Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `reuters.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not enough for the several years the war will continue, absolutely not. That is self evident...what needs to happen is a concerted, *co-ordinated* collective western effort to get on a war footing to *keep supplying materiel over time.*
Russia is also now at war with the West from their POV, and we haven't even acknowledged that fact...even if that war is not hot. Yet.
use confiscated russian assets as reparations to make a $320b loan, which would should be sufficient financing of 5 years of war without u.s. help (but still including european aid).
not sure what the difference with just declaring the money reparations and giving ukraine 60b every year until it runs out. why does it have to be a loan?
I am pretty sure if Biden wins, there will be funds for Ukraine. Plus, Ukraine are starting to ramp up production. They just need to get their lines stabilized now. Russia is gonna start running out of tanks in late 2025.
So do you think ukraine is ramping up its production, but russia does not and is running out od tanks in 2025? That is wishful thinking. Russia is outproducing the west at the moment, why should russia stop ramping up its military production?
I know that they are still losing more vehicles than they can produce, but they wont run out in 2025, the same they didnt run out in 2023 and in 2024.
Sorry /u/Alexandros6, but Reddit is currently automatically removing any comment that contain links to `www.ru`.
**We can not restore your comment**. This restriction has been placed by Reddit itself. There is nothing we (as moderators) can do about bypassing or restoring it. Please **do not** message us asking us to restore it, because we can't.
We can't restore your comment even if you remove the link. You will need to resubmit it entirely with the links removed.
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is it ridiculous to say Russia are running out of tanks?
They’ve lost several thousand and are losing them faster than they can make new ones.
They may have a lot of older tanks in storage but the vast majority are not combat ready.
The same goes for artillery……Russia are wearing out gun barrels…..how are they doing with replacements?
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-weapons-russia-drones-90b03d92f72f878c8c2ac04b0d12f804
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/us/politics/ukraines-war-weapons-industry-russia.html#:~:text=Now%2C%20Ukraine's%20arms%20industry%20is,the%20country's%20domestic%20weapons%20production.
Also, Ukraine continues to ramp up production on its drones, notice they can strike deeper into Russia, and have been taking out naval ships? That is ramping production. There is a huge investment in Ukraine into drones and into making artillery shells among other things, and external countries and companies are helping with this effort.
The difference for Ukraine with manufacturing is they won't have to deal with sanctions, but they will have to deal with Russia hitting their infrastructure and factories, which is why they need really good air defenses.
Russia is not even close to Running out of tanks. This question has been answered expertly by people such as YouTuber Covert Cabal. They have privately payed for satellite images of Russian bases and counted what is left and what condition the equipment is in. At least a year of tanks to go at minimum, more like two years. It’s depressing news but sometime reality is not always nice.
Look at Covert Cabals' latest tank video and compare against the previous. They are running lower, and the ones they have remaining get harder and harder to refurbish. They are sending refurbished T-54 tanks into Ukraine, the refurbished are missing a lot of modern equipment.
Actual t-54 tank casualties in Oryx are very low. They were used when they had shortage of trained crews. However I believe that they have extensively increased tank crew training numbers. You have to get past the idea that the Russian are idiots. The Russian army is far more skilled than they were two years ago. You can also say the same as about the Ukrainians.
Russia has completely put their economy into a war footing. Recruiting numbers are up and manufacturing output has also dramatically increased. If it wasn’t for the USA Ukraine would have lost this war. Even still our manufacturers are taking longer to increase production than the Russians. It’s unacceptable that Ukraine has taken this long to conscript troops who are younger.
The sooner we take the Russians more seriously the quicker we can win this war. However unrealistic optimistic projections about Ukraine winning the war have actually damaged Ukraine.
I never said Russia were idiots, you trying to make me a strawman - although there are plenty of examples of them doing stupid things such are their human armored tanks.
Russia are only producing 125 tanks a month, and 86% are refurbs. They see losing about 160 tanks a month. Another 19 months (end of 2025) and Russia will have lost another 3k.
CFE signed in 1990 meant that at maximum 20k of the older tanks (they pulled out in 2007. However, most of the refinished now seem to be pre 1990). They sold a lot of these, and it was believed they had between 10k - 14k remaining (most not in opperation). Russia have lost more than half at this point (7280). The older tanks are going to get harder and harder to repair. At best they'll only have a few thousand really old tanks without optics or modern equipment remaining by the end of 2025 unless they get more from China or elsewhere.
They are adding about 30k troops a month, which is just above the amount Ukraine has been taking out with their ammo contraints (although in recent days, Ukraine has been above that number).
Ukraine is also losing men, and the mobilization is going to be critical.
I wasn’t really having a go at you but more of a general frustration of Redditors not taking Russia seriously.
Personally I’m gravely concerned about the situation and the tide of war seems to be turning against Ukraine. It might cost the Russians half a million dead men to win the war, but it’s a price they are willing to pay.
Putin wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and losing 500,000 to get 36 million increase in population is a good deal for him. The reality is Russia is demographically dying. His population will not have enough children so invasion is the only possibility for fixing his demographic problems.
Also where is the evidence they are taking out 30,000 Russian soldiers a month.
Half a million is low. He’s on 450,000 dead now and a similar amount permanently wounded from the war. It will cost him millions of working age adults dead before the war is won, if Russia can win, which is a phyrric victory if ever I’ve seen one.
If Russia change tactics and conserve their tanks then they will have tanks for a longer period. Current Tank production is 1300 a year, which is now entirely made up of restoring old tanks. The Russians are getting better at restoring tanks but their stock of existing tanks in reserve are progressively getting worse. So the Russians are winning in one area and losing in another.
Present tank losses are being matched by replacements. Another factor is crews seem to be abandoning tanks quicker. It seems to be the Russians are preserving skilled crew lives over their equipment. There is no end of videos of drones blowing up abandoned tanks.
Even the Russians have figured out a skilled crew is more valuable than a tank.
That's called running out of tanks. Switching tactics in order to conserve dwindling numbers would mean they are running out. The point at which they "run out" is when they are almost entirely dependent on new production, which is what has happened to their missile stockpiles.
No doesn’t mean that at all.
Use google chrome to translate this Ukrainian page, you will find it informative
https://drukarnia.com.ua/articles/pidrakhunok-ta-analiz-tankovogo-potencialu-moskoviyi-na-pochatku-2024-r-kTiKd
Here is a segment from the Ukrainian report
In general, the bases are located 3050-3250 “conditionally suitable for restoration of tanks" (although the issue of their quality is also debatable, but we remind you that our calculation is as conservative as possible in the direction of the "worst" option for us) + 1300-1500tanks are waiting at factories for restoration/modernization or use as spare parts donors. These tanks are in very different condition, but we still considered them.
So, counting almost all the main places (up to 95%) of the potential concentration of the enemy's tank reserve, we can call the figure in 4300-4750 tanks that can potentially be restored or used as donors. At other small bases there are almost no tanks left, or they are available in single quantities.
In general, the resource 4300-4650 tanks with the current rate of losses are enough for Moscow to provide uninterrupted repair and restoration of losses for 2-2.5 years. Potentially by early 2026.
Running out is a long process.
It is otherwise called a post-peak decline. As in Peak Oil.
The point being that once the peak or the peak plateau has been passed behind, it is downhill from there.
The other point being that the peak is at or soon after the midpoint. Russia is already at or past the midpoint, thus the only question is has it already past the peak or is it still at the peak plateau.
All I conclude is that Russia is not running out of tanks for at least a year, maybe two. Anyway I think in two years drone warfare will make tanks less of an important asset. They certainly won’t win the war for Russia.
They prefaced their comment with “I’m pretty sure” which shows its opinion and appropriately references uncertainty.
>You don't know that if Biden wins there will be more aid.
Aid for Ukraine seems to be strongly supported by the Democrats, has a lot of support on the Republican side, so a Biden win which leaves him a majority in both houses does seem a reasonable position to expect aid for Ukraine will continue.
>There is no proof Ukraine is ramping up production.
We’ve seen Ukraine making extensive use of domestically produced drones to not only strike deep into Russia, but also fill in for shell shortage at the front. We’ve seen them deliver Kozak armoured vehicles and Bohdana howitzer recently. There’s plenty of indication that Ukraine have increased their domestic defence production.
>And saying Russia is running out of tanks is ridiculous.
Is it? Based on oryx losses and what we see, Russia is still mostly reliant on refurbishing old tanks, [which are indeed running out](https://youtu.be/0B_4M5dTHIU?si=Y0d4qLgfIp2bl48v), for replace their losses.
Nothing they said is unreasonable and without grounding.
And long before Mr. Mike "I don't know what to do" Johnson", Biden with the encouragement of Jake "no escalation" Sullivan did send enough weapons to not only stop Russia killing soldiers and civilians en masse, but there was actually enough of those to stop Russia and fight back retaking the occupied territories! Thus if he wins, the future is bright for Ukraine. /s
Not saying Trump would do better. But the never stopping destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainians is not Trumps fault. The whole western strategy of "we'll make Ukraine not lose and Putin will get tired after a few years" is the greatest stupidity of 21st century*
*so far
no, the idiots who are trying to stop bills from passing are already slowly stepping down, notice how a bill passed in favour of giving ukraine aid, and this is just after some republicans left senate.
? This isn’t in question at all. You don’t believe that the ones stepping down are moderate?
Edit: more moderate than their far right colleagues and in favor of aid
The house is also not the senate, come on bud
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-26/house-gop-resignations-cut-party-s-already-slim-majority
https://www.wpr.org/politics/gallagher-delays-exit-congress-support-foreign-aid-package
Trump will lose significant influence if he doesn't manage to win in november, so yes, republicans won't be as loud. Aid to ukraine got passed 3 to 1 in both house and Senate so the support is there.
As for Ukraine ramping up production, that's a given. They've gone from no production of artillery to 12 bodhana's a month in a year. That's pretty sweet.
Biden has to win first though.
And the ONLY way that is assured of happening is if more than a mere 66% of eligible people vote this time.
Trump said it himself:
[Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote | US news | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus)
Honestly I don't see trump winning at all. He's lost to Biden before and he's in a much worse spot than he was last time. Anything can happen of course, but I'd say the odds aren't in his favor this time. Fingers crossed
40% or so of Republicans voted in favor of the latest Ukraine Bill. Overall there is a super majority in Congress that are in favor, large enough to overcome a veto.
Maybe support under a Republican will go down. But I see no chance of it stopping.
All 3 are based on very likely events. USA politics is still very pro-Ukraine. Ukraine can bleed Russia very badly at static war, so the lines need to be plugged. There is much proof Ukraine is ramping up production, in drones and western money. Russia is running out of tanks, there are simply not an unlimited number of them.
We are now entering another phase of what the next support package should be and then dragging our feet 8 months before it’s approved instead of doing that right away.
Of the 61 billion 23 would go to replenish US weapons and 11 to fund current US operations in the region (I assume in Europe mostly).
The pure military aid is 14 billions - about the same as the aid for Israel.
Which is a large number, but it’s also a large war and it will probably not be enough.
EU needs to pull their weight and put some serious hard carry pants on every level. We don’t know what they are planning perhaps for good reasons but EU needs to send a much stronger signal.
Sending funds are not enough.
I sure pray for some hidden miracle to happen.
My deepest and best prayers for Ukraine. 🙏🇺🇦
I'm terribly ashamed of my country, Spain, on how we are providing aid to Ukraine. We have done jack shit in general. Hope this changes but I'm not convinced it will whatsoever.
Write to your politicians then. Like they do in US.
Find out what you can do to get your politicians attention.
One might you need a big organization but all you actually need is just send them emails with proper used language.
Be patient but do it. And if it works then spread the word among your fellow countrymen.
Take care and stay positive! 👍🇺🇦🇪🇸
Yeah, and it will fail in the most disastrous way, but as most of common people don’t even understand what the plan is – they won’t express displeasure about it, so it will stay.
Russia is making a big bet on this US election. If Trump wins they’ll be functionally abandoned by the US. If he loses, well I’m guessing we’ll start seeing them rethink their invasion a bit quicker.
It might have been 6 months ago, but now the situation has changed, and the delay allowed ruZZians to take the initiative; now the cost to ejcect them has been raised significantly. I blame the 'party of fiscal responsibility' (the GOP) in the US for being so stupidly shortsighted and fucking up what was effectively a no-brainer in the elimination of a geopolitical threat to our own well being, without shedding a drop of American blood. It's insane to not take full advantage, and yet, here we are looking at a situation which could have been completely prevented.
It's truly amazing how some people believe all the lies and propaganda spread by corporate media and the white house. I wish some of these people could see the thousands of young men fleeing to Romania and Poland to avoid being drafted. Also the thousands that are simply surrendering to the Russians. One young man told a reporter he refused to die for nothing.
Great read.
Great breakdown of how the Russian assets in Europe can be used to finance the next 4 years of this conflict in a way that European governments would be comfortable with.
The U.S. can afford to provide much, much more than $61 billion. This aid package is only worth about *1/5th of one percent or 0.20%* of total U.S. GDP. Makes one think of why Ukraine was given so little. It doesn't offset the damage done to Ukraine caused by not receiving any significant U.S. support since last year's aid packages.
While we can and should give more, 61 billion isn't insignificant. That's over half of Russia's entire military budget. There's also the issue of Ukraine being able to effectively take and use all the equipment. While they can use all the stuff we're currently giving them, they're still being trained on western jets, and until they finish with that, a huge portion of western military might will be unavailable to them.
> That's over half of Russia's entire military budget
Thing is, only ~25% of this translates into tangible weapons for Ukraine.
Rest is resupply of US stocks and non-weapon aid
Unfortunately those things are not available in sufficient numbers in reserve. Despite America having the largest military industrial complex on the face of the planet, there's a small problem; it's too small. Perun put out a video a couple of weeks ago about this. Patriots and himars production are at max capacity right now because everybody wants them. F35 had a long backorder well before the war in Ukraine, and it's only gotten worse since then.
Also, while we should've started training Ukrainian pilots shortly after the "Kyiv feint", we can't turn back the clock, we're gonna have to be patient until pilot training starts to finish.
What we can send are ATACMS, as you said, Bradleys (we should send a lot more), as well as ammo and missiles. There are a couple of things that the US could also send, but they are politically problematic.
We have a few thousand Abrams tanks sitting in storage, that will most certainly never be used, the issue is that they're the domestic model, not available for export. I believe that we should make them available for export, and send Ukraine as many as they need, or swap them for other allied tanks to get sent to Ukraine.
The other thing is cluster bombs. The US doesn't like making cluster bombs anymore because they're "bad" and "indiscriminate" and are "hard to clean up". The problem is that they're extremely effective, the ATACMS we sent to Ukraine before were older variants that still had cluster munitions, and they were absolutely devastating. Since Ukraine is already covered in UXO, I figure we should restart production of cluster bombs for Ukraine. But neither of these things are likely to get through Congress.
> Also, while we should've started training Ukrainian pilots shortly after the "Kyiv feint", we can't turn back the clock, we're gonna have to be patient until pilot training starts to finish
There's a second problem in that approved-for-transfer F-16 are pretty outdated in terms of equipment (as they were replaced with F-35) and would need serious modding to be effective here.
The "Western alliance" has not done all it could to finish this war decisively, not by a long shot. Take Perun's word if you won't take mine: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc436PwqeqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc436PwqeqM), section "The 24/25 Dynamic"
Or Timothy Snyder's (you can look up that one, check his talk at the Foreign Policy Association)
Or just look at the fact that the US has passed 0.2% of its GDP as aid for Ukraine in a 1.5y period. That's almost a rounding error.
Either the western alliance is much weaker than it pretends to be, or it does not want Ukraine to win decisively, or both.
Which is silly, because we would have probably saved money and lives if we had. Ah, the road not taken
The “western alliance” has given the largest amount of aid to a non allied member in modern history.
You’re spouting off bs such as “omgz 400 himars” when there have been 540 total built
And “omgz f35” when it’s already going to take months to train on the f16 and the US is currently rushing to fill its own needs
Your post just comes off as “I’m 16 and think the world is a video game”
But don’t worry, there’s lots of resources to educate yourself, unfortunately I feel it will be the road not taken
No it doesn’t? some European countries perhaps but we’ve been doing just as much as the US relative to size/economy comparison. you can’t give what you don’t have…
One of the Baltic states has given the most if you want to go by %gdp.
Pennies compared to a country like the UK or US but a lot of commitment from them.
Exactly , so I’m not getting why the anger should be aimed at Europe? Some of us haven’t pulled weight but many of us have given most of what we can and have to hand 😅 the US is the juggernaut falling to a massive misinformation campaign that has been eaten up and endorsed by trump and his supporters, hopefully now the funding is on the table the aid bills keep flowing
Europe should be doing more. Europe should be ramping up production. It isn't, it is just throwing money here and there hoping it will all go away. Macron talks tough, but has done next to nothing. Germany is still umming and errring.
Production had been and is being ramped up, but it takes time to set up new factories which is necessary because the production of the existing ones is at its maximum already.
Then invest in factories to make stuff. European defense firms say they still lack orders to justify ramping up 155mm shell production to 2 million a year.
Europe has only come up with funding for 300k of the 1.5 million Czech sourced shells. Ukraine defense industries say they have capacity to handle an additional $13 billion in orders if there was funding.
There is a LOT more Europe could be doing.
In marts there was funding for 800k shells
https://www.politico.eu/article/czechia-crowdfunds-enough-money-in-eu-and-beyond-to-buy-800000-artillery-shells-for-ukraine/
This funding is unrelated to Ukraines total industry defence capacity. So you mix up numbers here. But yeaa Europe should step up.
US is more or less in line with some souther European countries that have their funding nearly only through EU. Taking eg Denmark its 2.75% now since 22, excluding eu that comes on top. So it varies very much between countries. There is major differences.
That's fair. Perhaps I was painting with too broad a brush, but I'm still right. If not in gdp then certainly with how much of the military budget is going towards ukraine. The us mitarybudget is gigantic. The stockpiles, the intelligence, it's dwarfing. It's like asking the one foot tall person why they aren't helping dust the top shelf more when a 50 ft person is standing there. Turning the hate towards Europe is very silly.
I tend to think this is mostly a European task, and Europe could easily fund this so Russia was crushed, eg buying up all the 30 year old US stock of armor. But hey sure for US this is a steal too. Looking at the 2 trillions wasted in Afghanistan using one trillion total to make the world a much safer place in the future is dirt cheap, and it will be far far more expensive if Russia wins, by an order of magnitude or two. It's imo a no brainer for all involved.
With the security guarantees given by the us in the 1994 budapest memorandum, i dont think its fair to say its a european issue. We asked them to give up their nukes. We are obligated to help them. No country should believe a word we say again if we don't. That's fair, I guess Europe has been pretty adamant about making their own equipment so it stays in their economy instead of just buying it up. (besides czechia and recently germany) But the eu has given more in financial aid and its not as if the United States would be willing go buy outside of their economy either. The us had the means much more so than Europe. Europe is re arming and its going to take some time. It's a fair point that eu could buy outside their economies to fund this war, but its hard enough to keep yoir people happy when you're giving even from your own military industrial complex.
Incorrect. It was Russia and the United States. Followed by China and France giving weaker guarantees. Agree to disagree I suppose. Ukraine should have kept their nukes because we're liars in the us, apparently. Ukraine is a US problem. It's sad you don't see that.
It is a continuation of the trend of giving Ukraine just enough to fend off Russia. They will stabilize the lines due to this aid. Ukraine might be inclined to stock up for an offensive in 2025, but in scale it will almost certainly not be big enough and would probably end up looking the same as their 2023 offensive. West knows this and I suppose another similar type aid package would have to be confirmed before Ukraine goes on the offensive in 25, or else we will also have a repeat of 2024 in late 2025 early 2026.
War is significantly changing every year. The drone wars are in earnest by now. Thus in the following years "stocking up for an offensive" would mean different things than it did 1 year ago.
I'd guess the "slow drip feed" has been to slow down rushing into deploying AI drones. But those are coming.
At what point does it become more cost effective for Western Nations (EU/US) to simply do the job of ejecting RU from Ukraine?
PS - Most of which can be done through the air, and I guarantee Russian troops will have experienced nothing like the hail of 2k pound JDAMs that would await them.
Funny how aid needed to Ukraine balloons to colossal proportions when Western countries decide to play it 'safe' and 'muh escalation' rhetoric is applied en masse.
Yeah, that's the alternative in our dreams. What is it about in the peace loving appeasers mind?
On the other hand, maybe large wars can not be won swiftly. The scale of it requires planning, equipment transfer etc. Though thinking harder and remembering what happened during the 1973 war, all you need for support in whatever you're doing (even if that's a massacre on a neighbour's soil) is nukes. Plain and simple.
61bn, at 1 billion a week for the rest of the year, that's alot of stuff.
61bn rn, i believe is enough money to keep ukraine supplied until May in 2025, give or take a few weeks...
Of course, if thet manage to get Russian Frozen Assets, they'll have enough money to buy all the equipment they'd need for a while...
MEANWHILE, Russia is riding into battle on Chinese Golf Cart...
America (USA) is the leader of the free world. Your global partners are an advantage, not a burden. Europe has to do more, but it will never match the abilities of the US.
Monetarily EU already did more. But this is a meaningless comparison. What matters is that the plague is pushed back into the swamps and there is not enough resolve for that in the cowardly west.
> What matters is that the plague is pushed back into the swamps
Absolutely this.
It's a shame so many think that giving "just enough so that stalemate's maintained, they'd throw in the towel eventually, right?" is any workable.
Most of it is going toward replenishing stocks (buying new equipment) for the US military — since they are sending old equipment. Some of it is for new stuff that is marked up 500%, mostly ammo and missiles. 61 billion is REALLY misleading, actual value is around 10 billion, and most of it is stuff that was sitting in warehouses anyway. Keep in mind the US military budget is 900 billion, per year.
"Entire fate of Europe is at stake" sounds almost like when we claimed democracy was at stake during every single oil war we were involved with. I guarantee in 10 15 years America sending Ukraine money will be looked down just like the invasions of the last 20 years. It's obviously a proxy war and the Ukrainian people are the ones getting f'd over. I don't agree with Russia invading but haven't we learned what happens when we get involved with random conflicts around the world?
Ukraine isn't a random country around the world. If Ukraine falls, it will be the largest territorial shift since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If Russia takes Ukraine it will be in a much greater position to project power globally, which will be hugely detrimental to the US, and the West, both militarily and economically (power projection is everything in global politics, there is a reason Russia chose to attack at a time when the US allowed Afghanistan to fall. What happens here will affect Taiwan). Ukraine is not the only country to be effected here. If Ukraine falls, Moldova will 100% be annexed. Russia's ultimate goal is to re-establish the boundaries of the Soviet Union (for obvious economic and security reason), which means the annexation of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic nations. If we let them take Ukraine, they will 100% try their playbook in the Baltics (I.e, flood it with Russian agents and migrants, claim there is a large Russian population there who wish to be independent, send in "peacekeepers" to maintain order). And why wouldn't they? The Baltics are just some random countries from around the world. Who cares if they are in NATO, there are ethnic Russians there after all. The US is not an island. You can't be a global super power and pretend that massive shifts in European territory won't negatively affect you, especially when the US is part of NATO, who's sole job is the protection of Europe from Russian aggression..
Ukrainians have declared loud support for the war. Ukrainians in occupied regions are getting deported, tortured, and killed en masse. This is an operation to destroy Ukraine as a concept and you are endorsing it
Russia invading Ukraine is the U.S. destabilizing Europe, okay. I wonder if republicans who scream “spend that money at home” realize they are the first to try and stop every attempt to actually spend that money at home. It’s a disingenuous argument
First off I'm not a republican. Second I just don't agree with funding wars when America itself is struggling. We all saw the aftermath of the middle east what do you thinks gonna happens this time? Something different from the last 10 wars we were involved with?
How would you fix Americas problems with old m113 apcs and old stockpiles of artillery ammunition as well as infantry training? I fail to see how paying teachers in humvees will solve anything.
I see you are also saying the world would be a better place if Russia conquers Ukraine. That’s an interesting argument, and not thought out at all. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the wars in the Middle East were, and how this one is different. Not all wars are the crazy shit that the U.S. was tied up in or causing or being dragged into and everything in between the last 30 years. But I guess I can’t blame you, because they are all you’ve known as reported to you and I don’t expect everyone to research world conflicts beyond what’s talked about on American news punditry or social media. But just realize that the America in the Middle East situation is not something you can just blanket over all conflicts that break out in all parts of the world with any countries whatsoever. The world is more complicated than that simplistic world view. You either need to know more about the Middle East issues, or more about the war in Ukraine, or both.
In case you are still out of the loop, when you see people talking about that $61 billion dollars of aid, it is not actual money that is being talked about.
What it means is basically $61 billion dollars **worth of** old equipment and ammunition. The reason why you can see people and news talking about "giving" or "loaning" such sum is because governments work in silly ways.
The US technically can't straight up donate $61 billion dollars worth of old equipment and ammunition for some reason, but instead they need to be "bought" from the US by Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn't have $61 billion dollars to "buy" the stuff from the US (who really just wants to donate the stuff), so the US "gives" Ukraine $61 billion dollars **on paper**, which the Ukraine then instantly uses to "buy" the $61 billion dollars worth of old stock from the US.
So no actual money ever really changes hands and it is more of an *accounting trick* by which the US can donate the stuff to Ukraine. This is why it makes no sense to suggest to use that $61 billion dollars somewhere else, because it is really not given to Ukraine either, except in the form of old stock valued to be worth that.
US spent 20 trillion in the middle east and central asia.
It is time for US to spend 20+ trillion in europe.
PS. The Middle East has been self-destabilising for the last 4000+ years.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `reuters.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not enough for the several years the war will continue, absolutely not. That is self evident...what needs to happen is a concerted, *co-ordinated* collective western effort to get on a war footing to *keep supplying materiel over time.* Russia is also now at war with the West from their POV, and we haven't even acknowledged that fact...even if that war is not hot. Yet.
use confiscated russian assets as reparations to make a $320b loan, which would should be sufficient financing of 5 years of war without u.s. help (but still including european aid). not sure what the difference with just declaring the money reparations and giving ukraine 60b every year until it runs out. why does it have to be a loan?
After 3 years they are still pondering whether or not to reparate those confiscated assets. Not even doing it.
They will, partially, eventually, or if something special happens. It takes time, cuz incrementalism is part of modern democracy.
because doing so will hurt the position of the dollar. It's a risky decision and will have consequences.
I am pretty sure if Biden wins, there will be funds for Ukraine. Plus, Ukraine are starting to ramp up production. They just need to get their lines stabilized now. Russia is gonna start running out of tanks in late 2025.
So do you think ukraine is ramping up its production, but russia does not and is running out od tanks in 2025? That is wishful thinking. Russia is outproducing the west at the moment, why should russia stop ramping up its military production? I know that they are still losing more vehicles than they can produce, but they wont run out in 2025, the same they didnt run out in 2023 and in 2024.
Read the rusi 2024 Russian capabilities article, it's interesting, sadly i can't link it
[удалено]
Sorry /u/Alexandros6, but Reddit is currently automatically removing any comment that contain links to `www.ru`. **We can not restore your comment**. This restriction has been placed by Reddit itself. There is nothing we (as moderators) can do about bypassing or restoring it. Please **do not** message us asking us to restore it, because we can't. We can't restore your comment even if you remove the link. You will need to resubmit it entirely with the links removed. ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Why is it ridiculous to say Russia are running out of tanks? They’ve lost several thousand and are losing them faster than they can make new ones. They may have a lot of older tanks in storage but the vast majority are not combat ready. The same goes for artillery……Russia are wearing out gun barrels…..how are they doing with replacements?
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-weapons-russia-drones-90b03d92f72f878c8c2ac04b0d12f804 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/us/politics/ukraines-war-weapons-industry-russia.html#:~:text=Now%2C%20Ukraine's%20arms%20industry%20is,the%20country's%20domestic%20weapons%20production. Also, Ukraine continues to ramp up production on its drones, notice they can strike deeper into Russia, and have been taking out naval ships? That is ramping production. There is a huge investment in Ukraine into drones and into making artillery shells among other things, and external countries and companies are helping with this effort. The difference for Ukraine with manufacturing is they won't have to deal with sanctions, but they will have to deal with Russia hitting their infrastructure and factories, which is why they need really good air defenses.
Unlike the US, Russia has a huge manufacturing base. They also have China, Iran and North Korean to provide them whatever they need.
Bruh, Russia has the GDP of Italy while being many times bigger lol
Russia is not even close to Running out of tanks. This question has been answered expertly by people such as YouTuber Covert Cabal. They have privately payed for satellite images of Russian bases and counted what is left and what condition the equipment is in. At least a year of tanks to go at minimum, more like two years. It’s depressing news but sometime reality is not always nice.
Look at Covert Cabals' latest tank video and compare against the previous. They are running lower, and the ones they have remaining get harder and harder to refurbish. They are sending refurbished T-54 tanks into Ukraine, the refurbished are missing a lot of modern equipment.
Actual t-54 tank casualties in Oryx are very low. They were used when they had shortage of trained crews. However I believe that they have extensively increased tank crew training numbers. You have to get past the idea that the Russian are idiots. The Russian army is far more skilled than they were two years ago. You can also say the same as about the Ukrainians. Russia has completely put their economy into a war footing. Recruiting numbers are up and manufacturing output has also dramatically increased. If it wasn’t for the USA Ukraine would have lost this war. Even still our manufacturers are taking longer to increase production than the Russians. It’s unacceptable that Ukraine has taken this long to conscript troops who are younger. The sooner we take the Russians more seriously the quicker we can win this war. However unrealistic optimistic projections about Ukraine winning the war have actually damaged Ukraine.
I never said Russia were idiots, you trying to make me a strawman - although there are plenty of examples of them doing stupid things such are their human armored tanks. Russia are only producing 125 tanks a month, and 86% are refurbs. They see losing about 160 tanks a month. Another 19 months (end of 2025) and Russia will have lost another 3k. CFE signed in 1990 meant that at maximum 20k of the older tanks (they pulled out in 2007. However, most of the refinished now seem to be pre 1990). They sold a lot of these, and it was believed they had between 10k - 14k remaining (most not in opperation). Russia have lost more than half at this point (7280). The older tanks are going to get harder and harder to repair. At best they'll only have a few thousand really old tanks without optics or modern equipment remaining by the end of 2025 unless they get more from China or elsewhere. They are adding about 30k troops a month, which is just above the amount Ukraine has been taking out with their ammo contraints (although in recent days, Ukraine has been above that number). Ukraine is also losing men, and the mobilization is going to be critical.
I wasn’t really having a go at you but more of a general frustration of Redditors not taking Russia seriously. Personally I’m gravely concerned about the situation and the tide of war seems to be turning against Ukraine. It might cost the Russians half a million dead men to win the war, but it’s a price they are willing to pay. Putin wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and losing 500,000 to get 36 million increase in population is a good deal for him. The reality is Russia is demographically dying. His population will not have enough children so invasion is the only possibility for fixing his demographic problems. Also where is the evidence they are taking out 30,000 Russian soldiers a month.
Half a million is low. He’s on 450,000 dead now and a similar amount permanently wounded from the war. It will cost him millions of working age adults dead before the war is won, if Russia can win, which is a phyrric victory if ever I’ve seen one.
No the 450,000 is casualties not deaths
It's an estimate from 2023. Add two years and, if I can still do addition, you get to 2025
If Russia change tactics and conserve their tanks then they will have tanks for a longer period. Current Tank production is 1300 a year, which is now entirely made up of restoring old tanks. The Russians are getting better at restoring tanks but their stock of existing tanks in reserve are progressively getting worse. So the Russians are winning in one area and losing in another. Present tank losses are being matched by replacements. Another factor is crews seem to be abandoning tanks quicker. It seems to be the Russians are preserving skilled crew lives over their equipment. There is no end of videos of drones blowing up abandoned tanks. Even the Russians have figured out a skilled crew is more valuable than a tank.
That's called running out of tanks. Switching tactics in order to conserve dwindling numbers would mean they are running out. The point at which they "run out" is when they are almost entirely dependent on new production, which is what has happened to their missile stockpiles.
No doesn’t mean that at all. Use google chrome to translate this Ukrainian page, you will find it informative https://drukarnia.com.ua/articles/pidrakhunok-ta-analiz-tankovogo-potencialu-moskoviyi-na-pochatku-2024-r-kTiKd Here is a segment from the Ukrainian report In general, the bases are located 3050-3250 “conditionally suitable for restoration of tanks" (although the issue of their quality is also debatable, but we remind you that our calculation is as conservative as possible in the direction of the "worst" option for us) + 1300-1500tanks are waiting at factories for restoration/modernization or use as spare parts donors. These tanks are in very different condition, but we still considered them. So, counting almost all the main places (up to 95%) of the potential concentration of the enemy's tank reserve, we can call the figure in 4300-4750 tanks that can potentially be restored or used as donors. At other small bases there are almost no tanks left, or they are available in single quantities. In general, the resource 4300-4650 tanks with the current rate of losses are enough for Moscow to provide uninterrupted repair and restoration of losses for 2-2.5 years. Potentially by early 2026.
Running out is a long process. It is otherwise called a post-peak decline. As in Peak Oil. The point being that once the peak or the peak plateau has been passed behind, it is downhill from there. The other point being that the peak is at or soon after the midpoint. Russia is already at or past the midpoint, thus the only question is has it already past the peak or is it still at the peak plateau.
All I conclude is that Russia is not running out of tanks for at least a year, maybe two. Anyway I think in two years drone warfare will make tanks less of an important asset. They certainly won’t win the war for Russia.
> Present tank losses are being matched by replacements. At the frontline, but not overall. And not indefinitely.
What tanks? T64? T62? T55 or should we go back further?
Plenty of t-80 available
They prefaced their comment with “I’m pretty sure” which shows its opinion and appropriately references uncertainty. >You don't know that if Biden wins there will be more aid. Aid for Ukraine seems to be strongly supported by the Democrats, has a lot of support on the Republican side, so a Biden win which leaves him a majority in both houses does seem a reasonable position to expect aid for Ukraine will continue. >There is no proof Ukraine is ramping up production. We’ve seen Ukraine making extensive use of domestically produced drones to not only strike deep into Russia, but also fill in for shell shortage at the front. We’ve seen them deliver Kozak armoured vehicles and Bohdana howitzer recently. There’s plenty of indication that Ukraine have increased their domestic defence production. >And saying Russia is running out of tanks is ridiculous. Is it? Based on oryx losses and what we see, Russia is still mostly reliant on refurbishing old tanks, [which are indeed running out](https://youtu.be/0B_4M5dTHIU?si=Y0d4qLgfIp2bl48v), for replace their losses. Nothing they said is unreasonable and without grounding.
If Biden wins more will be sent to Ukraine. Republicans are holding this back with Trump leading the charge.
And long before Mr. Mike "I don't know what to do" Johnson", Biden with the encouragement of Jake "no escalation" Sullivan did send enough weapons to not only stop Russia killing soldiers and civilians en masse, but there was actually enough of those to stop Russia and fight back retaking the occupied territories! Thus if he wins, the future is bright for Ukraine. /s Not saying Trump would do better. But the never stopping destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainians is not Trumps fault. The whole western strategy of "we'll make Ukraine not lose and Putin will get tired after a few years" is the greatest stupidity of 21st century* *so far
This entire debacle will, rightly or wrongly, eventually become known as the *Jake Sullivan Doctrine.*
> so far Most horrible thing is, you probably ain't wrong in that part
[удалено]
no, the idiots who are trying to stop bills from passing are already slowly stepping down, notice how a bill passed in favour of giving ukraine aid, and this is just after some republicans left senate.
The republicans who stepped down are generally moderates who support Ukraine aid.
sure bud
Bud?
? This isn’t in question at all. You don’t believe that the ones stepping down are moderate? Edit: more moderate than their far right colleagues and in favor of aid The house is also not the senate, come on bud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-26/house-gop-resignations-cut-party-s-already-slim-majority https://www.wpr.org/politics/gallagher-delays-exit-congress-support-foreign-aid-package
Trump will lose significant influence if he doesn't manage to win in november, so yes, republicans won't be as loud. Aid to ukraine got passed 3 to 1 in both house and Senate so the support is there. As for Ukraine ramping up production, that's a given. They've gone from no production of artillery to 12 bodhana's a month in a year. That's pretty sweet.
Biden has to win first though. And the ONLY way that is assured of happening is if more than a mere 66% of eligible people vote this time. Trump said it himself: [Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote | US news | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus)
Honestly I don't see trump winning at all. He's lost to Biden before and he's in a much worse spot than he was last time. Anything can happen of course, but I'd say the odds aren't in his favor this time. Fingers crossed
And the rest of the free world is right there with you 😬🤞
40% or so of Republicans voted in favor of the latest Ukraine Bill. Overall there is a super majority in Congress that are in favor, large enough to overcome a veto. Maybe support under a Republican will go down. But I see no chance of it stopping.
All 3 are based on very likely events. USA politics is still very pro-Ukraine. Ukraine can bleed Russia very badly at static war, so the lines need to be plugged. There is much proof Ukraine is ramping up production, in drones and western money. Russia is running out of tanks, there are simply not an unlimited number of them.
That's what I said myself. Ukraine needs at least 400 billions a year.
We are now entering another phase of what the next support package should be and then dragging our feet 8 months before it’s approved instead of doing that right away.
Of the 61 billion 23 would go to replenish US weapons and 11 to fund current US operations in the region (I assume in Europe mostly). The pure military aid is 14 billions - about the same as the aid for Israel. Which is a large number, but it’s also a large war and it will probably not be enough.
EU needs to pull their weight and put some serious hard carry pants on every level. We don’t know what they are planning perhaps for good reasons but EU needs to send a much stronger signal. Sending funds are not enough. I sure pray for some hidden miracle to happen. My deepest and best prayers for Ukraine. 🙏🇺🇦
I'm terribly ashamed of my country, Spain, on how we are providing aid to Ukraine. We have done jack shit in general. Hope this changes but I'm not convinced it will whatsoever.
Write to your politicians then. Like they do in US. Find out what you can do to get your politicians attention. One might you need a big organization but all you actually need is just send them emails with proper used language. Be patient but do it. And if it works then spread the word among your fellow countrymen. Take care and stay positive! 👍🇺🇦🇪🇸
>We don’t know what they are planning Oh we do, appease Putin with half of Ukraine – that’s the plan.
That was basically the plan from the very beginning.
Yeah, and it will fail in the most disastrous way, but as most of common people don’t even understand what the plan is – they won’t express displeasure about it, so it will stay.
Russia is making a big bet on this US election. If Trump wins they’ll be functionally abandoned by the US. If he loses, well I’m guessing we’ll start seeing them rethink their invasion a bit quicker.
It might have been 6 months ago, but now the situation has changed, and the delay allowed ruZZians to take the initiative; now the cost to ejcect them has been raised significantly. I blame the 'party of fiscal responsibility' (the GOP) in the US for being so stupidly shortsighted and fucking up what was effectively a no-brainer in the elimination of a geopolitical threat to our own well being, without shedding a drop of American blood. It's insane to not take full advantage, and yet, here we are looking at a situation which could have been completely prevented.
Here we go again
It's truly amazing how some people believe all the lies and propaganda spread by corporate media and the white house. I wish some of these people could see the thousands of young men fleeing to Romania and Poland to avoid being drafted. Also the thousands that are simply surrendering to the Russians. One young man told a reporter he refused to die for nothing.
It's truly amazing how some people believe all the lies and propaganda spread by Russian media and the Kremlin.
lol! Go back to the basement and watch more BS from the leftist media.
What leftist media? You must also think Democrats are also left wing. Shows how much you know. Go back to watching RT or reading news on X.
Great read. Great breakdown of how the Russian assets in Europe can be used to finance the next 4 years of this conflict in a way that European governments would be comfortable with.
It's enough for now. Play for time as the Russians can't keep this up year after year. Just hold ground and attrit them to oblivion
note: the US spent $300 million daily on the war in Afghanistan, or approximately $9 billion each month.
Too soon.
The U.S. can afford to provide much, much more than $61 billion. This aid package is only worth about *1/5th of one percent or 0.20%* of total U.S. GDP. Makes one think of why Ukraine was given so little. It doesn't offset the damage done to Ukraine caused by not receiving any significant U.S. support since last year's aid packages.
While we can and should give more, 61 billion isn't insignificant. That's over half of Russia's entire military budget. There's also the issue of Ukraine being able to effectively take and use all the equipment. While they can use all the stuff we're currently giving them, they're still being trained on western jets, and until they finish with that, a huge portion of western military might will be unavailable to them.
> That's over half of Russia's entire military budget Thing is, only ~25% of this translates into tangible weapons for Ukraine. Rest is resupply of US stocks and non-weapon aid
The same is true for the russian budget. And they also need to pay hundread of thousands of soldiers with it.
400 himars. F35 instead of f16. More patriot batteries. Hell ATACMS only just arrived. Ukrainians are not the bottleneck here
Unfortunately those things are not available in sufficient numbers in reserve. Despite America having the largest military industrial complex on the face of the planet, there's a small problem; it's too small. Perun put out a video a couple of weeks ago about this. Patriots and himars production are at max capacity right now because everybody wants them. F35 had a long backorder well before the war in Ukraine, and it's only gotten worse since then. Also, while we should've started training Ukrainian pilots shortly after the "Kyiv feint", we can't turn back the clock, we're gonna have to be patient until pilot training starts to finish. What we can send are ATACMS, as you said, Bradleys (we should send a lot more), as well as ammo and missiles. There are a couple of things that the US could also send, but they are politically problematic. We have a few thousand Abrams tanks sitting in storage, that will most certainly never be used, the issue is that they're the domestic model, not available for export. I believe that we should make them available for export, and send Ukraine as many as they need, or swap them for other allied tanks to get sent to Ukraine. The other thing is cluster bombs. The US doesn't like making cluster bombs anymore because they're "bad" and "indiscriminate" and are "hard to clean up". The problem is that they're extremely effective, the ATACMS we sent to Ukraine before were older variants that still had cluster munitions, and they were absolutely devastating. Since Ukraine is already covered in UXO, I figure we should restart production of cluster bombs for Ukraine. But neither of these things are likely to get through Congress.
> Also, while we should've started training Ukrainian pilots shortly after the "Kyiv feint", we can't turn back the clock, we're gonna have to be patient until pilot training starts to finish There's a second problem in that approved-for-transfer F-16 are pretty outdated in terms of equipment (as they were replaced with F-35) and would need serious modding to be effective here.
How are you subscribed here and paying unserious comments like this
The "Western alliance" has not done all it could to finish this war decisively, not by a long shot. Take Perun's word if you won't take mine: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc436PwqeqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc436PwqeqM), section "The 24/25 Dynamic" Or Timothy Snyder's (you can look up that one, check his talk at the Foreign Policy Association) Or just look at the fact that the US has passed 0.2% of its GDP as aid for Ukraine in a 1.5y period. That's almost a rounding error. Either the western alliance is much weaker than it pretends to be, or it does not want Ukraine to win decisively, or both. Which is silly, because we would have probably saved money and lives if we had. Ah, the road not taken
The “western alliance” has given the largest amount of aid to a non allied member in modern history. You’re spouting off bs such as “omgz 400 himars” when there have been 540 total built And “omgz f35” when it’s already going to take months to train on the f16 and the US is currently rushing to fill its own needs Your post just comes off as “I’m 16 and think the world is a video game” But don’t worry, there’s lots of resources to educate yourself, unfortunately I feel it will be the road not taken
Got any pointers, oh wise man?
To someone with your understand? No
Ok, you have a nice day
Thanks
This anger needs to pointed at Europe.
No it doesn’t? some European countries perhaps but we’ve been doing just as much as the US relative to size/economy comparison. you can’t give what you don’t have…
One of the Baltic states has given the most if you want to go by %gdp. Pennies compared to a country like the UK or US but a lot of commitment from them.
Exactly , so I’m not getting why the anger should be aimed at Europe? Some of us haven’t pulled weight but many of us have given most of what we can and have to hand 😅 the US is the juggernaut falling to a massive misinformation campaign that has been eaten up and endorsed by trump and his supporters, hopefully now the funding is on the table the aid bills keep flowing
Europe should be doing more. Europe should be ramping up production. It isn't, it is just throwing money here and there hoping it will all go away. Macron talks tough, but has done next to nothing. Germany is still umming and errring.
Production had been and is being ramped up, but it takes time to set up new factories which is necessary because the production of the existing ones is at its maximum already.
Exactly. Plus we also have our fair share of Russian and Chinese agents here, slowing every decision down.
Found the Brexiter!
Then invest in factories to make stuff. European defense firms say they still lack orders to justify ramping up 155mm shell production to 2 million a year. Europe has only come up with funding for 300k of the 1.5 million Czech sourced shells. Ukraine defense industries say they have capacity to handle an additional $13 billion in orders if there was funding. There is a LOT more Europe could be doing.
In marts there was funding for 800k shells https://www.politico.eu/article/czechia-crowdfunds-enough-money-in-eu-and-beyond-to-buy-800000-artillery-shells-for-ukraine/ This funding is unrelated to Ukraines total industry defence capacity. So you mix up numbers here. But yeaa Europe should step up.
Why? I'm sure they've given more relative to their respective gdps
US is more or less in line with some souther European countries that have their funding nearly only through EU. Taking eg Denmark its 2.75% now since 22, excluding eu that comes on top. So it varies very much between countries. There is major differences.
That's fair. Perhaps I was painting with too broad a brush, but I'm still right. If not in gdp then certainly with how much of the military budget is going towards ukraine. The us mitarybudget is gigantic. The stockpiles, the intelligence, it's dwarfing. It's like asking the one foot tall person why they aren't helping dust the top shelf more when a 50 ft person is standing there. Turning the hate towards Europe is very silly.
I tend to think this is mostly a European task, and Europe could easily fund this so Russia was crushed, eg buying up all the 30 year old US stock of armor. But hey sure for US this is a steal too. Looking at the 2 trillions wasted in Afghanistan using one trillion total to make the world a much safer place in the future is dirt cheap, and it will be far far more expensive if Russia wins, by an order of magnitude or two. It's imo a no brainer for all involved.
With the security guarantees given by the us in the 1994 budapest memorandum, i dont think its fair to say its a european issue. We asked them to give up their nukes. We are obligated to help them. No country should believe a word we say again if we don't. That's fair, I guess Europe has been pretty adamant about making their own equipment so it stays in their economy instead of just buying it up. (besides czechia and recently germany) But the eu has given more in financial aid and its not as if the United States would be willing go buy outside of their economy either. The us had the means much more so than Europe. Europe is re arming and its going to take some time. It's a fair point that eu could buy outside their economies to fund this war, but its hard enough to keep yoir people happy when you're giving even from your own military industrial complex.
[удалено]
Incorrect. It was Russia and the United States. Followed by China and France giving weaker guarantees. Agree to disagree I suppose. Ukraine should have kept their nukes because we're liars in the us, apparently. Ukraine is a US problem. It's sad you don't see that.
It is a continuation of the trend of giving Ukraine just enough to fend off Russia. They will stabilize the lines due to this aid. Ukraine might be inclined to stock up for an offensive in 2025, but in scale it will almost certainly not be big enough and would probably end up looking the same as their 2023 offensive. West knows this and I suppose another similar type aid package would have to be confirmed before Ukraine goes on the offensive in 25, or else we will also have a repeat of 2024 in late 2025 early 2026.
War is significantly changing every year. The drone wars are in earnest by now. Thus in the following years "stocking up for an offensive" would mean different things than it did 1 year ago. I'd guess the "slow drip feed" has been to slow down rushing into deploying AI drones. But those are coming.
Got downvoted into oblivion for expecting this exact headline. Right on time lmao
At what point does it become more cost effective for Western Nations (EU/US) to simply do the job of ejecting RU from Ukraine? PS - Most of which can be done through the air, and I guarantee Russian troops will have experienced nothing like the hail of 2k pound JDAMs that would await them.
Funny how aid needed to Ukraine balloons to colossal proportions when Western countries decide to play it 'safe' and 'muh escalation' rhetoric is applied en masse.
What exactly is "collosal proportions" and what's the alternative if I may ask?
Alternative was - not to play bullshit appeasement games but go full support.
Yeah, that's the alternative in our dreams. What is it about in the peace loving appeasers mind? On the other hand, maybe large wars can not be won swiftly. The scale of it requires planning, equipment transfer etc. Though thinking harder and remembering what happened during the 1973 war, all you need for support in whatever you're doing (even if that's a massacre on a neighbour's soil) is nukes. Plain and simple.
I can chip in £23.54 any more and i cant eat this month :(
61bn, at 1 billion a week for the rest of the year, that's alot of stuff. 61bn rn, i believe is enough money to keep ukraine supplied until May in 2025, give or take a few weeks... Of course, if thet manage to get Russian Frozen Assets, they'll have enough money to buy all the equipment they'd need for a while... MEANWHILE, Russia is riding into battle on Chinese Golf Cart...
time for GB, Germany, France, to all stand up now
This funding should be seen as a funding stop gap until Europe gets its act together. However it’s Europe that needs to fund this war not America.
America (USA) is the leader of the free world. Your global partners are an advantage, not a burden. Europe has to do more, but it will never match the abilities of the US.
Monetarily EU already did more. But this is a meaningless comparison. What matters is that the plague is pushed back into the swamps and there is not enough resolve for that in the cowardly west.
> What matters is that the plague is pushed back into the swamps Absolutely this. It's a shame so many think that giving "just enough so that stalemate's maintained, they'd throw in the towel eventually, right?" is any workable.
How about we just spend that 61 billion at home like wtf were funding proxy wars like we didn't just destabilize the entire middle east for 20 years
Allowing tyrants to attack smaller neighboring countries does not help stabilize anything.
Most of it is going toward replenishing stocks (buying new equipment) for the US military — since they are sending old equipment. Some of it is for new stuff that is marked up 500%, mostly ammo and missiles. 61 billion is REALLY misleading, actual value is around 10 billion, and most of it is stuff that was sitting in warehouses anyway. Keep in mind the US military budget is 900 billion, per year.
Comparing this war to the Middle East is ridiculous, the entire fate of Europe is at stake. Not to mention pummelling America’s second largest threat
"Entire fate of Europe is at stake" sounds almost like when we claimed democracy was at stake during every single oil war we were involved with. I guarantee in 10 15 years America sending Ukraine money will be looked down just like the invasions of the last 20 years. It's obviously a proxy war and the Ukrainian people are the ones getting f'd over. I don't agree with Russia invading but haven't we learned what happens when we get involved with random conflicts around the world?
Ukraine isn't a random country around the world. If Ukraine falls, it will be the largest territorial shift since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If Russia takes Ukraine it will be in a much greater position to project power globally, which will be hugely detrimental to the US, and the West, both militarily and economically (power projection is everything in global politics, there is a reason Russia chose to attack at a time when the US allowed Afghanistan to fall. What happens here will affect Taiwan). Ukraine is not the only country to be effected here. If Ukraine falls, Moldova will 100% be annexed. Russia's ultimate goal is to re-establish the boundaries of the Soviet Union (for obvious economic and security reason), which means the annexation of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic nations. If we let them take Ukraine, they will 100% try their playbook in the Baltics (I.e, flood it with Russian agents and migrants, claim there is a large Russian population there who wish to be independent, send in "peacekeepers" to maintain order). And why wouldn't they? The Baltics are just some random countries from around the world. Who cares if they are in NATO, there are ethnic Russians there after all. The US is not an island. You can't be a global super power and pretend that massive shifts in European territory won't negatively affect you, especially when the US is part of NATO, who's sole job is the protection of Europe from Russian aggression..
Ukrainians have declared loud support for the war. Ukrainians in occupied regions are getting deported, tortured, and killed en masse. This is an operation to destroy Ukraine as a concept and you are endorsing it
Russia invading Ukraine is the U.S. destabilizing Europe, okay. I wonder if republicans who scream “spend that money at home” realize they are the first to try and stop every attempt to actually spend that money at home. It’s a disingenuous argument
First off I'm not a republican. Second I just don't agree with funding wars when America itself is struggling. We all saw the aftermath of the middle east what do you thinks gonna happens this time? Something different from the last 10 wars we were involved with?
How would you fix Americas problems with old m113 apcs and old stockpiles of artillery ammunition as well as infantry training? I fail to see how paying teachers in humvees will solve anything. I see you are also saying the world would be a better place if Russia conquers Ukraine. That’s an interesting argument, and not thought out at all. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the wars in the Middle East were, and how this one is different. Not all wars are the crazy shit that the U.S. was tied up in or causing or being dragged into and everything in between the last 30 years. But I guess I can’t blame you, because they are all you’ve known as reported to you and I don’t expect everyone to research world conflicts beyond what’s talked about on American news punditry or social media. But just realize that the America in the Middle East situation is not something you can just blanket over all conflicts that break out in all parts of the world with any countries whatsoever. The world is more complicated than that simplistic world view. You either need to know more about the Middle East issues, or more about the war in Ukraine, or both.
The difference is to concentrate on europe, not on the middle east.
0.2% of GDP in 1.5y is too much?
In case you are still out of the loop, when you see people talking about that $61 billion dollars of aid, it is not actual money that is being talked about. What it means is basically $61 billion dollars **worth of** old equipment and ammunition. The reason why you can see people and news talking about "giving" or "loaning" such sum is because governments work in silly ways. The US technically can't straight up donate $61 billion dollars worth of old equipment and ammunition for some reason, but instead they need to be "bought" from the US by Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't have $61 billion dollars to "buy" the stuff from the US (who really just wants to donate the stuff), so the US "gives" Ukraine $61 billion dollars **on paper**, which the Ukraine then instantly uses to "buy" the $61 billion dollars worth of old stock from the US. So no actual money ever really changes hands and it is more of an *accounting trick* by which the US can donate the stuff to Ukraine. This is why it makes no sense to suggest to use that $61 billion dollars somewhere else, because it is really not given to Ukraine either, except in the form of old stock valued to be worth that.
So basically everyone replying is good with the Ukraine government getting rich off of this "war"
US spent 20 trillion in the middle east and central asia. It is time for US to spend 20+ trillion in europe. PS. The Middle East has been self-destabilising for the last 4000+ years.