Thats why I wonder if the churn from the last week is political theatre. A shock to the system to kick start some serious defense investment. I havnt looked in a while, but can Britain, Germany, Holland, Spain and Belgium field a single complete BCT with supplies for a month ?
It certainly contains or will be attached to some agreements about military aid. This deal being signed, US military aid should continue. It's a commitemnet by Zelensky that Ukraine won't forget its debt toward the US.rsemmes said:
That's why I don't pay too much attention to these votes at the UN. At the beginning yes, but as the war dragged on and the BRICS completely hypocritical about it, China persisting on calling it a "crisis", Russia keeping its seat at the UN Securtiy Councel, the UN became a joke.Feanor said:
Knowing how Belgium works, it's no surprise. Late by only one year is in fact quiet good.Feanor said:
That's a very generous reading of these events. So far the combined EU and US aid to Ukraine hasn't been enough to have Ukraine win the war. Now the US is talking about cutting aid, and wants Ukrainian resource concessions, and you're confident they will get more total aid as a result? I guess it's possible. But it's also possible Trump intends to milk Ukraine, and let the EU deal with Russia or not deal with Russia.
There isn't a method for removing Russia from the UN Security Council. And I don't think the US wants a precedent set that an unjustified aggression in the eyes of the international community equals a loss of your UN Security Council seat.
Of course. Quite good. If they delay two years it will be even better.Knowing how Belgium works, it's no surprise. Late by only one year is in fact quiet good.
There are rumours of F16 striking on the front line. Any instagram post about it?
Sorry about the six minutes.
They cannot. Not for a month (assuming combat operations and not some quiet deployment), and certainly not a BCT worth of proper modern equipment.
1. Aid hasn't been enough indeed and I've held this opinion since late 2022. Any serious aid program would seek to equip Ukraine with significant quantities of aircraft as soon as it became apparent Ukraine's defenses will hold (first few weeks), equip those with significant quantities of standoff munitions and DEAD-optimized munitions, as well as set up modern combat units purely within NATO doctrine, with all relevant multi-domain assets and platforms, that would slowly expand to the remaining armed forces.
Negotiations require a carrot and a stick. The exception being a humiliating and decisive defeat of one side, then it's not really negotiations. With the EU being way too late to the party in terms of rearmament and Russia being a nuclear power, I think negotiations are the only remaining option, barring a continuation of this war with the potential of China joining via its MIC.
They were talking about cutting aid if there were no deal signed by next Monday.Feanor said:
Europe's interests in Ukraine are different form direct investment. Ukraine is in the process of having trade agreements with the EU block and certainly with the UK and Norway too, and will ultimately join the EU in a few years. This will immediately profit a wide range of European enterprises, enlarge the free or semi-free trade zone, align business laws and norms, increase the economic weight of the EU when they will join it, and more generally of Europe as long as they don't join the EU.seaspear said:
IMO, that's the bare minimum. The destruction Ukraine has suffered is of that order. It should also include agricultural land polluted with shell and drone debris. Many toxic metals spread all of the fields. Polluted rivers, other unseen environmental disasters...rsemmes said:
Debt? You still are extremely creative with the meaning you give to words.
Sure, but they also need volumes of aid for their ground forces commensurate with the levels they got in that golden 12-month period from mid-'22 to mid-'23. Something like 500 armored vehicles per month, and ~100 or so artillery pieces per month.
3. There are multiple tiers of benefits to having the EU stand on its own. Short term it means the US can reduce some defense expenditure and reinvest in its economy or other global partnerships. Long term it means the EU could even come to the US's aid in theaters outside continental Europe. In meaningful quantity that is.
What do you see as a likely negotiated end point to the conflict? I.e. where do you think the sides will settle at approximately speaking?
There have been multiple statements out of the Trump administration indicating they want to reduce aid to Ukraine. And let's not forget US aid in 2024 was less than US aid in 2023. The downward trend was already in place.
I guess we'll wait and see.
Well certainly the destruction could be estimated at 1.2 trillion. Though I wonder what went into the 524 bln USD number from the World Bank, could it be some of the same things you list below? But does destruction automatically equate debt? I understand you want Russia to pay for the damage, but what form this actually takes and how the math will be done is going to be a political discussion. Not some sort of international court that awards damages based on actual losses taken.
I am not sure about it at all. The EU has been as resolute in tearing down security as Ukraine is in surviving.
I don't think the negotiations will succeed. I don't think a negotiated outcome is the main feature of these negotiations.
Then I'm confused. First you state that you're confident that Ukraine will get more net aid even without the US. Now you're saying you're not at all confident about EU resolve. Where will this increase in net aid come from?
What makes you think Ukraine will start getting a boost?
The obvious answer is, they have no choice. What else can they do? Refuse to negotiate altogether? That doesn't accomplish anything. Come to the table with the same maximalist position and look ready to talk? That does something.
In other words you allow for the possibility of an outcome where Europe doesn't boost defense spending to appropriate levels, Ukraine doesn't get more aid, and Trump sells Ukraine to Russia in exchange for "something", unspecified for the purposes of our discussion here.
Neither the US nor EU, regardless of rhetoric, can afford to let Ukraine lose.
The core of the process I'm talking about is the rearmament of Europe. Aid to Ukraine from the US is slow because Biden wanted to drip feed. From Europe it's slow because there was hardly any defense production or ready stock.
Exactly. Worst case is still a domestic PR victory.
The raw materials deal pretty much locks the US into a mutual interest in Ukraine's survival, but ignoring that, yes. I am leaving that option open. Because my guiding principle is responsibility, and nations that don't take their survival seriously - don't deserve survival. In that I refer specifically to Europe, not Ukraine.