@KipPotapych Thanks for your very long reply.
Geez, you really reply to EVERYTHING!
Lol. Won’t be the case this time. I’ll give everyone and myself a break and be brief, if I can help it.
As you said, it's more a matter of optimism or pessimism.
No, I said it is optimism vs realism. I don’t believe I expressed pessimism in any of my posts here. Often, quite the opposite, actually.
You made a good point when you say that we gave them much more than what we intended to give them at the beginning.
But, especially the European Union, made a clear decision to support Ukraine for as long (and for as much) as it takes.
Again, because this is extremely important: what is supposed to take place? We don’t know. Until Ukraine is satisfied or defeated? Neither should align with our goals here. Reinstatement of Ukrainian borders to the “internationally recognized” boundaries? That’s not going to happen, I think that much should be clear to everyone by now. “Strategic defeat” of Russia? We already declared that over a year ago. Ukraine having an upper hand? That also already happened and went over a year ago. Even if that is the goal, we need to have a clear understanding what the “upper hand” is and that is clearly lacking. And so on.
In general, we do not appear to have an objective here. You can’t make a plan and provide support accordingly if you do not have an objective. Whatever Ukraine has in mind is completely unrealistic, idiotic even. Zelensky even reduced his “peace formula” theme for the upcoming summit in Switzerland or so he implies (I believe you posted the Reuters interview yourself, so I won’t bother with citations). The main theme now is the nuclear safety, safe navigation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov (which Ukraine currently has nothing to with and likely the only one that can pose a threat to anyone there), exchange of all POWs, and return of children. Basically, he talks about things that everyone “on the fence” (I hate this phrase) should have no issues with supporting. He is also now taking liberty of personally contacting and inviting leaderships of various countries to attend. This is in spite of Switzerland specifically stating that they are the ones doing that. Why such a change of heart and tactics? The answer is pretty simple: with less than a month to go, only 50 out 160 invitees
said they will send their representatives. According to the Swiss, half of those 50 are non-European. The alarm bells must be ringing and reasonably so. Biden himself, probably after looking at how things are playing out,
decided to attend a fundraiser in Hollywood along side Julia Roberts and George Clooney instead (must be a “zing” here in terms location and actors). For now, the summit seems to be a failure long before it began. We shall see what happens though.
Zelensky counted on this. He thought that the West and, in particular Europe, would give enough ammunitions and weapons. And Europe didn't.
Whose fault is it that he counted on it? Europe’s? Not really. Europe didn’t have enough ammunition to give to begin with. To believe that they would supply tanks and missiles in 2022 was insane. But I feel like we are starting/continuing to go in circles here.
No matter how much they gave already. Despite the huge number of vehicles and ammunitions delivered, it was still like 5x less than what was needed to vanquish Putin's army.
This is one of the keys though. Not sure about the multiplier, but they do not have enough to provide. Isn’t it clear at this point? Even if they wanted to give more than they can afford, they do not have enough equipment to give. I am not sure where the confusion is. They didn't have it before and they especially and certainly do not have it now. Just to make it clear, we are talking about Europe. Poland probably has more than anyone else there now and they surely aren’t going to give any of the “good stuff” up.
A quick thought on this note. It wouldn’t be completely crazy on the part of Russia to keep this pressured and heated heads in Europe believing that Russia might invade NATO next in order to further suppress deliveries to Ukraine and instead spend the scarce resources on their own rearmament in the face of fear of the bigger war, the risk of which supplying Ukraine with more sophisticated weapons also escalates.
Of course, nobody expected the West to give enough vehicles to match the Russians. Ukrainians wouldn't have enough trained men to drive them anyway.
That would be another part of the puzzle, wouldn’t it be?
However, if it was possible to quickly match the Russians equipment wise back in the second half of 2022, Ukraine would have more than enough men as they had more personnel than the Russians at the time, which is part of the reason the Russians failed.
But the fact is that, when Zelensky said that a massive number of shells was urgently needed, we were unable to give them.
That is because we didn’t have anything else to give. Yet, we still delivered for the 2023 counteroffensive.
To end with my plead in the defence of Zelensky: Every time a country made a donation to Ukraine, he personally thanked this country for the aid. Not matter how small this aid was. Every time. (But you don't read Ukrinform, right?)
It's not like he only complains and blames us.
Yes, he says thanks, which is usually followed by a “but”.
No his numbers are not real. 155 shells cost now between $3000 and $5000
No, he is correct. But it certainly is fluid and debatable. I have seen the cost estimates as high 10,000 US dollars per shell for the EU. According to this, his numbers are reasonable (he is a smart guy):
In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,171) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,489.60).
DOD’s early success may founder on Congressional inaction, while Europe’s private firms await orders.
www.defenseone.com
Regardless, either of the figures work for the argument he was making.
Then, but you know it, there is the quality and accuracy. If I remember correctly it takes 4x less NATO shells (4 or 5) to hit a target than Russian ones (15 to 20). If this ratio is correct, we win.
I read many various claims on this topic and don’t believe the number is nearly as high. I also read various claims about the fragmentation and whatnot. But I am not going to comment on any of it.
At the end of the day, you yourself mentioned something about quantity becoming quality, didn’t you? This is most certainly is the case with artillery more than anything else in this war.
Another note, the ammunition is not the only issue here. The barrels it is fired from is as big of a (in some cases probably even a bigger) problem.
In regards to “we win”. “We” are supposedly not in this war, so “we” cannot win.
But, the most important mistake he made is over simplification. A war is not won just by arithmetic. I'm sure Khodorkovsky knows this. He is not stupid. He says that to show his support for the Russian victory in the CBO (Cyrillic character: pronounced SVO). He had been jailed under Putin and, I think, he doesn't want to be in trouble again.
Sorry, this is a complete rubbish. So complete that it couldn't be more complete. He wasn’t talking in Russia. He will likely never make another step on the Russian soil ever again. This much is clear, at the very least. He also said things since he’s been out of prison that should put him in a lot more trouble than his little speech there. His basic premise is that a lot more weapons need to be supplied because otherwise Russia will go to Poland and elsewhere.
Zelensky may not be a Churchill, but his opening comment "I need ammunition, not a ride" earned him enough goodwill for a long time.
He certainly isn’t Churchill and not even close.
As for that comment, did it even happen? Personally, I doubt. But it is pretty good for a movie script, nonetheless. But with someone like George Clooney that Biden decided to hang with instead playing the main character, not Zelensky.
Russian Telegramm rumor mill vclaims that ukraine hit a russian ballistic missile early warning radar in Armavir, Russia.
This appears to be quite risky and especially so if storm shadows should have been used.
I have been thinking about this today and it seems like a very poorly thought through move by Ukraine. This radar has nothing to do with Ukraine. This radar has everything to do with the nuclear “warfare” that we are trying to avoid at all costs, so to speak. I would guess, this strike should have direct consequences on the decision whether to allow Ukraine use the western long-range capabilities to strike targets inside Russia. Yeah, I think it was quite dumb on their part, especially while asking for what they are asking currently.