Zelensky himself offered it.

The problem is that in exchange Ukraine only gets a ceasefire from Putin which will only allow Russia to re-arm and attack in a couple of months time and no more help from the USA.

This is existential for Ukraine. Russia will conquer them. Wipe out their language and kill or transport to Siberia the remaining Ukrainians.

They need a peace treaty with at least some backing from the USA if Putin breaks it. Europe needs to be part of it also.

Trump hates Zelensky which is a problem. I am sure they can get him to resign on the spot if they offered a better deal for Ukraine.

I am scared Trump has done a deal with Russia and this deal is just a distraction. Why did they set him up otherwise?
Click to expand...
Europe has to be the deterent IMO, even if the U.S gave an undertaking, it would in all probability just be supply of arms and equipment anyway.
Also if Russia/ Putin has every intention of expansion a guarantee from the U.S to support Ukraine, wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on IMO, the U.S will only get involved if there is something in it for them history shows that.

If the U.S or even the EU was interested in deploying troops, they would have done so already, what would change for the U.S that would encourage them to send troops, it is more in the EU's best interest to deploy troops, they are the ones under far greater threat.

The U.S has always put itself first, but it has never been as financially exposed as it is at the moment, the unfortunate thing is Trump is the one negotiating and he really is a piece of work, but the issue of the bottomless pit of debt wont go away and even if someone else gets in U.S aid wont go back to what it was IMO.
So with regard a deal with Putin, why would Trump do a deal with Putin, when he would already have what he wanted from Zelenskyy. It wouldn't make sense, it would be far easier for the U.S to enforce the terms of a minerals agreement with Ukraine than it would be to enforce it with Russia.

My guess is, the whole problem was Trumps ego, he wanted to show that he can get things done quickly because he is the DON.
He has a lot of balls in the air with the Canada, Mexico, Panama canal, Iceland, Israel/ Hamas, China tariffs, all started within a month of getting in the big chair, if he doesn't bed some of them down he will rapidly lose momentum and credibility plus he only has one term to get his legacy in place. ;)

He couldn't afford to have Zelenskyy tell him what to do, when he is trying to stare down Xi and Putin, his ego, his personality and his quest wouldn't allow that to happen.
Now Zelenskyy has got to get loans from the U.K and no doubt the EU will put pressure on Zelenskyy for the minerals Trump wants, in return for a security agreement and membership in NATO . Then the EU can use the mineral supply, as a bargaining chip with Trump, in the re arming of the EU.
Win/Win

Interesting times and good fun speculating. :2twocents
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

R
Popular Business Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
galumay
galumay
R
Portfolio Balance
Replies
8
Views
2K
Belli
B
R
HSBC FTSE All-World Index Fund
Replies
2
Views
1K
Belli
B
R
Small & Medium Cap Stocks
Replies
0
Views
877
robertbanking
R
R
Predicting Stock Bottom & Reversal
Replies
0
Views
2K
robertbanking
R
Top