Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Another thing to remember is that Russia needs to keep the war going, it's easy to say to a parent that "yes, they are still over there fighting valiantly for Russia", when the war is over that no longer works as an excuse.
If you let the population know that they didn't do very well in a war they thought they would win easily they might start questioning the rulers en mass, and I doubt they'd be able to contain that.
Also it takes people's minds off domestic issues, you can blame a lot of things on war, you can't do that when the war is over, even more so if you win and you life is still terrible.
I understand what you are saying, but it currently looks like Russia is not going to win. At the slower than a snail's pace that Russia is advancing, for Russia to achieve it's stated aims, it will take years. Years that Russia cannot afford, as it is increasingly getting short on manpower at home which at some point will affect the war effort. And will exhaust it's sovereign wealth fund soon. So then it will have to start "printing money" which will seriously affect it's already poorly performing economy.
At some point, the population or the oligarchs will decide that they have had enough. So what happens then to Putin? He has boxed himself into his own bunker. He can't afford to end the war that he started but Russia is extremely unlikely to win the war.
I understand what you are saying, but it currently looks like Russia is not going to win. At the slower than a snail's pace that Russia is advancing, for Russia to achieve it's stated aims, it will take years. Years that Russia cannot afford, as it is increasingly getting short on manpower at home which at some point will affect the war effort. And will exhaust it's sovereign wealth fund soon. So then it will have to start "printing money" which will seriously affect it's already poorly performing economy.
At some point, the population or the oligarchs will decide that they have had enough. So what happens then to Putin? He has boxed himself into his own bunker. He can't afford to end the war that he started but Russia is extremely unlikely to win the war.
I think the question is which happens first, the above or one of (a) Ukraine running out of manpower, or (b) the West providing insufficient support for Ukraine to keep fighting.
I think the question is which happens first, the above or one of (a) Ukraine running out of manpower, or (b) the West providing insufficient support for Ukraine to keep fighting.
Although Ukraine is having difficulties, the ratio of human losses is said to be such that around 12 to 20 or more Russians are being lost compared to one Ukrainian. Ukraine is trying to use drones to compensate for any manpower issues.
They are also investigating if moving to a professional (higher paid contract) army will attract more into the army.
And European and other friendly countries are still currently providing support with no signs of it stopping anytime soon. The exception of course being the U.S.A. where Taco Trump wants to be paid for any weapons...
Although Ukraine is having difficulties, the ratio of human losses is said to be such that around 12 to 20 or more Russians are being lost compared to one Ukrainian. Ukraine is trying to use drones to compensate for any manpower issues.
Yes, Russia has all but given up using armour to move forwards as the drones are tearing them apart, and the only tactic they seem to have is to throw men forwards and hope that they can push the Ukrainians back before the drones catch them. At the same time, Ukraine has effectively covered the front lines in drones, and they're using some truly unbelievable techniques to take out whatever they can. In terms of drone flying, I don't think there's anyone better in the world. If we assume that Ukraine will be training more and more people in drone warfare, it's very conceivable that the front lines will simply end up static while Russia will take horrendous amounts of casualties.
What's also painfully obvious is that Russian weaponry is falling far short of what they claimed. They've used another Zircon hypersonic missile in Sumy, but again, it's showing that these missiles are nowhere near good enough to actually hit what they're supposed to hit. They can still do serious damage with other missiles, but they don't seem to have enough of them to actually use. Meanwhile, Ukraine is battering Russian energy facilities, and they're now showing that they're capable of producing cruise missiles themselves.
One fascinating figure: 3.5 years of war, and Russia is still only occupying around 68% of Donetsk Oblast and with no prospect of any real quick gains.
Taiwan is a key player in the supply chain for advanced semiconductor chips. One of the semiconductor companies is the world's largest dedicated independent semiconductor foundry and is responsible for around one quarter of Taiwan's GDP. Many companies that don't have their own semiconductor manufacturing facilities are customers of this company including AMD, Apple, ARM, Broadcom, Marvell, MediaTek, Qualcomm, and Nvidia as well as others.
It's very clear at this point that if Taiwan is attacked, then they will simply blow up the foundries and China will have serious problems. They're not going to let China take control of them one way or another, so taking Taiwan would simply hurt China very badly as the chips simply wouldn't be available anymore. For a country that relies heavily on mass produced and cheap electronics, it would be economic suicide to lose that supply.
It was inevitable to me, as the main alternatives were a return to socialism under Gennady Zyuganov who won 40% of votes in 1996, or the ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovksy (look him up, he said some hilarious and terrifying things) far behind that. Liberal democratic parties never won more than 10% of votes in 1996 and 2004.
I think it was pretty much inevitable once the real horror of 1990s Russia started to really come clear to people. It was a lawless mess, and if it hadn't been Putin, someone else would have done almost exactly the same as he did. While the war in Ukraine has been a disaster for Russia, Putin's leadership as a whole has been characterised by stability and at least some level of law and order that simply didn't exist in the 1990s.
The only question really is why Russia got bogged down in Ukraine in the first place, as it's highly likely that an independent Ukraine after Maidan would have voted for yet another pro-Russian corrupt strongman in 2018/2019. They didn't need to invade, or even do anything. Instead, by invading Crimea and the Donbas, they gave Poroshenko the mandate he needed to impose badly needed reforms, which were the reason why the Ukrainian Army was in much better shape in 2022 than in 2014. My feeling is that Putin wanted to install a puppet in Kyiv and in the process, he would unite Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in some sort of new Soviet Union, possibly with some others like Georgia.
My feeling is that Putin wanted to install a puppet in Kyiv and in the process, he would unite Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in some sort of new Soviet Union, possibly with some others like Georgia.
Absolutely and that’s why the initial offensive in February 2022 was headed towards Kiev until they were pushed back with heavy losses, they wanted to topple Zelenskyy and place, according to rumours, Viktor Medvedchuk, an oligarch. There is the protection against NATO case for Russia moving into Ukraine but also national pride, they see Ukraine and Belarus as part of a union state with Russia like the UK.
Also they couldn’t risk Ukraine pivoting to the west, as it’s not a given they would vote for a pro Russian candidate in 2019 even.
The only question really is why Russia got bogged down in Ukraine in the first place, as it's highly likely that an independent Ukraine after Maidan would have voted for yet another pro-Russian corrupt strongman in 2018/2019.
I think Putin realised that after Maidan, it was highly unlikely that the Ukrainians would ever vote in another Russian puppet. Okay, they voted in someone who proved pretty ineffective against the endemic corruption, and Putin could largely live with that, as a lot of the corruption had Russian roots. Crimea was too strategically important to Russia to risk losing control of, which is why he took action there. And the Donbas was arms-length destabilisation (the kind of thing the Baltic countries are frightened of).
It was when the Ukrainians voted in Zelensky, with the mandate to make real change, that Putin had to make decisive action.
update: Ukraine has hit the Unecha oil pumping station again, which is the key point in the Druzhba oil pipeline that takes oil from the East and distributes it. Unecha is where quite a few pipelines split off, including towards St Petetsburg (for the shadow fleet) and the ones that are (still) supplying Hungary and Slovakia with oil. Essentially, if Unecha is taken out, then both Hungary and Slovakia have a serious problem as they're relying on cheap Russian oil.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think they would have, as the Party of Regions structures would still have been intact in the eastern/southern parts of the country, and I suspect that there would have been massive illicit financing of their activities before the next election. It might not have been as blatant as Yanukovych's pro-Moscow stance, but I suspect that there would have been considerable rebellion against whatever Western candidate won after Yanukovych lost power. I don't think there would have been room for a Zelenskyy-type leader, that's for sure.
I think Putin realised that after Maidan, it was highly unlikely that the Ukrainians would ever vote in another Russian puppet. Okay, they voted in someone who proved pretty ineffective against the endemic corruption, and Putin could largely live with that, as a lot of the corruption had Russian roots. Crimea was too strategically important to Russia to risk losing control of, which is why he took action there. And the Donbas was arms-length destabilisation (the kind of thing the Baltic countries are frightened of).
The thing that makes me wonder is that they already experienced the Orange Revolution in 2005, yet they rather decisively voted in Yanukovych in 2010. His results in places like the Kherson and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts show that the voters had no problem with voting in someone that had previously been caught vote-rigging, and so I'm not convinced that the general population there would have been necessarily against voting in another puppet, as long as they made sure that the pensions were paid. But I think you're not giving credit to Poroshenko here, as many of the most important reforms were started under his rule, including the crucial separation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from Moscow and enacting serious decommunisation.
Crimea wasn't a problem for Putin, as Ukraine was effectively bankrupt after Maidan, and there was no way that the central government had the money or the ability to control the autonomous parliament there. This is why I think it was a terrible move to get involved, because Russia really didn't have to do anything to ensure their continued influence.
I understand what you are saying, but it currently looks like Russia is not going to win. At the slower than a snail's pace that Russia is advancing, for Russia to achieve it's stated aims, it will take years. Years that Russia cannot afford, as it is increasingly getting short on manpower at home which at some point will affect the war effort. And will exhaust it's sovereign wealth fund soon. So then it will have to start "printing money" which will seriously affect it's already poorly performing economy.
Agreed that Russia is barely winning, but the important thing from Putin's perspective is that they are not losing. As long as they are not obviously losing, he can continue to paint a positive-ish picture to the Russian people. He can afford to sit the situation out, knowing that the Russian people will accept the hardships, until something changes.
Obviously he is hoping that things will change in his favour, such as Trump washing his hands of Ukraine (Trump was obviously hoping to get kudos from a quick fix, but could equally quickly wash his hands of it if a prolonged conflict looks like dragging his reputation down). If things change against Russia, he will take action then. But at present, with the chance that things could turn in his favour, particularly with a somewhat flakey US president, he has nothing to lose by just sitting it out and letting the conflict grind on, and nothing to gain by stopping it.
Putin has got the oligarchs firmly under his thumb now. Nil chance of a public uprising. Realistically, the only thing that could topple Putin now is the army rebelling against him. That is unlikely to happen while resources are being thrown at them hand over fist, it is only likely to happen if they are humiliated.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The thing that makes me wonder is that they already experienced the Orange Revolution in 2005, yet they rather decisively voted in Yanukovych in 2010. His results in places like the Kherson and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts show that the voters had no problem with voting in someone that had previously been caught vote-rigging, and so I'm not convinced that the general population there would have been necessarily against voting in another puppet, as long as they made sure that the pensions were paid. But I think you're not giving credit to Poroshenko here, as many of the most important reforms were started under his rule, including the crucial separation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from Moscow and enacting serious decommunisation.
The separation of the church was certainly seen as a serious snub by the Russian people, but I doubt that Putin saw it as anything more than that. Likewise decommunisation, as Russia had likewise swung away from communism.
Putin was reasonably happy to let things lie, as long as the Ukrainian government remained largely ineffective and mired in Russian controlled corruption. He was apparently even happy for Ukraine to join the EU, although I suspect that he knew they would never actually be admitted due to the endemic corruption. You may be right that he was banking on them eventually turning back to Russia when the swing to the West produced little in the way of positive returns.
Crimea obviously was a concern to Putin, otherwise he wouldn't have taken action there. As I say, Crimea is just too strategically important to Russia to take any risks with. And it was an easy win, that Putin could paint as him standing up for downtrodden Russians elsewhere.
The meddling in the Donbas is harder to explain. I suspect that it started simply as an easy exercise in disaffecting the Russian population there so that Russians elsewhere in Ukraine would side with them, that escalated and got out of hand. It could even be viewed as a serious backfire, as it led to Ukraine seriously strengthening their military, without which they might not have been able to resist the Russian invasion.
I understand what you are saying, but it currently looks like Russia is not going to win. At the slower than a snail's pace that Russia is advancing, for Russia to achieve it's stated aims, it will take years. Years that Russia cannot afford, as it is increasingly getting short on manpower at home which at some point will affect the war effort. And will exhaust it's sovereign wealth fund soon. So then it will have to start "printing money" which will seriously affect it's already poorly performing economy.
At some point, the population or the oligarchs will decide that they have had enough. So what happens then to Putin? He has boxed himself into his own bunker. He can't afford to end the war that he started but Russia is extremely unlikely to win the war.
British Defence Intelligence Update Ukraine 15 August 2025 said:
It has been reported that Russian President Putin has reiterated longstanding maximalist demands regarding Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, including for the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the four internationally-recognised Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson.
Based on the rate of Russia’s incremental battlefield advances so far in 2025, it would take Russian forces approximately 4.4 more years to gain 100 per cent of the four Ukrainian oblasts territory.
Based on Russia’s average daily casualty rate in 2025 so far, as reported by Ukrainian General Staff, 4.4 more years of war would lead to approximately 1,930,000 further Russian casualties (killed and wounded). This is in addition to the approximately 1,060,000 casualties Russia has already likely sustained since launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, including around 250,000 killed or missing (presumed dead).
What that doesn't say is what would be the effect on Ukraine of continuing the war for another 4.4 years. I doubt that looks good either, which I suspect is why the Kyiv Post has glossed over that.
Will Trump still be supplying arms to Ukraine next year? TBH, I would be wary about what he will be doing next month! He will sooner or later be thinking about what his legacy will be, how be can paint his time in office in the most positive light. He doesn't come out of the present mess very positively, which is why I suspect that sooner or later he is going to be distancing himself from it as much as he can.
Will Trump still be supplying arms to Ukraine next year? TBH, I would be wary about what he will be doing next month! He will sooner or later be thinking about what his legacy will be, how be can paint his time in office in the most positive light. He doesn't come out of the present mess very positively, which is why I suspect that sooner or later he is going to be distancing himself from it as much as he can.
If reputation is what he's worried about then his best bet is to say as little as possible and simply allow things to continue as is. Nobody remembers Obama for continuing the war in Afghanistan but everyone remembers Biden for ending it.
What that doesn't say is what would be the effect on Ukraine of continuing the war for another 4.4 years. I doubt that looks good either, which I suspect is why the Kyiv Post has glossed over that.
Will Trump still be supplying arms to Ukraine next year? TBH, I would be wary about what he will be doing next month! He will sooner or later be thinking about what his legacy will be, how be can paint his time in office in the most positive light. He doesn't come out of the present mess very positively, which is why I suspect that sooner or later he is going to be distancing himself from it as much as he can.
What I quoted was from the British Defence Intelligence. They publish it on X, I just used the Kyiv Post site to link to as it easier for me than using X.
The U.S.A. under Trump is already not funding any new weapons supplies over and above any already paid and agreed by the Biden administration. Any new weapons that are being supplied are being paid for by European or other countries.
Meanwhile European financial help and weapons supplies have increased. It's now near or greater than the previous combined level of both European and U.S.A. support from April - June year (the latest latest figures available, April - June 2025 compared to April - June last year, see attached image below, source is here).
(image above is two charts showing the level of support for Ukraine from Europe and the U.S.A.)
You do have to wonder if the American military-industrial complex isn't starting to get a little bit unhappy here. Without American financing, Europe will start to build weapons in Europe, and battle-tested weapons will be a source of competition for American companies on the defence market. There's also the point that there's plenty of weapons out there that they'd like to test in battle, and if Trump is blocking that, they're going to be very unhappy.
A great example is with the Patriots, which are doing a great job in Ukraine. Do the manufacturers really want to risk Europe coming up with a domestic version that does the same job?
You do have to wonder if the American military-industrial complex isn't starting to get a little bit unhappy here. Without American financing, Europe will start to build weapons in Europe, and battle-tested weapons will be a source of competition for American companies on the defence market. There's also the point that there's plenty of weapons out there that they'd like to test in battle, and if Trump is blocking that, they're going to be very unhappy.
This is something that the average "we shouldn't spend money on someone else's war", MAGA hat wearing, Trumpite doesn't appreciate - the vast majority of the billions of dollars spent "on Ukraine" have actually gone to American companies, supporting American jobs.
You do have to wonder if the American military-industrial complex isn't starting to get a little bit unhappy here. Without American financing, Europe will start to build weapons in Europe, and battle-tested weapons will be a source of competition for American companies on the defence market. There's also the point that there's plenty of weapons out there that they'd like to test in battle, and if Trump is blocking that, they're going to be very unhappy.
A great example is with the Patriots, which are doing a great job in Ukraine. Do the manufacturers really want to risk Europe coming up with a domestic version that does the same job?
Trump's recent granting of permission for Europe to pay for American arms for Ukraine has forestalled this somewhat (intentionally or otherwise). In the short term there is no European substitute for many of these systems so American industry is kept supplied with orders and the American government doesn't have to pay. It may even be that Ukraine gets more modern systems, as the previous policy tended to be to donate older equipment and the money was spent re-equipping the US forces with the latest kit.
There is a possible crunch if prioritisation is needed between what Europe has ordered for Ukraine and whatever the US orders for the Indo-Pacific. There's also the risk of Trump changing his mind, so no doubt Europe is still looking to develop its own industry in parallel with this initiative.
You do have to wonder if the American military-industrial complex isn't starting to get a little bit unhappy here. Without American financing, Europe will start to build weapons in Europe, and battle-tested weapons will be a source of competition for American companies on the defence market. There's also the point that there's plenty of weapons out there that they'd like to test in battle, and if Trump is blocking that, they're going to be very unhappy.
A great example is with the Patriots, which are doing a great job in Ukraine. Do the manufacturers really want to risk Europe coming up with a domestic version that does the same job?
Europe is moving in the direction of designing and manufacturing more of it's own weapons. As is Ukraine.
As I understand it (and I have not gone looking for sources to confirm this, so please correct me if any of the following contains any errors), the only major U.S.A. system that currently can't be replaced is the MIM-104 Patriot with PAC-3 missiles for taking out the Russian ballistic missiles.
Obviously other air defence (including SAM and AAM) systems from Europe are available for defence against aircraft or drones.
I don't know if there is any replacement for the Hawk missiles. Ukraine were receiving many of these (which the U.S.A. no longer uses but still has stocks).
Germany is said to have or be working on a solution to produce a replacement for GMLRS.
The U.S.A. has not supplied any ATACMS to Ukraine for some time now. But Ukraine now has it's Flamingo FP-5 cruise missile which has a longer range.
Ukraine is still making use of intelligence and surveillance information from the Americans. But after Trump cut this off for a short period earlier, has since been using other information sources.
Overall, yes, Europe and Ukraine will be buying less military equipment from the U.S.A., the more important thing is that large expensive future orders for say F-35 Lightning II aircraft from European or other countries are less likely as these countries look for alternatives.
And I expect European missile manufacturers will be developing their own alternatives to the Patriot PAC-3.
Based on my (admittedly limited!) knowledge, the obvious alternative is a land-based system using Aster 30 which is the missile component of Sea Viper fitted to our Type 45 destroyers.
Based on my (admittedly limited!) knowledge, the obvious alternative is a land-based system using Aster 30 which is the missile component of Sea Viper fitted to our Type 45 destroyers.
I don't know if the idea would be to develop an entirely new system (land segment, radars, etc.) or just to develop ammunition compatible with the existing Patriot batteries.
I don't know if the idea would be to develop an entirely new system (land segment, radars, etc.) or just to develop ammunition compatible with the existing Patriot batteries.
It already exists, it’s called SAMP/T and has been deployed in Ukraine. But there do appear to be various news reports that they’ve been struggling to get enough missiles from France and Italy for it.
It already exists, it’s called SAMP/T and has been deployed in Ukraine. But there do appear to be various news reports that they’ve been struggling to get enough missiles from France and Italy for it.
Yes, the SAMP/T does have missiles that can counter ballistic missiles, the Aster 30 Block 1 and the Aster 30 Block 1NT. See the Wikipedia article. But work for an improved system (Aster 30 Block 2 BMD) is underway.
The limiting factor is however, the rate of production, this is what is said on Wikipedia:
In December 2024, during a hearing before the French National Assembly, the Delegate General for Armament, Emmanuel Chiva, announced a significant increase in annual production of Aster missiles, across all variants (Aster 15, Aster 30, Aster 30 B1 NT). Whereas the production forecast for 2025 had originally been capped at 32 missiles, a "tiger team"—a tightly coordinated group involving the DGA, industry and the military staff—has enabled a ramp-up to an estimated 80–100 units. The stated objective is to reach a sustained production rate of over 300 Aster missiles per year by 2028.
However, given that Ukraine has a number of Patriot batteries (and some European countries are also equipped with them), I would have thought that it may be worthwhile to try and develop a European missile that can be used with these that is equivalent to a PAC-3 missile.
As it is, it looks like Patriot missiles will be produced in Germany
Wikipedia said:
A $5.5 billion contract has been awarded to Raytheon and MBDA to establish a new production facility in Germany.
However, given that Ukraine has a number of Patriot batteries (and some European countries are also equipped with them), I would have thought that it may be worthwhile to try and develop a European missile that can be used with these that is equivalent to a PAC-2 missile.
Exactly what I was thinking. While both are worthwhile tracks it does make sense to me to develop missiles that can work with the ground systems that we (and Ukraine) already have.
Exactly what I was thinking. While both are worthwhile tracks it does make sense to me to develop missiles that can work with the ground systems that we (and Ukraine) already have.
The only option will be to replace the American systems with European systems, not just in Ukraine, but across all the other countries of Nato, the US, can not now be trusted
South Korea has also emerged a possible alternate defence supplier - Poland is in part equipping with South Korean tanks, MLRS launchers and light fighter jets. Japan also seems to want to increase its presence in the market, but there are political issues there.
If I understand your words, it's not the admin that is the problem. US manufacturers are instinctively protectionist for competitive in quite cynical ways. Designs are deliberately crafted to tie-in customers and prevent them supplementing their earlier investments with items from their competitors. Think laser printer toner where firmware of the capital item is changed to force customers to use higher cost consumables (OEM cartridges). The further up the cost scale the equipment goes, (especially in defence products) the more restrictions there are.
Pentagon Has Quietly Blocked Ukraine’s Long-Range Missile Strikes on Russia
The Defense Department has withheld approval for attacks as the White House has sought to entice Moscow to open peace talks
WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has for months been blocking Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russia, U.S. officials said, limiting Kyiv from employing a powerful weapon in its fight against Moscow’s invasion.
A high-level Defense Department approval procedure, which hasn’t been announced, has prevented Ukraine from firing any U.S.-made long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems, or Atacms, against targets in Russia since late spring, the officials said. On at least one occasion, Ukraine sought to use Atacms against a target on Russian territory but was rejected, two officials said.
Pentagon has blocked Ukraine from striking deep inside Russia – report
Wall Street Journal says move is part of Trump administration’s effort to get Putin into peace talks
Edward Helmore
Sun 24 Aug 2025 00.58 BST
US defense officials have blocked Ukraine from using US-supplied long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia since late spring as part of a Trump administration effort to get Vladimir Putin to engage in peace talks , according to a report on Saturday.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon has blocked Ukraine from using US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or Atacms.
Two US officials told the outlet that on at least one occasion, Ukraine had sought to use Atacms against a target but was denied under a “review mechanism” developed by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy, that governs how US long-range weapons or those provided by European allies that rely on American intelligence and components can be used.
The review process also applies to Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missile because it depends on US targeting data, according to two US officials and a British official, the Journal said.
The review system reportedly gives US defense secretary Pete Hegseth approval over the use of the Atacms, which have a range of nearly 190 miles (305km). Ukraine was previously given authority by the Biden administration to use the missile system against targets inside Russia in November after North Korean troops entered the war.
Before the inauguration in January, Trump told Time magazine that the decision to allow Ukraine to use US weapons systems to attack targets inside Russia had been a mistake.
“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that? We’re just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done,” he said.
It is unclear whether the US defense department’s review process amounts to a formal policy change. But it comes alongside increasing control of munitions to Ukraine as US stocks are themselves depleted.
In a statement to the Journal, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump “has been very clear that the war in Ukraine needs to end. There has been no change in military posture in Russia-Ukraine at this time.”
But last week, amid efforts to broker talks between the Russian president and Voldomyr Zelenskyy, Trump said that Ukraine couldn’t defeat Russia unless it could “play offense” in the war.
“It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invader’s country,” Trump wrote on Thursday. “It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning.”
Last month, the US agreed to supply Ukraine with new weapons systems but only if European nations paid for them. While Trump has said that the US is “not looking” to provide longer-range weapons that could reach Moscow, US officials told the Journal that the administration has approved the sale of 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition air-launched missiles, or Erams, which have a range of 280 miles (400km).
From what I understand, Germany is planning to do exactly that. It's badly needed now that it's clear that the Patriot is an essential part of modern defence, and a European option makes a lot of sense given that the Americans can't be relied on. Germany is also planning to be independent of GPS by 2030, and other European countries should go down the same route.
As I understand it (and I have not gone looking for sources to confirm this, so please correct me if any of the following contains any errors), the only major U.S.A. system that currently can't be replaced is the MIM-104 Patriot with PAC-2 missiles for taking out the Russian ballistic missiles.
Yes, pretty much. There's a lot of good American hardware, but nothing that can't be replaced with a domestic European alternative. A lot of American hardware is good, but massively overengineered and with a price to match. For instance, 155mm shells are a textbook example: there is/was no need for sophisticated ones, but there was/is a huge need for as many shells as possible to keep the pressure up on Russia. Ukraine could have easily used around 3 million shells a year if they were available, but they simply weren't. So in terms of military need, Europe really needs to have the capability to produce 3 million a year, with at least that amount in reserve. We don't need massively super complicated shells, but simple mass produced ones designed to keep Russia under constant pressure.
In general, we can see in this war that it's a war of attrition, and that what matters is being able to produce as much as possible, rather than trying to produce sophisticated weapons that run out quickly. Any land war with Russia is going to follow exactly the same pattern, their military doctrine is simply the same old Soviet-era "overload", but unlike then, there's absolutely no reason why we can't go toe to toe with them. Having said that, I think that if Russia had tried to attack a NATO member in this way, they would have been torn to pieces.
The Americans are giving Europe and other countries every reason to avoid buying and using American hardware. We all knew that they theoretically had this capability, but the fact that they're actually using it is a perfect reason to avoid buying from them. I'd also suggest that in terms of aircraft, while Lockheed Martin have been at pains to stress that they can't disable the F-35 remotely, the lack of spare parts is yet another reason to focus on a European plane with European designed and built parts, rather than having the 'latest and greatest'.
If the Pentagon is blocking long range strikes by Ukraine, into Russia, Is that though aiding Russia?
The pentagon, might not think it wise, but you can bet, Putin would say, "Donald, use your power to stop long range strikes on my country, and we might think about talking" whilst telling his own military, now hit them hard, having no intension of having talks, but to deceive trump to give him another advantage, and you can half expect, he would oblige, not having the soundness of mind, or the advisors to tell him, , Sir your being played.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
