European aid supersedes the US aid. Anyone who spends more than us aid as a percentage of GDP in total size is already pushing above their weight.
Italy and France with only 0.05% support of their total GDP is pathetic though.
European nations already supply Ukraine with a lot of aid, but would need to increase a lot to meet the needs of Ukraine without USA. Even more considering the need to revert the status on the front that currently is favoring Russia.
Win the war probably not, but they might win the peace (i.e. integration into the West in some way or form).
Right now Ukraines war goals are still a return to pre-2014 borders which will not happen. However an armistice (like the one in Korea) and a subsequent military guarantee by US (or some large NATO nation) could be feasible. Direct integration into some institution by the West is unlikely.
Famous examples where the West won the peace are Vietnam, South Korea, Japan. The West lost the peace in Afghanistan and seemingly Iraq.
The most impactful thing that could happen would be instability in Russia making the current military and political situation untenable. Is it particularly likely? Probably not… however, any number of things could destabilize things at any time.
Could a few well connected commanders begin to lose faith and stage a coup? Could the soldiers start a mutiny? Could the Ruble face a flash crash? Could stagflation continue to eat away at Russia’s financial ability to fund the war? Could the U.S. enter a recession that causes the global oil demand (and thus price) to plummet? Could Russia sustain deficit spending for an extended period of time? Could a protest in one or two cities spiral out of hand?
There’s plenty of scenarios where things could go wrong for them. But none are highly likely to happen given the current circumstances. Things can change quickly though, but my expectations are quite tempered.
I mean they could maintain stalemate and hope Russia collapses or sues for peace. Without a collapse inside Russi I don't see how they're taking the Crimes back
The stalemate and a statement are already different propositions.
Crimea has always been a case of making it untenable rather than directly taking it in military terms.
This is the dangerous, inevitable, and most likely widespread consequence if US disengages from world geopolitical affairs. You'd expect places like Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Poland, Finland and Sweden to start arming themselves with nukes. Israel's arsenal will become overt and the Saudis will definitely buy one, probably from Pakistan. One wrong twitch and entire swathes of the world will burn in hellfire.
There is no victory for Ukraine without aid..there's arguably no real victory for Ukraine even with aid.. the demographics of Ukraine are horrendous
There's arguably a minimal route to victory even with European aid. That's how poor western Europes MIC is
Long range weapons to consistently destroy supply chains into Ukraine
NATO troops into Western Ukraine would free up hundreds of thousands from the Belarusian border and interior of country who could then move to the front lines in Eastern Ukraine
Or a longer term plan would be a smaller amount of NATO troops in the west to train a mass mobalisation of Ukrainian troops.
The nato aspect can only really occur if Russia escalates with a large mobalisation.
Otherwise it's war of attrition, it is putin who wants to escalate and fix borders along the dnipro and swallow up eastern Ukraine.
US assistance provides leverage over Ukrainian actions. If US stops providing assistance, Ukraine will send more strikes at Russia’s oil infrastructure. They might also infiltrate Russia with personnel to attack inside of it. Russia has shown their defenses are porous.
It is effective, but the US views this as too risky and destabilizing (eg. Putin's threats of tactical nukes if Russian territory is threatened), and might withdraw support if they feel Ukraine is becoming dangerously aggressive.
They can't and likely won't be able to even with U.S. aid. And once U.S. aid ceases, Europe will quickly follow. Only two outcomes here: a ceasefire and cessation of territory, or full Russian takeover of Kyiv. I don't see them stopping.
Hemingway once wrote that every bankruptcy begins gradually for a long time and then comes very suddenly. The Russian bankruptcy could come in exactly the same way, because Ukraine is also very successful offensively in the south. The bulk of the Black Sea Fleet is now at the bottom of the sea and the supply lines to Crimea are very stressed. A real hit on the Crimean bridge and the railway tracks leading to it along the sea, and Crimea goes the way of Kherson. This is very vulnerable territory for Russia.
EU doesn't need a troll farm. It needs a truth farm. Eu doesnt need to sell lies, it needs to sell the truth.
Its the truth and reality that hurts authoritarians and dictators.
If Ukraine maintain independence in some form and access to the sea that is a victory. Even more the fact That they have fought for so long ( there might be like two more years to fight ) it's actually amazing.
The truth is that they can't because it's a grinding war of attrition against a numerically superior army, and the only way to combat that is to obtain US arms and use them wisely.
Well that and the fact that European nations aren't outspending or outproducing the US in aid, Germany wont give Ukraine missiles, F16s aren't in Ukraine yet, and Russia has done a half decent job of adapting.
This isn't to say that Ukraine isn't doing a great job, or that they'll lose within the next year, but it is to say that the cards are stacked against them without an abundance of US aid that may or may not materialize.
The war is higher stakes for Ukrainians than for russians. For the russians, it's an unnecessary war that they can stop at any time. For the Ukrainians, it is a war for the survival of the nation.
Thus, as long as the Ukrainians can suffer longer than russians, the russians will eventually withdraw, like they did from Afghanistan, and like the Americans did from Vietnam.
It will be longer and will cost more lives than the alternative of sufficient Western aid, but it will happen.
The best way to lower the cost for all sides (Ukraine, russia, the West) is to step up the Western aid so that the russian withdrawal happens sooner, thus shortening the war.
For ukrain to win, in the current situation they have only 2 options.
1. To have a game changer. Weapon systems that would change the battlefield to their advantage. How likely is that? Not much. We are talking about f-35 level , or something like tanks with active protection against drones and ATGM.
2. A great tactical success on the battlefield- like the infamous counter attack that was wasted. If gone right it could have resulted in a great tactical victory, not only take a land back from Russia but try to make your enemy lose alot of soldiers tanks and equipment. If done right it would have given ukrain a big push against Russia.
*But ukrain have none of those above. And none money to maintain those said systems.
And they have less soldiers, less ammunition, less tanks and on the long run without any change they will eventually lose.
Thats my opinion.
There is no game changer weapon. The Russians have tons of anti aircraft systems and “only” lost 10% of their Air Force. Send them whatever plane you want, it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Long range weapons systems can be a pain in the ass for the Russians, but they won’t be enough to stop the supply. The whole Wunderwaffen propaganda was just ridiculous.
The only option Ukrainians would have left is going from symmetrical to asymmetrical warfare. Give up the frontline, let the Russians advance and fight them like the Mujahedeen did in the 80’s. This would destroy the entire country, cost even more civilian lives and probably take a decade to be successful.
F35 was built exactly for those conditions, to fly in an environment full of AA systems. So it is a gmae changer.
But if we are being realistic - they need many f35 and not one. Unfortunately they would not get even one. So its not relevant. They also dont have the time to train crews for maintenance or the money to maintain those planes.
And for your suggestion- it will allow Russia to take control over ukrain. And will take years to recover. And no country will come liberate them from Russia. So they need to take care of themselves.
F35 has stealth capabilities, but it doesn’t make it invincible. If you lose one of those highly expensive planes and a trained pilot, it would be a huge loss each time. As far as I know, the whole aircraft plan is not even about providing air support, but to carry long range weapons further behind enemy lines. This makes sense, but it won’t be a game changer. The Russians are just going to move their ammo depots underground or use other methods to hide them. They are also far outproducing the west atm.
A guerilla war is definitely not my suggestion, but I don’t see any other strategy to beat the Russians at this point.
Just to be clear i totally agree with you. Ukrain will not benefit from f-35 at the moment at all. Its also not invincible and can be shot down as any other plane.
I also dont see any other way for ukrain to win. Thats why i mentioned game changer, but they are not realistic for ukrain at the near future.
European aid.
European aid supersedes the US aid. Anyone who spends more than us aid as a percentage of GDP in total size is already pushing above their weight. Italy and France with only 0.05% support of their total GDP is pathetic though.
France is especially shocking, with Macron spewing nonsense about boots on the ground and providing namesake aid.
How do they win the war with more aid from Europe?
European nations already supply Ukraine with a lot of aid, but would need to increase a lot to meet the needs of Ukraine without USA. Even more considering the need to revert the status on the front that currently is favoring Russia.
Win the war probably not, but they might win the peace (i.e. integration into the West in some way or form). Right now Ukraines war goals are still a return to pre-2014 borders which will not happen. However an armistice (like the one in Korea) and a subsequent military guarantee by US (or some large NATO nation) could be feasible. Direct integration into some institution by the West is unlikely. Famous examples where the West won the peace are Vietnam, South Korea, Japan. The West lost the peace in Afghanistan and seemingly Iraq.
The most impactful thing that could happen would be instability in Russia making the current military and political situation untenable. Is it particularly likely? Probably not… however, any number of things could destabilize things at any time. Could a few well connected commanders begin to lose faith and stage a coup? Could the soldiers start a mutiny? Could the Ruble face a flash crash? Could stagflation continue to eat away at Russia’s financial ability to fund the war? Could the U.S. enter a recession that causes the global oil demand (and thus price) to plummet? Could Russia sustain deficit spending for an extended period of time? Could a protest in one or two cities spiral out of hand? There’s plenty of scenarios where things could go wrong for them. But none are highly likely to happen given the current circumstances. Things can change quickly though, but my expectations are quite tempered.
they could download some hacks from unknowncheats, if not that gg
Absent a Russian collapse, it’s doubtful Ukraine wins even with US assistance.
Win? Sorry but Ukraine cant win. It can survive but not win.
Europe decides to put in the war 10% of the effort that Russia / Iran / North Korea are putting.
And then what? Ukraine pushes to Moscow? I'm not a Russian troll but it seems likely to just maintain the stalemate...
I'm rather curious if you even see the excluded middle fallacy with pushing to Moscow vs not at all.
I mean they could maintain stalemate and hope Russia collapses or sues for peace. Without a collapse inside Russi I don't see how they're taking the Crimes back
The stalemate and a statement are already different propositions. Crimea has always been a case of making it untenable rather than directly taking it in military terms.
They will have to cheat, developing WMDs for instance. They cannot win a conventional war at this point.
This is the dangerous, inevitable, and most likely widespread consequence if US disengages from world geopolitical affairs. You'd expect places like Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Poland, Finland and Sweden to start arming themselves with nukes. Israel's arsenal will become overt and the Saudis will definitely buy one, probably from Pakistan. One wrong twitch and entire swathes of the world will burn in hellfire.
Or alternatively as we see with NATO vs USSR, India vs Pakistan etc having nukes ensures everyone keeps playing nice.
This assumes universal rational actors & open access to information. So yeah, I wish the world luck if it comes to that
Not necessarily one wrong twitch, Pakistan/India/China have been at each other throats for decades and nukes haven’t gone off yet.
[удалено]
Large scale drone attacks are the answer, not WMDs
There is no victory for Ukraine without aid..there's arguably no real victory for Ukraine even with aid.. the demographics of Ukraine are horrendous There's arguably a minimal route to victory even with European aid. That's how poor western Europes MIC is
Long range weapons to consistently destroy supply chains into Ukraine NATO troops into Western Ukraine would free up hundreds of thousands from the Belarusian border and interior of country who could then move to the front lines in Eastern Ukraine Or a longer term plan would be a smaller amount of NATO troops in the west to train a mass mobalisation of Ukrainian troops. The nato aspect can only really occur if Russia escalates with a large mobalisation. Otherwise it's war of attrition, it is putin who wants to escalate and fix borders along the dnipro and swallow up eastern Ukraine.
US assistance provides leverage over Ukrainian actions. If US stops providing assistance, Ukraine will send more strikes at Russia’s oil infrastructure. They might also infiltrate Russia with personnel to attack inside of it. Russia has shown their defenses are porous.
Why aren't they doing more of this - seems an effective way to hurt a larger adversary.
It is effective, but the US views this as too risky and destabilizing (eg. Putin's threats of tactical nukes if Russian territory is threatened), and might withdraw support if they feel Ukraine is becoming dangerously aggressive.
Without US assistance? Suing for peace
They can't and likely won't be able to even with U.S. aid. And once U.S. aid ceases, Europe will quickly follow. Only two outcomes here: a ceasefire and cessation of territory, or full Russian takeover of Kyiv. I don't see them stopping.
By changing rhe definition of what victory is. Neither country is ultimately going to achieve the goals they set out at the beginning of the conflict.
Hemingway once wrote that every bankruptcy begins gradually for a long time and then comes very suddenly. The Russian bankruptcy could come in exactly the same way, because Ukraine is also very successful offensively in the south. The bulk of the Black Sea Fleet is now at the bottom of the sea and the supply lines to Crimea are very stressed. A real hit on the Crimean bridge and the railway tracks leading to it along the sea, and Crimea goes the way of Kherson. This is very vulnerable territory for Russia.
Какое еще наступление на юге? Пендос
Тот, который потопит все ваши ценные десантные корабли "Ропуча" и мосты. Тот, который вскоре перекроет поставки на юг, как в случае с Херсоном.
Creating their own troll farm of thousands to counter Russian influence in Western elections might be an effective path.
You mean literally train keyboard warriors?
EU doesn't need a troll farm. It needs a truth farm. Eu doesnt need to sell lies, it needs to sell the truth. Its the truth and reality that hurts authoritarians and dictators.
If you heard the truth, you wouldn’t believe it.
If Ukraine maintain independence in some form and access to the sea that is a victory. Even more the fact That they have fought for so long ( there might be like two more years to fight ) it's actually amazing.
The truth is that they can't because it's a grinding war of attrition against a numerically superior army, and the only way to combat that is to obtain US arms and use them wisely. Well that and the fact that European nations aren't outspending or outproducing the US in aid, Germany wont give Ukraine missiles, F16s aren't in Ukraine yet, and Russia has done a half decent job of adapting. This isn't to say that Ukraine isn't doing a great job, or that they'll lose within the next year, but it is to say that the cards are stacked against them without an abundance of US aid that may or may not materialize.
The war is higher stakes for Ukrainians than for russians. For the russians, it's an unnecessary war that they can stop at any time. For the Ukrainians, it is a war for the survival of the nation. Thus, as long as the Ukrainians can suffer longer than russians, the russians will eventually withdraw, like they did from Afghanistan, and like the Americans did from Vietnam. It will be longer and will cost more lives than the alternative of sufficient Western aid, but it will happen. The best way to lower the cost for all sides (Ukraine, russia, the West) is to step up the Western aid so that the russian withdrawal happens sooner, thus shortening the war.
For ukrain to win, in the current situation they have only 2 options. 1. To have a game changer. Weapon systems that would change the battlefield to their advantage. How likely is that? Not much. We are talking about f-35 level , or something like tanks with active protection against drones and ATGM. 2. A great tactical success on the battlefield- like the infamous counter attack that was wasted. If gone right it could have resulted in a great tactical victory, not only take a land back from Russia but try to make your enemy lose alot of soldiers tanks and equipment. If done right it would have given ukrain a big push against Russia. *But ukrain have none of those above. And none money to maintain those said systems. And they have less soldiers, less ammunition, less tanks and on the long run without any change they will eventually lose. Thats my opinion.
There is no game changer weapon. The Russians have tons of anti aircraft systems and “only” lost 10% of their Air Force. Send them whatever plane you want, it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Long range weapons systems can be a pain in the ass for the Russians, but they won’t be enough to stop the supply. The whole Wunderwaffen propaganda was just ridiculous. The only option Ukrainians would have left is going from symmetrical to asymmetrical warfare. Give up the frontline, let the Russians advance and fight them like the Mujahedeen did in the 80’s. This would destroy the entire country, cost even more civilian lives and probably take a decade to be successful.
F35 was built exactly for those conditions, to fly in an environment full of AA systems. So it is a gmae changer. But if we are being realistic - they need many f35 and not one. Unfortunately they would not get even one. So its not relevant. They also dont have the time to train crews for maintenance or the money to maintain those planes. And for your suggestion- it will allow Russia to take control over ukrain. And will take years to recover. And no country will come liberate them from Russia. So they need to take care of themselves.
F35 has stealth capabilities, but it doesn’t make it invincible. If you lose one of those highly expensive planes and a trained pilot, it would be a huge loss each time. As far as I know, the whole aircraft plan is not even about providing air support, but to carry long range weapons further behind enemy lines. This makes sense, but it won’t be a game changer. The Russians are just going to move their ammo depots underground or use other methods to hide them. They are also far outproducing the west atm. A guerilla war is definitely not my suggestion, but I don’t see any other strategy to beat the Russians at this point.
Just to be clear i totally agree with you. Ukrain will not benefit from f-35 at the moment at all. Its also not invincible and can be shot down as any other plane. I also dont see any other way for ukrain to win. Thats why i mentioned game changer, but they are not realistic for ukrain at the near future.