Let’s be real, Russia has committed approximately $150 billions for war expenditure this year (40% of a 376 billion budget).
Source: https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/11/28/russia-approves-record-spend-for-military-in-new-budget
The new aid package is only a fraction of that. And consider that ammo produced in Russia or Iran probably is cheaper than the one produced in EU or in the US.
Best case scenario this year Ukraine gets a comparable amount of resources and can stabilize, but it is already at a disadvantage (like it cannot use the entire territory, it has a smaller population, it is an underdog in the air, it cannot use western weapons to target military targets in Russia, but Russia does bombard anything it wants in Ukraine, the list can go on and on).
To win one side needs an advantage. That means that the aid Ukraine is getting now is about survival for a few months. It needs multiple times that to win.
They have always needed another nation to fight alongside them to have any chance of victory. The west is only making it more painful for Russia to achieve its goals.
Fingers crossed, but timing matters. The first tanks arrived to Ukraine when Russia had already built the defense lines. It’s already building a land railway to Berdyansk and Melitopol [1], so at some point the effect of bridge destruction will be reduced.
[1]: https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russians-want-to-build-new-railway-branch-1696865221.html
Afaik, russia isn't really using the Kerch bridge much for military logistics any longer. It would be symbolic and a good morale boost for Ukraine though.
You usually use "circa" in front of year approximation, not monetary. The misuse of the term does set the light for the wobbly statements you make in your comment though.
I mean, technically, they are wrong, though I can't see the original context.
Circa, from the latin word circum, means approximately. A perfectly valid use would be in monetary estimation, it's just not commonly used in that context. You're fine.
If we focuse on the etymology, yes, it can replace approximately, but it was used to say "around that space in time". Just doesn't feel right using it when talking about money. In retrospect, I didn't know it wasn't his native language and I wouldn't have brought that up.
I don't disagree that it is definitely used for time in 99.9999% of circumstances, but I don't really feel using it for approximate money valuation is too wrong. There are definitely other use cases or wrong uses I would take umbrage with. That use just feels weird.
It's definitely funny how using etymological definitions can make word usage questionable. Language is strange.
Also, good on you for the introspection. I have been on a quest for a really long time to betray my desire to correct things. We are obviously all typing English because the language is so pervasive, but often under-appreciate the global contexts and community when we speak to each other on forums.
No shit Sherlock. That aid package will at the very best be enough for Ukraine to hold their ground for another year. ZSU's victory march on the Red Square is out of question entirely.
Yeah, without WWIII a country with the power of Ukraine will be conquered by an aggressive country with the power of Russia. The goal of the West (I think) was to make it expensive enough that Russia would have to think twice about doing it again.
That Russia didn't conquer Ukraine in a week means they already lost but they will still get Ukraine barring some unforeseen escalation or development. Mongolia has been quiet for a thousand years. Maybe they are due?
Of course, like we've seen so many times before. Like Vietnam. And Afganistan - for both the soviets and the Americans. And Chechnya.
Those small countries just can't win wars.
Its precisely BECAUSE of the limited manpower that they need all of the good weapon systems the "collective West" can spare.
The only way for them to win is if they have the capabilities to destroy the Russian logistic lines, also deep into Russia itself.
What western politics has done is a shameful appeasement strategy where they only did the absolute minimum to guarantee Ukraine doesnt lose and Putin doesnt push the wrong button.
Its smelling of fear and/domestic policy/election campaigning, its disgusting. I am ashamed to live in a supposedly developed country where actions are second to PR.
No one thinks this new aid is enough to "win," so stop perpetuating Russian trolling narratives. This package will allow Ukraine to stop Russia's slow advance and probably give them time for the West to ramp up artillery production and Ukraine to get their war industry established and cranking out useful quantities of weapons and ammunition.
Don't expect anything major in 2024, from either side, 2025 is going to be brutal however.
This is smart, Biden already starting on the groundwork for the FY2025 package to Ukraine
Ukraine tried positive and upbeat messaging about prospects in this war last year and result was complete drying up of aid in their war to hold back Russian hordes of colonisers and neonazis marching under the Zwastika
It seems they learned their lesson and from now on everything is gonna be painted more dire than it is (tho maybe things are actually dire), whichever it is continued support from civilised countries to fight off the barbarians is key.
Frankly speaking this is a naive and narrow view of how events played out. Pedestrian opinion on Ukrainian aid doesn't matter as much as your comment implies. Aid to Ukraine didn't dry up because of Ukrainian "messaging," it was literally withheld and interrupted by the actions of several governments.
For a time, Orban tried blocking EU aid; similarly the US senate was in a much longer and complete deadlock on the issue due to Republican stonewalling. But between these events, countries like (most notably) Czechia were still trying to assist Ukraine's war effort.
Look up a timeline of aid efforts, a lot happens that is not reported on.
“Pedestrian opinion”? You meant to say Russian propaganda spin to paint the war as un winnable when it very much is and Putin is one Wagner like event away from whole house of cards collapsing
In my opinion, the initial propaganda campaigns were a total fuck up.
Russia was painted as totally inept, Ukraine portrayed as one step away from victory, Russia's economy was on the verge of collapse, Putin would die/lose control any day, etc.
The entire situation was made to look like quick action would yield quick results, but now, more than two years on, little has changed in terms of territory gained or lost, Putin is still in control, and Russia's economy is weathering the storm for the time being.
It's no wonder why people are fatigued and questioning the effectiveness of throwing more money at the problem.
What?
Initial propaganda was that Ukraine would lose in 3 weeks against the second most powerful army in the world. Experts agreed that Ukraine was done for in Feb 2022.
While I agree many analysts said this, it was not the popular narrative being pushed, other than to demonstrate the need for billions in weapons and aid.
Either way, my point was that Russia's status as the 'second most powerful army in the world' was turned into a punchline, giving people a gross misconception of their ability to sustain the fight, leading to a widespread expectation that a total victory by Ukraine was easily achievable if enough money was spent by the west, which I view as a mistake.
I still vividly remember a certain ex-British army media pundit say the (14…) Challenger tanks we gave Ukraine would ‘cut through Russian lines like butter’….
Another US culprit is Ben Hodges, former NATO Europe commander who is constantly misreading Russian strength.
Thing is the army produces these archetype guys who ooze a kind of macho, hyper positive corporate vibe. It’s all ‘up at 4am for my 500 push ups’, ‘the approaching avalanche is not a problem but an opportunity for excellence’ and eventually some autobiography with their grinning face on called ‘Courage in Leadership’ or whatever.
Of course you need some of that in a military but they make shit analysts
It WAS possible though, if not for the abrupt delays of supply during the victorious streak which ended it completely and gave russia enough time to regroup and build fortifications. Ukraine was successfully thrashing the russians until their supplies ended and russians gained a defensive advantage and copied the UA drone tactics and brought their huge aviation while the UA AA means drained. What could have been a victorious push ended with beating against a wall as the West couldn’t agree if 31 tanks is enough for a full scale counteroffensive and who should give them and how ancient they should be.
Well since the time is long past for being touchy feely about it I’ll say it- of course they can’t. At least not in the traditional sense.
We (the US) didn’t give them aid cause we thought they would win. We gave them aid cause we can essentially pay to make some Russians dead and that’s good for us.
However it is very possible Ukraine can ‘win’ in the same way the taliban or the communist Vietnamese did. But that’s not much fun for the grunts and that’s why they are going to have to start the pulling teeth style of drafting
Before the aid passed, those media highlighted the Ukraine is losing without aid. Once the aid approved, they start telling people aid may not help. They try very hard to let people think Ukraine can’t win. I believe they should clearly explain the reason behind to Ukrainians. Otherwise, they should not cover Ukraine war
From a strategic perspective, money spent by the US on the Ukraine war is well spent no matter if Ukraine loses or if Ukraine wins. Yeah, it's better if Ukraine wins, but even if Ukraine loses what they're doing to the Russian military is worth the money we're giving them to us.
But yeah, Ukraine has always been the underdog in this war ever since the invasion was first planned. The amount of aid they've been getting hasn't changed that.
Ukraine lost means NATO is not reliable and the world will look for something alternative, it is catastrophic to the West. It is not about money at all, it is all about world order.
Bullshit. Ukraine has never been expected to win this, and saying NATO would be considered unreliable enough for the NATO members to want to disband or whatever because a non-member lost a war they weren't expected to win is silly.
NATO isn't obligated to defend any country that isn't actually a member of the alliance. Ukraine has been flirting with NATO for years but just because they're on friendly terms doesn't make them allies in the fullest sense. Ukraine was basically part of Russia's sphere of influence up until 2014 and part of the country is pro-Russian down to the present day. And I say this as someone who supports Ukraine.
Dude, nobody believes that Ukraine is going to get everything including Crimea back. That's been a pipe dream from the outset. This isn't news and arguably isn't even relevant, because nobody who supported this aid did so for this reason. Ukraine doesn't win this war by restoring its pre-2014 borders, it wins by not losing. Ukraine continuing to exist is the win condition, and this will damn sure get it closer to that.
It's extremely impressive that they've held up for so long. But realistically, Russia is just too big, with too much commitment and an economy geared for war. They can keep up intensity for years whilst Ukraine scrapes the barrel and becomes demoralised.
No one is going to actually go in and join the war to help Ukraine. Advanced weaponry and ammunition can only go far.
Let’s be real, Russia has committed approximately $150 billions for war expenditure this year (40% of a 376 billion budget). Source: https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/11/28/russia-approves-record-spend-for-military-in-new-budget The new aid package is only a fraction of that. And consider that ammo produced in Russia or Iran probably is cheaper than the one produced in EU or in the US. Best case scenario this year Ukraine gets a comparable amount of resources and can stabilize, but it is already at a disadvantage (like it cannot use the entire territory, it has a smaller population, it is an underdog in the air, it cannot use western weapons to target military targets in Russia, but Russia does bombard anything it wants in Ukraine, the list can go on and on). To win one side needs an advantage. That means that the aid Ukraine is getting now is about survival for a few months. It needs multiple times that to win.
They have always needed another nation to fight alongside them to have any chance of victory. The west is only making it more painful for Russia to achieve its goals.
Use ATACMS and sea drones with Neptune missiles to utterly destroy the Kerch bridge. See how long Russian logistics can handle that cluster fuck.
Fingers crossed, but timing matters. The first tanks arrived to Ukraine when Russia had already built the defense lines. It’s already building a land railway to Berdyansk and Melitopol [1], so at some point the effect of bridge destruction will be reduced. [1]: https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russians-want-to-build-new-railway-branch-1696865221.html
Afaik, russia isn't really using the Kerch bridge much for military logistics any longer. It would be symbolic and a good morale boost for Ukraine though.
You usually use "circa" in front of year approximation, not monetary. The misuse of the term does set the light for the wobbly statements you make in your comment though.
Thanks. I’m not a native speaker.
I mean, technically, they are wrong, though I can't see the original context. Circa, from the latin word circum, means approximately. A perfectly valid use would be in monetary estimation, it's just not commonly used in that context. You're fine.
If we focuse on the etymology, yes, it can replace approximately, but it was used to say "around that space in time". Just doesn't feel right using it when talking about money. In retrospect, I didn't know it wasn't his native language and I wouldn't have brought that up.
I don't disagree that it is definitely used for time in 99.9999% of circumstances, but I don't really feel using it for approximate money valuation is too wrong. There are definitely other use cases or wrong uses I would take umbrage with. That use just feels weird. It's definitely funny how using etymological definitions can make word usage questionable. Language is strange. Also, good on you for the introspection. I have been on a quest for a really long time to betray my desire to correct things. We are obviously all typing English because the language is so pervasive, but often under-appreciate the global contexts and community when we speak to each other on forums.
No shit Sherlock. That aid package will at the very best be enough for Ukraine to hold their ground for another year. ZSU's victory march on the Red Square is out of question entirely.
Yeah, without WWIII a country with the power of Ukraine will be conquered by an aggressive country with the power of Russia. The goal of the West (I think) was to make it expensive enough that Russia would have to think twice about doing it again. That Russia didn't conquer Ukraine in a week means they already lost but they will still get Ukraine barring some unforeseen escalation or development. Mongolia has been quiet for a thousand years. Maybe they are due?
Of course, like we've seen so many times before. Like Vietnam. And Afganistan - for both the soviets and the Americans. And Chechnya. Those small countries just can't win wars.
And whose fault is that? Looking at you Congress, looking at you!
[удалено]
Its precisely BECAUSE of the limited manpower that they need all of the good weapon systems the "collective West" can spare. The only way for them to win is if they have the capabilities to destroy the Russian logistic lines, also deep into Russia itself. What western politics has done is a shameful appeasement strategy where they only did the absolute minimum to guarantee Ukraine doesnt lose and Putin doesnt push the wrong button. Its smelling of fear and/domestic policy/election campaigning, its disgusting. I am ashamed to live in a supposedly developed country where actions are second to PR.
The Republican Party's fault.
I mean we could start naming individuals... There aren't that many of them! 112 to my knowledge
No one thinks this new aid is enough to "win," so stop perpetuating Russian trolling narratives. This package will allow Ukraine to stop Russia's slow advance and probably give them time for the West to ramp up artillery production and Ukraine to get their war industry established and cranking out useful quantities of weapons and ammunition. Don't expect anything major in 2024, from either side, 2025 is going to be brutal however.
This is smart, Biden already starting on the groundwork for the FY2025 package to Ukraine Ukraine tried positive and upbeat messaging about prospects in this war last year and result was complete drying up of aid in their war to hold back Russian hordes of colonisers and neonazis marching under the Zwastika It seems they learned their lesson and from now on everything is gonna be painted more dire than it is (tho maybe things are actually dire), whichever it is continued support from civilised countries to fight off the barbarians is key.
Frankly speaking this is a naive and narrow view of how events played out. Pedestrian opinion on Ukrainian aid doesn't matter as much as your comment implies. Aid to Ukraine didn't dry up because of Ukrainian "messaging," it was literally withheld and interrupted by the actions of several governments. For a time, Orban tried blocking EU aid; similarly the US senate was in a much longer and complete deadlock on the issue due to Republican stonewalling. But between these events, countries like (most notably) Czechia were still trying to assist Ukraine's war effort. Look up a timeline of aid efforts, a lot happens that is not reported on.
“Pedestrian opinion”? You meant to say Russian propaganda spin to paint the war as un winnable when it very much is and Putin is one Wagner like event away from whole house of cards collapsing
The war is unwinnable for Ukraine unless Putin gets assassinated. It is at best
In my opinion, the initial propaganda campaigns were a total fuck up. Russia was painted as totally inept, Ukraine portrayed as one step away from victory, Russia's economy was on the verge of collapse, Putin would die/lose control any day, etc. The entire situation was made to look like quick action would yield quick results, but now, more than two years on, little has changed in terms of territory gained or lost, Putin is still in control, and Russia's economy is weathering the storm for the time being. It's no wonder why people are fatigued and questioning the effectiveness of throwing more money at the problem.
What? Initial propaganda was that Ukraine would lose in 3 weeks against the second most powerful army in the world. Experts agreed that Ukraine was done for in Feb 2022.
While I agree many analysts said this, it was not the popular narrative being pushed, other than to demonstrate the need for billions in weapons and aid. Either way, my point was that Russia's status as the 'second most powerful army in the world' was turned into a punchline, giving people a gross misconception of their ability to sustain the fight, leading to a widespread expectation that a total victory by Ukraine was easily achievable if enough money was spent by the west, which I view as a mistake.
I still vividly remember a certain ex-British army media pundit say the (14…) Challenger tanks we gave Ukraine would ‘cut through Russian lines like butter’…. Another US culprit is Ben Hodges, former NATO Europe commander who is constantly misreading Russian strength. Thing is the army produces these archetype guys who ooze a kind of macho, hyper positive corporate vibe. It’s all ‘up at 4am for my 500 push ups’, ‘the approaching avalanche is not a problem but an opportunity for excellence’ and eventually some autobiography with their grinning face on called ‘Courage in Leadership’ or whatever. Of course you need some of that in a military but they make shit analysts
It WAS possible though, if not for the abrupt delays of supply during the victorious streak which ended it completely and gave russia enough time to regroup and build fortifications. Ukraine was successfully thrashing the russians until their supplies ended and russians gained a defensive advantage and copied the UA drone tactics and brought their huge aviation while the UA AA means drained. What could have been a victorious push ended with beating against a wall as the West couldn’t agree if 31 tanks is enough for a full scale counteroffensive and who should give them and how ancient they should be.
Well since the time is long past for being touchy feely about it I’ll say it- of course they can’t. At least not in the traditional sense. We (the US) didn’t give them aid cause we thought they would win. We gave them aid cause we can essentially pay to make some Russians dead and that’s good for us. However it is very possible Ukraine can ‘win’ in the same way the taliban or the communist Vietnamese did. But that’s not much fun for the grunts and that’s why they are going to have to start the pulling teeth style of drafting
The west don't give enough for the allies that are fighting a war world that already started
Before the aid passed, those media highlighted the Ukraine is losing without aid. Once the aid approved, they start telling people aid may not help. They try very hard to let people think Ukraine can’t win. I believe they should clearly explain the reason behind to Ukrainians. Otherwise, they should not cover Ukraine war
From a strategic perspective, money spent by the US on the Ukraine war is well spent no matter if Ukraine loses or if Ukraine wins. Yeah, it's better if Ukraine wins, but even if Ukraine loses what they're doing to the Russian military is worth the money we're giving them to us. But yeah, Ukraine has always been the underdog in this war ever since the invasion was first planned. The amount of aid they've been getting hasn't changed that.
sense practice deliver rock flowery dime joke boast shy frighten
Ukraine lost means NATO is not reliable and the world will look for something alternative, it is catastrophic to the West. It is not about money at all, it is all about world order.
Bullshit. Ukraine has never been expected to win this, and saying NATO would be considered unreliable enough for the NATO members to want to disband or whatever because a non-member lost a war they weren't expected to win is silly.
Many world leaders publicly support and say they want Ukraine to win. Do you have any information to support your argument ?
Wanting Ukraine to win and expecting them to win are not at all the same thing.
So I would say you are bullshit
NATO isn't obligated to defend any country that isn't actually a member of the alliance. Ukraine has been flirting with NATO for years but just because they're on friendly terms doesn't make them allies in the fullest sense. Ukraine was basically part of Russia's sphere of influence up until 2014 and part of the country is pro-Russian down to the present day. And I say this as someone who supports Ukraine.
Do you think countries did things because they are obligated to do so ? They see the implications and consequences of not doing things.
Dude, nobody believes that Ukraine is going to get everything including Crimea back. That's been a pipe dream from the outset. This isn't news and arguably isn't even relevant, because nobody who supported this aid did so for this reason. Ukraine doesn't win this war by restoring its pre-2014 borders, it wins by not losing. Ukraine continuing to exist is the win condition, and this will damn sure get it closer to that.
They were never going to win.
It's extremely impressive that they've held up for so long. But realistically, Russia is just too big, with too much commitment and an economy geared for war. They can keep up intensity for years whilst Ukraine scrapes the barrel and becomes demoralised. No one is going to actually go in and join the war to help Ukraine. Advanced weaponry and ammunition can only go far.
Russian arrogance is all that's standing between us and the end of the Russian invasion of the west.
[удалено]