The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

koxinga

Well-Known Member
This is in my opinion from whatever angle you see is clearly a strong rebuke to Zelensky. Basically he says to Zelensky, you are disappointed not having a seat in the meeting, well tough luck. You have your chances, and now just follow me, or else.

He always back to his standing that this war will not happen if he is the president at that time. He clearly put Biden as fault to this war and gives massage not only to Zelensky, but also to EU, I'm in charge now. I'm going to make a deal with Putin as it should be if I'm President in 22, and you thus all better just follow me.
Neither Zelensky or Putin will get ultimately what they want if they drag this on, but both are stubborn enough to continue on the premise of securing a "stronger" position.

Trump is in a sense, correct that they had their chances on the battlefield (hundred of thousands dead, billions in material wasted) and either has any decisive advantage due to limitations that both sides have (e.g slow supply of weapons from the West to Ukraine, demographic constraints or in Russia case, running out of tanks to throw at Ukraine, corruption, incompetency)

Should Zelensky be at the nego table? On the surface, yes, since it is Ukraine's future at stake. But Trump should have judged that having him around means he will fight every inch with the Russians on the table. I suspect even agreeing on the location for talks would have taken months, compared to him calling MBS and arranging the meeting directly in Saudi.

Will it be a flawed deal? Absolutely. But then again, a perfect deal was never on the table.

I suspect he is indifferent to whether people think he is supporting demoracy / Ukraine or supporting the devil / Russia. But in Trump world, a deal that stops the war (and stops US from sending more aid) is the deal / the real reason he is doing these actions. This is also the key worry for Europe. Not that he is "parroting" Russia, but more because he is not invested in a principled/value reason to do things.
 
Last edited:

Fredled

Active Member
rsemmes said:
Why should any pause take place? Ukraine is not even talking, is it?
Because as long as Russian troops keep attacking and Russian Shaheds and missiles still pound Uk5raine, there is no result. There is no other parameter to consider. Everything else is meaningless babbling.

I'm not impressed at all by the meeting in Saudi Arabia.
Trump offers Putin to stop providing weapons to Ukraine in exchange for a peace deal: It's not going to work. Trump is completely delusional. He even said that Zelensky started the war.
Putin will agree that the US stops providing weapons to Ukraine but will keep on attacking Ukraine regardless. And if Trump delivers weapons to Ukraine, he will keep on attacking as he does now because his troops are advancing even with US weapons in Ukrainian hands.

Putin is not interested in a deal that would freeze the front line where it is now. He will only agree on a deal where he will get enough additional territories immediately instead of spending another three years to conquer them.
If we don't offer this, he doesn't see the point to even talking.
He doesn't care that this war is sinking the Russian economy, that Soviet stockpiles are almost empty and that hundred of soldiers die every day. Military losses have no effect on his decisions.

rsemmes said:
Maybe Ukraine doesn't share your concept of "Theatre of Operations". (I don't.)
I am starting to think that you have a lot of "personal" concepts, like about "Asiatic", "general" or "Theatre of Operations"; the war is in eastern Ukraine, as far as I can remember.
They do. Zelensky repeatedly said that the outcome of war in Ukraine will define the future of Europe and that Ukraine is currently fighting for Europe's safety.
This is the sentiment of all the populations in Eastern Europe, who border Russia.
We must stop Putin not only in the Donbas but on the entire eastern border of the European Union. He will attack where ever he sees a weakness.

Why do you disagree?

MARKMILES77 said:
Lavrov has said the presence of any troops, from any NATO country, as part of a Peacekeeping force in Ukraine, is not acceptable to Russia.
Anything that could prevent the further invasion of Ukraine is inacceptable to Russia.

The goal is not to get something "acceptable to Russia", instead it's to prevent Russia from doing what is acceptable to them. In this case to stop their territorial expansion westward. If we need to deploy troops in Ukraine to stop them, we will do it.
It doesn't make sens to let the conditions for further invasion in Ukraine because after Ukraine, it will be another country. Putin already asked that the Baltic States leave NATO...

Ananda said:
He always back to his standing that this war will not happen if he is the president at that time. He clearly put Biden as fault to this war and gives massage not only to Zelensky, but also to EU, I'm in charge now. I'm going to make a deal with Putin as it should be if I'm President in 22, and you thus all better just follow me.
Some political experts are saying that Putin will try to outsmart Trump. But Trump is more clever than he looks like. He is able to say the most crazy, the most unthinkable things and tell the opposite the next day. Nobody should take seriously what Trump says. But when it comes too real decision, it's another story.

Rubio said:
Asked if the U.S. could officially remove Lavrov from its sanctions list, Rubio said that “we’re just not at that level of conversation yet.”
link

seaspear said:
President Trump's history with Russia does give credence to views he would not be able to be neutral
It's usual in the VIP real estate business in the US to welcome money from Russian oligarch or so called businessmen who wants to move money out of Russia.
It doesn't mean that it's going to influence Trump's policies toward Ukraine if this money was not linked to Putin or the Russian government. But there is matter for scrutinity.

koxinga said:
Neither Zelensky or Putin will get ultimately what they want if they drag this on, but both are stubborn enough to continue on the premise of securing a "stronger" position.
Zelensky doesn't drag this on. Putin does. Zelensky and the Ukrainian army is only trying to stop the Russian invasion of their country. Zlelensky has no possibility to stop the war unless he capitulates. Putin on the other hand, can stop the war tomorrow if he wanted.

koxinga said:
I suspect he is indifferent to whether people think he is supporting democracy / Ukraine or supporting the devil / Russia. But in Trump world, a deal that stops the war (and stops US from sending more aid) is the deal / the real reason he is doing these actions.
Trump is not indifferent to the lack of democracy in Russia or elsewhere. But his approach is different from the logic of sanctions. He thinks that making good commercial deals will help economic development and ultimately favour democracy and peace.
He offered to buy Gaza. He tried to buy North Korea. And now he will try to buy both Ukraine and Russia at the same time. It didn't work for obvious reasons but that's how he thinks.

Trump honestly desires to end the war. He is sensible to the issue of human suffering during wars. (It's my personal opinion). And even thought he knows that it will be unjust, he would promote giving some territories to Putin if the war can be stopped.
I also suspect that he aims at the Peace Price Nobel.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Why does Trump just keep sucking on Putin? I just don’t get it. And he will now have about half of Americans believing Ukraine started the war. It’s your fault my fist hurts because I punched you in the face.

And Trump maths is that somehow 50 billion of new gear and ammunition and 15 billion of old stuff has become 350 billions worth of military aid?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Why does Trump just keep sucking on Putin? I just don’t get it. And he will now have about half of Americans believing Ukraine started the war. It’s your fault my fist hurts because I punched you in the face.

And Trump maths is that somehow 50 billion of new gear and ammunition and 15 billion of old stuff has become 350 billions worth of military aid?
It's more then that for sure. The US spent quite a bit in '22 and '23. And iirc Biden's 2024 package was over 60 billion all by itself.

For context, it was quoted to Greece as something like 8-10 mln USD to repair old M2A2 ODS for their use. So the price tag of supplying old Bradley's to Ukraine "for free" could have been quite substantial. That's just one example.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It's more then that for sure. The US spent quite a bit in '22 and '23. And iirc Biden's 2024 package was over 60 billion all by itself.

For context, it was quoted to Greece as something like 8-10 mln USD to repair old M2A2 ODS for their use. So the price tag of supplying old Bradley's to Ukraine "for free" could have been quite substantial. That's just one example.
Lots of coin for sure, but lots of coin was spent pre-WW2. Lets not forget the hundreds of billions pissed away on the war on terror and the Iraq sinkhole.
 

Fredled

Active Member
No matter how much the US has given to Ukraine during the previous administration. What matters is under which conditions this aid was given. If it was given for free, Trump has no right, neither morally nor legally, to ask them to pay for that. Not in the current circumstances.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Lots of coin for sure, but lots of coin was spent pre-WW2. Lets not forget the hundreds of billions pissed away on the war on terror and the Iraq sinkhole.
True. US efforts in the Middle East post 9/11 dwarf aid to Ukraine. On the other hand this war is just under 3 years old and isn't winding down in terms of intensity.

No matter how much the US has given to Ukraine during the previous administration. What matters is under which conditions this aid was given. If it was given for free, Trump has no right, neither morally nor legally, to ask them to pay for that. Not in the current circumstances.
Well... you can always ask. The problem is that he isn't asking, he's demanding, under threat of unfriendly actions. The problem of course is, that he might have no right, but he does appear to have the ability. What do you do? Pass sanctions against the USA for supporting Russian aggression?
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Because as long as Russian troops keep attacking and Russian Shaheds and missiles still pound Uk5raine, there is no result. There is no other parameter to consider. Everything else is meaningless babbling.

I'm not impressed at all by the meeting in Saudi Arabia.
Trump offers Putin to stop providing weapons to Ukraine in exchange for a peace deal: It's not going to work. Trump is completely delusional. He even said that Zelensky started the war.
Putin will agree that the US stops providing weapons to Ukraine but will keep on attacking Ukraine regardless. And if Trump delivers weapons to Ukraine, he will keep on attacking as he does now because his troops are advancing even with US weapons in Ukrainian hands.

Putin is not interested in a deal that would freeze the front line where it is now. He will only agree on a deal where he will get enough additional territories immediately instead of spending another three years to conquer them.
If we don't offer this, he doesn't see the point to even talking.
He doesn't care that this war is sinking the Russian economy, that Soviet stockpiles are almost empty and that hundred of soldiers die every day. Military losses have no effect on his decisions.


They do. Zelensky repeatedly said that the outcome of war in Ukraine will define the future of Europe and that Ukraine is currently fighting for Europe's safety.
This is the sentiment of all the populations in Eastern Europe, who border Russia.
We must stop Putin not only in the Donbas but on the entire eastern border of the European Union. He will attack where ever he sees a weakness.

Why do you disagree?


Anything that could prevent the further invasion of Ukraine is inacceptable to Russia.

The goal is not to get something "acceptable to Russia", instead it's to prevent Russia from doing what is acceptable to them. In this case to stop their territorial expansion westward. If we need to deploy troops in Ukraine to stop them, we will do it.
It doesn't make sens to let the conditions for further invasion in Ukraine because after Ukraine, it will be another country. Putin already asked that the Baltic States leave NATO...


Some political experts are saying that Putin will try to outsmart Trump. But Trump is more clever than he looks like. He is able to say the most crazy, the most unthinkable things and tell the opposite the next day. Nobody should take seriously what Trump says. But when it comes too real decision, it's another story.

link

It's usual in the VIP real estate business in the US to welcome money from Russian oligarch or so called businessmen who wants to move money out of Russia.
It doesn't mean that it's going to influence Trump's policies toward Ukraine if this money was not linked to Putin or the Russian government. But there is matter for scrutinity.

Zelensky doesn't drag this on. Putin does. Zelensky and the Ukrainian army is only trying to stop the Russian invasion of their country. Zlelensky has no possibility to stop the war unless he capitulates. Putin on the other hand, can stop the war tomorrow if he wanted.


Trump is not indifferent to the lack of democracy in Russia or elsewhere. But his approach is different from the logic of sanctions. He thinks that making good commercial deals will help economic development and ultimately favour democracy and peace.
He offered to buy Gaza. He tried to buy North Korea. And now he will try to buy both Ukraine and Russia at the same time. It didn't work for obvious reasons but that's how he thinks.

Trump honestly desires to end the war. He is sensible to the issue of human suffering during wars. (It's my personal opinion). And even thought he knows that it will be unjust, he would promote giving some territories to Putin if the war can be stopped.
I also suspect that he aims at the Peace Price Nobel.
With regards to Trump buying Gaza for some peace deal ,please read the following article ,I'm not sure where you got the idea about North Korea likely untrue certainly Canada and Greenland have not suggested they were for sale
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
No matter how much the US has given to Ukraine during the previous administration. What matters is under which conditions this aid was given. If it was given for free, Trump has no right, neither morally nor legally, to ask them to pay for that. Not in the current circumstances.
I will answer by quoting myself (from last May):
The very first Economics textbook I had ever read began with another famous saying: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
What were the conditions though? Again, there is no such thing as a free.

It doesn’t matter, Ukraine doesn’t have anything to repay any significant amount of aid with. Their GDP was about $160B prior to the invasion. They do not have any commercially viable rare earth that have been hyped up for whatever reason lately. Not sure where that came from (I know from Zelensky, and Graham before that), and that is a fairy tale. They are going to lose a good chunk of the other natural resources that they do have as well. The whole proposed agreement that they did not sign was really nonsense in terms of repayment (would take decades if not hundreds of years), but was robbing the last very little of what the country would have left.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Should Zelensky be at the nego table? On the surface, yes, since it is Ukraine's future at stake. But Trump should have judged that having him around means he will fight every inch with the Russians on the table. I suspect even agreeing on the location for talks would have taken months, compared to him calling MBS and arranging the meeting directly in Saudi.

Looking what Elon put in X that augment Trump previous call for ellection in Ukraine, they are clearly targeting Zelensky to go. My suspect they are aiming those who have beef with Zelensky within Ukraine or those Oligarchs that bankroll him, will found him as liability toward present US administration. Thus move to get rid of him. Trump really see Zelensky as liabilities now. He sees him corrupting US fund to Ukraine and now what him to pay the consequences.


it was given for free, Trump has no right, neither morally nor legally, to ask them to pay for that. Not in the current circumstances.
What were the conditions though? Again, there is no such thing as a free.
I agree with @KipPotapych there're no free lunch in this world. Something must give, either concession for further economic resources or other market access. For example, US was instrumental to push out Dutch from West Papua and givin it back to Indonesia. As pay out (at least one of them) US Mining Freeport was given rights to one of the largest gold and copper resources in the World.

There're always costs, no one giving something for free, it is always pay back later on. However on this case I also suspect the payback more and more also the push to get rid Zelensky of from Ukraine helm. Well I suspect Trump believes Obama with Nuland Orchestred regime changes in 2014, why not he now Orchestrated another one in Ukraine.


Looking on the momentum this's seems what happened. Trump blame Zelensky from 'missing' most US fund to Ukraine, He blame him to not have serious negotiations before invasion and shortly after invasion (I believe he refer to talks in Turkey), that should avoid most damages. Again that his believe, and seems what his constituents believes before election up until now. You don't have agree with that, but for me, need to understand where US policies base on now in this war.
 
Last edited:

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
The political theatre of the Trump administration of the last few days is quite concerning. The flip from somewhat balanced proclamations to a hard anti-Zelenski is sudden and dramatic (even for Trump). I cannot fathom what the (apparent) shift to Putins point of view could gain us.

There is no point in getting upset until we actually hear something real being proposed.
 

InterestedParty

Active Member
I find it interesting the way the US and other suppliers always talk about the cost of weapons supplied to Ukraine when in fact nearly every dollar was actually spent with their own manufacturers to replenish the expendable items.
Many of the Republican politicians represent areas that made truckloads of money in manufacturing munitions in the last 3 years and that gravy train is about to end
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
It's more then that for sure. The US spent quite a bit in '22 and '23. And iirc Biden's 2024 package was over 60 billion all by itself.

For context, it was quoted to Greece as something like 8-10 mln USD to repair old M2A2 ODS for their use. So the price tag of supplying old Bradley's to Ukraine "for free" could have been quite substantial. That's just one example.
I think my maths was …new kit and munitions are what they cost. Old out dated kit like a 50 year old M113 that’s heading to the scrap cannot be valued in todays dollars. And that’s said all the new kit and munitions gets replacement order's to US companies that go back into the US economy. Wether is $60 or $80 billion…it’s not $200/250/300/350 billion but I suspect the guys failed year 10 maths so no surprise really.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I will answer by quoting myself (from last May):

What were the conditions though? Again, there is no such thing as a free.

It doesn’t matter, Ukraine doesn’t have anything to repay any significant amount of aid with. Their GDP was about $160B prior to the invasion. They do not have any commercially viable rare earth that have been hyped up for whatever reason lately. Not sure where that came from (I know from Zelensky, and Graham before that), and that is a fairy tale. They are going to lose a good chunk of the other natural resources that they do have as well. The whole proposed agreement that they did not sign was really nonsense in terms of repayment (would take decades if not hundreds of years), but was robbing the last very little of what the country would have left.
The conditions were that Ukraine would do the fighting and run down ten Russian war machine without risking an American life. Matters nit to trump. He only cares about money. Nothing else. I was glad he got elected but this is the action of a weak coward. Who leaves their friends behind. If you want minerals sure bargain for It but dma dings trillion dollars of minerals fir support is just black mail.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
$350 billion..buys … 30 Ford class carriers, or 3000 F35s, or 700 B21 bomber, or 4000 F15EX or 29000 of the latest Abrams tanks.

anyone think USA has given $350 billion?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The political theatre of the Trump administration of the last few days is quite concerning. The flip from somewhat balanced proclamations to a hard anti-Zelenski is sudden and dramatic (even for Trump). I cannot fathom what the (apparent) shift to Putins point of view could gain us.

There is no point in getting upset until we actually hear something real being proposed.
Wads of cash into a Trump family offshore bank account we never find out about? Cheap Russian oil sold directly to the US who then re-sells it at a modest markup to the public allowing Trump & Co. to point to 3 dollar gas at the pump as a win? Splitting Russia from China in a forthcoming conflict to at least neutrality if not friendly neutrality with the US? There are many possibilities. I hope that helps you fathom what shifting to Putin's point of view could gain Trump personally, his political allies generally, and the US as a whole. Whether it in fact gains anything is of course an open question. Perhaps nothing, and alienating Europe is a goal in and of itself. But this goes beyond the scope of the current thread. So far his bold statements have not actually accomplished anything. His team seems to have met with Putin's team and gotten the same negotiating starter position that Russia has declared previously. They have acted as if they like it (perhaps they do?) but nothing has actually happened.

Meanwhile the war continues unabated. Russia has restarted active advances in the Velikaya Novoselka area. Advances elsewhere are continuing much as before; 3 steps forward one step back, with the occasional Ukrainian counter-attack. Aside from the collapse of the pocket west of Kurakhovo, we have no dramatic Russian gains, but a slow and steady push in multiple areas.
 

tank3487

New Member
$350 billion..buys … 30 Ford class carriers, or 3000 F35s, or 700 B21 bomber, or 4000 F15EX or 29000 of the latest Abrams tanks.

anyone think USA has given $350 billion?
It is actually not that easy to answer question.

Ukraine is broke right now. Outside of massive arms supply EU and US bankroll Ukrainian budget by direct or indirect financial aid. All soldiers salaries, all government employes including Zelenskiy himself, pensions etc etc. Everything rely on foreign support. Ukrainian government already before war started relied on foreign credits, now economy had evaporated and there is massive expenses. Officialy US provided something around 185$ billions(both military and financial support) in 2022-2024. But it does not include aid provided before 2022 and aid provided to other countries for support or military transfers to Ukraine. There is also things like IMF that credit Ukraine due to US. It is actually i believe first time in history for IMF to provide credit to country in war.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think my maths was …new kit and munitions are what they cost. Old out dated kit like a 50 year old M113 that’s heading to the scrap cannot be valued in todays dollars. And that’s said all the new kit and munitions gets replacement order's to US companies that go back into the US economy. Wether is $60 or $80 billion…it’s not $200/250/300/350 billion but I suspect the guys failed year 10 maths so no surprise really.
Your math is silly. Old M113s aren't necessarily headed for the scrap heap. They can be sold for hard cash or kept in storage for future emergencies, in which case they feature in government accounting books at a dollar figure. 60+ billion is the number from just last year from the one large aid package, the one that was a major step-down from US aid in 2023. A total of ~300 billion USD in all forms of aid from the US doesn't look like an unrealistic figure. It might be wrong, but it might not be.

$350 billion..buys … 30 Ford class carriers, or 3000 F35s, or 700 B21 bomber, or 4000 F15EX or 29000 of the latest Abrams tanks.

anyone think USA has given $350 billion?
This is not how it really works. A carrier without planes, fuel, trained crews, piles of spare parts, escorts to protect it, and ammo for the SHORAD, isn't worth much. Often the cost of keeping a piece of equipment in service (nevermind sending it to war) can be greater than the purchase cost. And for some of these categories of equipment the price tag doesn't really reflect reality. You can't supply 29 000 of the latest Abrams tanks because they aren't made anymore. Meanwhile the price of refurbished Bradleys makes Germany Lynx look cheap by comparison. 100 Bradleys could well represent over a billion dollars in aid. Patriot missiles can cost several million dollars a piece. How many has Ukraine received? A thousand? Not that large a number considering Russia's strike campaign but that's several billion dollars all by itself. But these are just some high value items. Artillery shells, be they shiny new Excalibur or old Copperheads, are expensive. And there's the unguided ones too. The US has provided thousands of armored vehicles all by itself, between the MRAPs, armored trucks, Humvees, Bradleys, M113s, Strykers, and even a homeopathic dose of Abrams. The US has provided a hefty pile of artillery, and unlike other major artillery donors like Poland, the US has provided a large pile of modern piece (M777) along with apparently an unspecified quantity of M198. The pile of US military aid to Ukraine is vast. The aid America provided to other countries, sometimes at a discount, to have their equipment sent to Ukraine is also not small.
 
Top