The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[vikingatespam]

I honestly don't know what Trumpy is doing exactly right now. I can only guess. But I'm observing from the side and I'm seeing European countries starting to talk about finally ramping up defense production and forming armed forces, and that's amazing!
I don't judge people by their words. I judge by their actions. And the actions I see are yielding a positive effect. If European politicians that cowardly slashed defense budgets to a pathetic ~2% (or sub-2%) feel like they need to lash out at Trumpy to justify things, so be it. As long as they can actually fight.

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 ?

 

[Fredled]

kraine has agreed terms with the United States on a crucial minerals deal, a Ukrainian government source has told Sky News.
news.sky.com

Ukraine 'agrees terms with US on minerals deal' - with no security guarantee for Kyiv

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.

Now, it's Putin who should move fast because Trump will send weapons to Ukraine as long as he doesn't srop the agression.

I was also very pleased with the meeting he had with Macron. The two goes along with pretty well despite one being the opposite of the other in just about everything. It went better than I expected. Macron knows how to talk with Trump amd this is a rare quality.

Votes are cheap.

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.
As long as Russia and China are synchronous to veto or vote against resolutions, there is no point in voting anything there.
It's still a useful international forum where all countries are represented.

There are reports that Belgium will delay their F-16 deliveries to Ukraine by a year.

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?

 

[Feanor]

Right on cue.
For a country seemingly upset about US disengagement and "siding with Putin", they sure seem glad to sign a deal with major strategic importance (with ramifications for generations to come), even when the hate wagon generated an allegedly more "fair" Ukraine-EU deal proposal.

Truth is, there is not going to be any disengagement. Trumpy just gave his voter base the "casus belli", a deal that shifts Ukraine from "freeloaders" to strategic partners.
With or without American re-engagement in Europe, aid to Ukraine will likely soon shift to a higher gear.

Oh and the draft I read yesterday, if it hadn't changed drastically, contained a section lifting Ukraine's investment commitment to the joint fund from 50% to 66% for resources extracted from currently designated "Russian occupied Ukrainian territories".
Ukraine already has an inherent interest in returning its territories. What it does is it increases the US's interest in those territories, specifically under Ukrainian control.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1894457028925391167

EDIT: @rsemmes you beat me to it by 6 minutes. Damn.

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.

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.
As long as Russia and China are synchronous to veto or vote against resolutions, there is no point in voting anything there.
It's still a useful international forum where all countries are represented.

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.

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?

Of course. Quite good. If they delay two years it will be even better.

I've also heard rumors but no confirmation so far.

 

[rsemmes]

Right on cue.
For a country seemingly upset about US disengagement and "siding with Putin", they sure seem glad to sign a deal with major strategic importance (with ramifications for generations to come), even when the hate wagon generated an allegedly more "fair" Ukraine-EU deal proposal.
Truth is, there is not going to be any disengagement. Trumpy just gave his voter base the "casus belli", a deal that shifts Ukraine from "freeloaders" to strategic partners.
With or without American re-engagement in Europe, aid to Ukraine will likely soon shift to a higher gear.
Oh and the draft I read yesterday, if it hadn't changed drastically, contained a section lifting Ukraine's investment commitment to the joint fund from 50% to 66% for resources extracted from currently designated "Russian occupied Ukrainian territories".
Ukraine already has an inherent interest in returning its territories. What it does is it increases the US's interest in those territories, specifically under Ukrainian control.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1894457028925391167

EDIT: @rsemmes you beat me to it by 6 minutes. Damn.

Sorry about the six minutes.
I'm afraid I am more with Feanor on this. Yes, Ukraine will prosper, we are talking business here, making business with US, with whatever is left of Ukraine; and with Russia too, probably, now that they are good capitalists.
I was actually reading about the $524bn direct reconstruction bill over the next decade (World Bank).

 

[seaspear]

How other countries that have also been heavy donors to Ukraine may react could be interesting, there was speculation about a better deal to be offered by the E.U before the new deal was agreed on

 

[Big_Zucchini]

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 ?

They cannot. Not for a month (assuming combat operations and not some quiet deployment), and certainly not a BCT worth of proper modern equipment.
The entire continent of Europe has only a few AFVs with an APS, all of them demonstrators.
I'm also unaware of any combat maneuvering unit with sufficient organic C-UAS.
A smaller European ground element is supposed to be compensated for by aerial supremacy and air-delivered fires, but despite large air forces, the ability to conduct DEAD is questionable. That requires compatibility to fire a variety of munitions, and the existence of large inventories of them.

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.

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.
2. Yes I am confident they will get net more aid. If not from the US then from Europe as consequence of a systemic shock.
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.
4. Peace is a basic interest of any POTUS. Stability boosts economy boosts popularity. But we've seen POTUSI (POTUS plural) kicking the can down the road and being passive about flareups (e.g. Biden), and we're now seeing some actively engaging warring parties, which to me seems more oriented toward ending conflicts, with all that entails. Perhaps some leaders will think kicking the can down the road will be acceptable for the public, and some will be right about that, but the democratic party lost the elections, and I think it has to do with this. In turn, this gives second wind to Trump's current policies decisions.

I'm afraid I am more with Feanor on this. Yes, Ukraine will prosper, we are talking business here, making business with US, with whatever is left of Ukraine; and with Russia too, probably, now that they are good capitalists.

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.

 

[Fredled]

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?

They were talking about cutting aid if there were no deal signed by next Monday.
Now that Zelensky has reacted fast and that there is a deal, and that Trump is probably satisfied with this deal because it didn't take months to agree, the US has a direct interest in continuing military aid to Ukraine.
At the very least they will ensure that Ukrainian defence don't collapse and that the Ukrainian state as a free nation is not in jeopardy.
Recovering territories where the most important mineral deposits lies would be a big plus. The US and Ukraine have now a common interest.

As we say: Time will tell. I don't think that Americans will announce in advance the type and quantity of weapons they will provide.

How other countries that have also been heavy donors to Ukraine may react could be interesting, there was speculation about a better deal to be offered by the E.U before the new deal was agreed on

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.
That's why the EU and European nations separately, don't need the same type of contract Trump requires from Ukraine.

Europeans are not unhappy that Trump made a deal over rare earths (oil and gas too, in fact) if it helps getting more weapons to Ukraine and keep the US on board.

was actually reading about the $524bn direct reconstruction bill over the next decade (World Bank).

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...

When Putin offers to "give" $300B from frozen assets, while taking $100B for himself for the reconstruction of the occupied territories, leaving only $200B for Ukraine, and still, with the condition that Russian companies be involved, it's laughable.

The debt Russia has toward Ukraine is:
- $524B stated by the World Bank
- Real estate cost of land and buildings sized by Russia
- Compensation for killed and wounded persons
- Losses of revenue caused by the war
- Military expenses by Ukraine and their partners

IMO, it's above 1.2 trillion.

 

[rsemmes]

The debt Russia has toward Ukraine is:
- $524B stated by the World Bank

Debt? You still are extremely creative with the meaning you give to words.
In what Peace Agreement has any "debt" been recognized? Or war reparations, compensations...

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Reparations are not demanded nowadays.

 

[Feanor]

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.

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.

2. Yes I am confident they will get net more aid. If not from the US then from Europe as consequence of a systemic shock.

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.
4. Peace is a basic interest of any POTUS. Stability boosts economy boosts popularity. But we've seen POTUSI (POTUS plural) kicking the can down the road and being passive about flareups (e.g. Biden), and we're now seeing some actively engaging warring parties, which to me seems more oriented toward ending conflicts, with all that entails. Perhaps some leaders will think kicking the can down the road will be acceptable for the public, and some will be right about that, but the democratic party lost the elections, and I think it has to do with this. In turn, this gives second wind to Trump's current policies decisions.[/quote]

That's one possibility. What makes you so sure European NATO or the EU will have the unit or resolve to see it through? Are there any practical steps being taken to kick European military production to the levels needed to both replenish their own arsenals and boost Ukraine enough to fight Russia? What are the timelines for those things to get delivered? What is the timeline for how long Ukraine has until they suffer a collapse at the front?

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.

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?

 

[Feanor]

They were talking about cutting aid if there were no deal signed by next Monday.

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.

Now that Zelensky has reacted fast and that there is a deal, and that Trump is probably satisfied with this deal because it didn't take months to agree, the US has a direct interest in continuing military aid to Ukraine.
At the very least they will ensure that Ukrainian defence don't collapse and that the Ukrainian state as a free nation is not in jeopardy.
Recovering territories where the most important mineral deposits lies would be a big plus. The US and Ukraine have now a common interest.

As we say: Time will tell. I don't think that Americans will announce in advance the type and quantity of weapons they will provide.

I guess we'll wait and see.

When Putin offers to "give" $300B from frozen assets, while taking $100B for himself for the reconstruction of the occupied territories, leaving only $200B for Ukraine, and still, with the condition that Russian companies be involved, it's laughable.

The debt Russia has toward Ukraine is:
- $524B stated by the World Bank
- Real estate cost of land and buildings sized by Russia
- Compensation for killed and wounded persons
- Losses of revenue caused by the war
- Military expenses by Ukraine and their partners

IMO, it's above 1.2 trillion.

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.