The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[swerve]

Sort of similar to how Russia drone strikes forced Ukraine to put manpower into drone-defence teams with HMGs and AAA. Germany was of course more vulnerable since they didn't have "neutral" countries providing them aid.

Yes, but the Germans were looting occupied territories & importing millions of workers from them, which helped to maintain production levels in Germany.

 

[Feanor]

Yes, but the Germans were looting occupied territories & importing millions of workers from them, which helped to maintain production levels in Germany.

The comparison is limited of course. In my opinion Ukraine is less vulnerable to disruptions in industrial production from Russian strikes because the Ukrainian military is less dependent on domestic production then the German one during WWII. Ukraine is more vulnerable to strikes against incoming weapon shipments, since weapons have to enter Ukraine through a known set of entry routes and Russia regularly strikes facilities associated (rightly or wrongly) with incoming military aid.

 

[swerve]

Monetary figures are almost meaningless. At the current exchange value of Euro/Dollar spent as aid, and actual military value, I would be skeptical of any plan short of $500 billion - $1 trillion range.
The US and EU provided nearly nominal $300 billion in aid to Ukraine, and possibly a similar number to Russia.
But where is this gargantuan Ukrainian arsenal?

As Europe debates the $200 billion loan, here's what Ukraine could buy with that money:

• 90,000 SHORAD interceptors.
• 10,000 LRAD/BMD interceptors.
• 10,000 heavy AFVs (MBTs, IFVs etc).
• 400 5th gen aircraft.
• 100 AH-64 helicopters.
• 1,000 SPH.

And still have $90 billion left.

Calculation:
SHORAD interceptor - $50k.
BMD interceptor - $700k.
Heavy AFV - $5 million.
5th gen aircraft - $100 million.
AH-64 - $50 million.
SPH - $4 million.

Some of these are actual current day prices, some are slightly reduced to account for economy of scale and current low production volumes, some are inflated just to reinforce my point.

I don't see even a fraction of that arsenal in Ukraine's hands, despite foreign donors claiming almost triple that amount in aid.

Goes to show just how unserious a lot of the debate on the topic is.

You've not been paying attention.

Firstly, a lot of the aid has been approved, but not yet spent. For example, as of 31 Dec 2024, the US congress had appropriated $182.8 billion. Deduct $2.7 bn which expired without being spent, $39.6bn appropriated, but not yet obligated (i.e. if it isn't "obligated" by a specific date it's cancelled). That leaves $140.4 bn which is, at least in theory, committed to Ukraine - of which $83.4bn had actually been spent.

Secondly, much of the money that has been spent is financial & humanitarian aid, which won't appear in Ukraine as weapons. EU aid has a bigger financial share than US aid. That money has been propping up Ukraine behind the front lines so that the soldiers get paid, fed, etc., hospitals get equipment, medicines, & so on, schools are kept running . . . As of last month, EU financial & humanitarian aid was $73 billion, not including billions on supporting Ukrainian refugees & billions in concessionary loans.

Thirdly, military aid includes such things as training, provision of spares, ammunition & so on, not just missiles, aircraft, AFVs & artillery. The Ukrainians have been burning through a lot of that.

So, even if your prices are right, which is highly debatable, the numbers would be a lot less than what you say.

 

[KipPotapych]

Then how do you explain Trump's concurrent massive reinforcement of EU via increased defense budgets?

I don’t think this requires much explanations as Trump (most explicitly of all others) has demanded for Europe to increase their defense budgets for a very long time. Including quite explicit threats of leaving NATO and not following through on the American obligations (under Article 5). And so on. I feel like I may be missing something in your question because this is probably the most clear part of the entire “game”.

I think a true pro-Russia approach would involve security guarantees for Europe and increased American deployments to the small baltics and along Russia's and Ukraine's de facto borders.

But the approach is not pro-Russian. In fact, I find it hard to take people seriously, regardless of their level of expertise, when they start talking about “pro-Russian” Trump, “Russian assets” about his entire administration and appointees, and so on. This is clearly not the case. However, many serious people claim it to be exactly that.

I also disagree about the American deployment in Ukraine. This is pretty much a categorical and a huge no from the Russians. I have little doubt that the war will continue until it is solidified in writing that there will be no US troops deployed in Ukraine and Ukriane will not be in NATO. I actually allow that Russia may agree on Euro troops, but it is a definite no for the American presence. This is a good chunk of the entire issue that they are trying to resolve and resolve it permanently (as far as the agreements allow).


To provide additional arguments for my view of things outlined in the previous post, here are some highlights from Kellogg earlier today:




To me, it is abundantly clear that not only they don’t care about what happens to Ukraine, they don’t see it as a relevant player, but a “mule” that needs to be “hit with a two by four” (two by four is just a piece of lumber used in basic construction, for those who are not accustomed to the language; the name comes from the measurements - 2 x 4 inches, with true measurement being 1.5 x 3.5 inches - and comes in various lengths, the most common being 8 feet long). Like I said a few days ago, whenever that was, they don’t see Ukraine as having any amount of weight in this world to have a loud voice.

And the reality is that this is how things work in the real world, not the imaginary world that some people live in. The stark difference in Trump’s approach is that usually these same things are discussed behind closed doors, in a “diplomatic” manner. But this is not the forte of the current administration.

PS if reading those highlights gives an impression, however remote, I didn’t write his speech and I doubt he read my past few posts on this forum. Laughing here.

 

[Fredled]

Putin showing willingness to start peace talks: 4 dead, 30 injured in Kryvih Rih + one dead in Sumy.
Last time Putin expressed peaceful intent, he fired ballistic missiles on Odessa.

I don't want to talk about Odessa

(On the same event as above)

Russia hit a hotel in Krivoy Rog. The city is a major logistics hub and this isn't the first hotel there that got hit.

Russians often target hotels where foreigners are staying.
(By the way: Thanks against for your report! )

Canada 'ready and able' to join Ukraine peacekeeping force.
Even if it's a small contingent, it's good news for Ukraine. The larger the coalition, the best.

Reportedly, Trump’s team is engaging with the Ukrainian opposition.

Poroshenko confirms meeting with Trump representatives.
Despite being repressed by Zelensky's dictatorship (LOL but true), he supports the main views of the Ukrainian government on the war, Europe and election, and confirms Zelensky as a legitimate president.
If Trump hoped that Poroshenko would make a more pro-Russian and anti-Zelensky candidate, it failed.

Peace Talks:

We're now in discussions to coordinate a meeting with the Ukrainians, next week with the Ukrainians in Saudi Arabia"

link
Will Zelensky be invited?

Europe's new Ariane 6 rocket successfully deployed a French spy satellite
How fast! Barely one day after Trump denied satellite imagery to Ukraine...

France's Eutelsat to replace Starlink in Ukraine: Stock surges 650%.

Russia hit a Ukrainian infantry unit in the open in a Dnepropetrovsk training area, total casualties are unclear, but Ukrainian official sources felt the need to address it, so it's not an insubstantial strike. Some commenters are claiming 50 KIA but this is completely unconfirmed. The strike was likely done with Tornado-S missiles. There are also unconfirmed reports of foreign instructors being present.

According to Ukrinform, 30 Ukrainian soldiers died and many were wounded. The dead toll could be closer to 50 if some of the wounded died in the meantime.
There was a severe breach in safety measures. Some head are going to roll at the training center.
They don't talk about foreign instructors but it would surprise no one if there were some.

Another bad news for Ukraine:
Russian missile strike killed dozens of soldiers and left scores wounded at a military training ground in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region

Toresk:

Many Russian sources are saying that the counter-attack at Toretsk is significant and doesn't appear to be some clever plan. Some are totally at a loss of sources. In general the boost in manpower coupled with the supplies Ukraine received relatively recently has given Ukraine the ability to push back on several sections of the front.

According to Heinrich Torsten, Ukrainians could (he always speaks at the conditional tense) have been there all the time. DeepState kept showing Toresk divided in grey and occupied zones while not providing evidence. Recent geolocation showing Ukrainian inside Toresk may suggest that the grey zone was accurate.
Once again: It could be.

Nato:

This means that Ukraine coming under NATO is more symbolic than practical. Ukraine can definitely standardize its armed forces on NATO standards, join international exercises, participate in strategic forums, and share knowledge and technology even without admission. This is always first and foremost a matter of will.

quote
True. More over, the quantity of weaponry given to Ukraine has turned Ukraine into the strongest NATO army after the US even before being accepted into the alliance.
This shows how ludicrous Putin's obsession with NATO is.

The EU, on the other hand, makes mandatory military assistance to any EU member being attacked. It means that when Ukraine will be in the EU, all EU states will have to intervene with military force if Russia tries to invade again even if they are not in NATO.
Because the EU has no army (the military is at national level), Putin thinks that it's powerless.

I think the argument is that he believes Europe should defend itself with some US aid. Europe should shoulder most of the burden.

It's an argument I also agree with. And if that's what the real goal, he succeeded beyond expectation and very quickly (at least if the €800B pledge for defence increase in the EU comes through).
But recently it's not "with some US aid" at all any more since he stopped military aid to Ukraine in the midst of the battle.

his is pretty much a categorical and a huge no from the Russians. I have little doubt that the war will continue until it is solidified in writing that there will be no US troops deployed in Ukraine and Ukriane will not be in NATO. I actually allow that Russia may agree on Euro troops, but it is a definite no for the American presence.

Putin already said no to French and UK troops. If the contingent is small enough that it pauses no threat to Russian's Special Operations, he may still agree, I think.

Like I said a few days ago, whenever that was, they don’t see Ukraine as having any amount of weight in this world to have a loud voice.

IMO Ukrainians should, and IMO, will sign whatever agreement Trump gives them, even if there is no defence guarantee and conditions are grotesque.
Two cases are possible:
1/ Trump honours his unwritten promise to provide military aid to Ukraine to win the war (in the event that Putin keeps on rejecting negotiations,). Then Ukraine wins, which is the ultimate goal for the Ukrainians.
Later, if Ukrainians are unable to honour their debt toward the US because the amounts are unrealistic, they can always negotiate a new deal with the next administration for something more reasonable.
2/ Trump doesn't provide any assistance at all and Ukraine lose more territories. Then after the war, Ukrainians just have to tell Americans to go to hell with their deal.

“hit with a two by four”

Thanks for the explanation. To be reused in future conversations. LOL

 

[swerve]

If you know how to spend even half of the total amount in 6 months, well, let's say you should be appointed NATO sec gen.
You can't just turn money into equipment...

I believe even 800 billions in 4 years are irrealistic.
Unless you convert to war economy, which is not the case.

That €800 bn is over more than 4 years. It's talking about €650 bn over 4 years, & it doesn't say that would mean €650 bn of stuff delivered in 4 years.

Some of the money being spent now is paying for increases in manufacturing capacity, & improving pay & conditions for troops so more can be recruited, to use the new equipment which will arrive later. Some countries are struggling to operate the equipment they have, because of personnel shortages.

 

[swerve]

...The EU, on the other hand, makes mandatory military assistance to any EU member being attacked. It means that when Ukraine will be in the EU, all EU states will have to intervene with military force if Russia tries to invade again even if they are not in NATO.
Because the EU has no army (the military is at national level), Putin thinks that it's powerless.
...

Nor does NATO have an army. Its members have national armies.