Just in case anyone here missed it, Illia Ponomarenko:
So you're telling me that JD Vance gave a fiery speech thrashing entire Europe over the lack of democracy and freedom of speech two days after the White House revoked the Associated Press’ accreditation for failing to obey and use “Gulf of America” in their reporting?
The Dunning-Kruger Effect describes how people with little knowledge of a subject often greatly overestimate their understanding of it, whilst people with a deep comprehension of that same field tend to be cautious. In other words: fools underestimate their own incompetence.
Thanks for good summary. Any idea why russia artillery looses are so high now( compared to dec and jan loosses are 2x bigger)? more munition for UA? or russia has started to use more artillery ? Can it be these new helsing drones or ? Thanks
It could simply be a temporary spike in losses, time will tell. It's possible that barrel wear is reducing the range of their artillery and they are forced to deploy their guns closer to the front. Or it could be Ukraine is detecting more of the guns because of new methods, better equipment, more equipment, or the guns are firing more often, making the more vulnerable to detection.
If the overestimate is consistent, the numbers should show a pattern at least.
We should consider the Ukrainian estimates as the top of the range, and the Russian announcements as the bottom, with actual Russian losses somewhere between these values.
I also think it’s the use of the Koksans by the Russians - they are far less manoeuvrable, and have little ability to traverse fire so are more easily countered once they begin firing. And it would tally as the suggestions they had 200+ shipped to Russia from NK last month then the sudden jump in Russian artillery pieces would chime with Koksans being used
Artillery losses on both sides are higher. Russians and Ukrainians are both losing artillery at higher rates than before - Ukrainians to optical wire drones which are deployed at mass on Russian side (at least that's the conclusion of experts who review confirmed losses' videos), Russians to intensified Ukrainian counter-battery operations (although it is just one possible explanation, there is no clear evidence like with wire drones).
The reason for increased arty losses are decreased number of ru attacks. When people are not busy countering incoming attack, they'll start working more intensively in the rears. In the end of the day, the number of daily "hits" is limited to a number of trained people and equipment they have. This tendency was correlated over many months and years. That is one of the reasons why ru army needs to keep pressure all the time.
The more artillery the Ukrainians destroy, the older and shorter ranged are the replacements the Russians field as replacements. Aged barrels will make it even worse. This forces them ever closer to the front line and into the FPV kill zone. It's also been noticeable that Ukraine is winning the EW war, allowing more of its ISR drones to penetrate Russian lines than a year ago. Their resulting direction of counter-battery fire is clearly very effective.
"Ukraine says they are producing 200,000 drones a month." - that's not production level, that's supply level, according to the article quoted. So production+import.
Unfortunately, for Ukraine, the US refusal of direct military aid will have fatal consequences. Europe will not be able to replace America in a number of key components - Patriot and ATACMS missiles, Starlink communications, satellite intelligence and targeting, and Europe openly admits this. On top of that, Europe is not united, it is spineless, and without the "leadership" of the US, it will quickly become bogged down in its own internal contradictions.
Things have changed but we don't exactly the range or extent of the changes yet. In the worst case scenario it will make things more difficult but it is not fatal.
Oh yeah, but where there is crisis, there is opportunity. The need to resolve internal contradictions and create a more vertical-oriented structure will become more apparent for EU elites; sometimes when you are forced to move quicker it is good long-term.
Well, USA hasn't provided a single jet fighter to Ukraine, and the number of tanks they sent is laughable (seriously, they expected to win the war with 31 M1 Abrams? They sent more than 2.000 Abrams in Iraq when they attacked Saddam Hussein).
There are some weapons Europe doesn't produce (yet) like ATACMS, but on the other hand USA doesn't provide the equivalent of Storm Shadow/SCALP EG, etc. If European defense industry starts producing in large quantities, they can cover the gap.
Don't get disheartened about logistical and supply chain issues. There is only one problem - political will. Solve this and everything else will work itself out - European countries will find the materials, and/or come up with alternative designs, and/ or give their equipment, and/or buy weapons. It is primary and above all else a question of will
Go check out Oryx's weapons tracker and the Kiel Institute's support tracker. It takes seconds to find them online. If you do, you'll find it is nowhere near as bleak as you say. Don't fall for pro-Russian talking points, they're designed to appeal to you, me, everyone. Losing Patriots would be bad for Ukraine, but very bad for Trump too since they defend innocent civilians from Russian missiles and that's just about the only thing that's reported about this war in the US. Europe has deep supplies of F-16 spares and AAMs so rockets for HIMARS might be the only other munition of significance Trump could withhold. In just about every other weapons category Europe and Ukrainian manufacturing is independent of the US including Ukraine's home-grown alternative to ATACMS (and that's already in use). You can bet Ukraine is designing its own rockets for HIMARS too.
The global context is not about China. Last week most serious US media outlets reported intel "community" warnings that Netanyahu would strike Natanz and Fordow in the first half of this year using BLU-109 bunker busters. But Netanyahu clearly knows Israel cannot bring that conflict to any desirable end state with the IAF's capabilities alone. Simple inference: Trump is wrapping it up in Ukraine so that he can divert resources to fight a classical American war for Israel.
Trump isn't going to fight a war for Israel, and Netanyahu doesn't want to bring the conflict to any end. Any actual end is less desirable for Netanyahu than continuation of conflict. So your conclusion is based, in my opinion, on false idea that Netanyahu would not start something without knowing how to end it.
True. If Netanyahu ended up with peace someone could ask questions about what happened 6th of October 2023… or a lot of things. He wants to stay in power, war is good.
I am actually glad that USA is trying to disengage in Europe. It is time for European reformation. I want EU to become an actual, vertically-integrated state which is clearly superior to member states, taking over many things that member states do separately now, like military. It will not happen without desperate shock to Europe, and a lot of internal fighting, both political and possibly real.
A crisis is also an opportunity. I am not sure if that particular crisis is actually severe enough to bring any conclusion (I don't see it as severe), but at least it's a start.
Unfortunately Ukraine may fall victim to European infighting that is likely to happen in the next electoral cycle.
Also, I am looking forward for more nuclear proliferation and limited nuclear wars in some regions. It is, in my opinion, time to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. I don't see how the future may continue without some local nuclear mmm... resolutions and humanity have to kind of learn to be realistic about it and not covering in horror over mere idea.
I am worried about a possible win of AfD in Germany, which may have serious repercussions on military help to Ukraine. For all his faults and delays and hesitation, Scholz and Germany did alot for Ukraine, and they're sending 50.000 artillery rounds per month at the moment, etc.
Thanks Tom and Don again for the three part updates. Let us not forget that PRC is a part of the Russian support system since from the start and it is also DK for Trump and his clique/cabal that for portraying PRC as the main focus, conveniently forgetting that PRC is an enabler of the Russian actions since before.
The lifting of sanctions more than helps Russia, it allows more Chinese support for the Russians because regular economic activity would be legal again for the two 'Axis of Autocracy' members.
The shift to China is more baloney from team trump. They are not serious about confronting any near peer state, only little ones like Panama. If Xi made a move for Taiwan, trump would make a "deal" and call it a win. All he seems to want is to look good, sound important, and get even with enemies in the States. Again, these are not serious people. He has some real estate guy negotiating with Lavrov, but then again, after Sullivan and Blinkin, that could be an improvement.
That's one more strange thing - wasn't Kellogg supposed to be the "special envoy" to Ukraine? Why Trump sent a real estate guy who hasn't made any declaration regarding Russia or Ukraine ever?
Steve Witkoff is the guy who made a deal with Putin about releasing Marc Fogel. That obviously means that Steve Witkoff is the leading expert on deals with Putin (what deals have Kellogg made? Who that Kellogg is even? Never heard about him. Never met him. Fake news.) and obviously have to lead a new deal.
He also made a deal with Netanyahu, who is also practicly Russian, so he is a double expert in Russian dealings.
Very obvious once you get how Trump thinks. Or, rather, "thinks".
At the moment one has to wonder what Taiwan is thinking and feeling. What should they answer if Xi called them and said: We can do this the hard way or the soft way? Do you really believe US will support you? Even if Trump tells them he will support them, can they believe him? Trumps behavior will have repercussions for US credibility. But he doesn’t see it or understand it.
>> They undermine one of the basic principles held since the Second World War that stronger nations should not be allowed to take the territories of weaker nations.
- That principle did not work for Tibet or for the smaller countries annexed by India. Why should it work for Ukraine?
Post-Second World War World Order was built on a principle that strong countries do what they want and weak countries suffer, but when strong countries disagree they fight their differences in proxy wars on territories of weak countries, without going into a global nuclear war. Thus Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe and endless line of military conflicts throughout the world where strong countries participated and citizens of small countries died. That streak continued through post-Soviet stage with Transnistria and Georgia and Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and whatever. If anything, war in Ukraine is the continuation of the same Good Old World Order and Putin is outraged that EU and USA want to break the World Order.
The war in Ukraine is, if anything, a return to Good Old World Order.
So by bringing about a maximalist victory for Ukraine & Europe, we would in fact be doing something new and innovative? The first point at which the "big players" were told no thats not how its going to go?
Eh, it's not going to happen. There is not much Trump can do to sacrifice Ukraine. USA doesn't actually have much leverage, neither against Russia or Ukraine. What realistically can it do? Stop helping Ukraine - yeah, that's what Trump have already done, pretty much. Nothing else. And Russia? Well... USA can't pressure China and India to stop buying Russian oil. So... Nothing. No leverage against Russia.
Surprisingly, USA is pretty weak. And Trump doesn't help.
USA can stop some sanctions against Russia. But, again, surprisingly little, if Europeans would refuse to follow suit.
*shrug* let's be realistic. All that brouhaha with peace talks is about nothing. I don't even follow them, I am just not interested. There will be nothing worth our attention there.
Unsure what quote, but it doesn’t matter. You are of course correct when saying strong countries does whatever they will inside their sphere of influence. And in Europe that line was very clearly defined. In the rest of the world not so. But the disagreement should be kept to proxies in the «grey» zones. Now this line of thinking, allowing «great» nations to do what they wanted to in their sphere of influence is what underlies people like Mearsheimer and Sachs. Eastern Europe was Soviet sphere, hence no other choice but to accept Russia as hegemonic. Never mind that Soviet wasn’t strong enough for that. Never mind all the small states that didn’t want Russia. And actually Biden was so used to this way of thinking that he basically build his politics around it.
When money talks, then EU + GB + Canada has very large debt (historically) to NATO budget and they rely on USA to protect them. And even 2% GDP would not change it. (Canada, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and Belgium have not even reached that 2% in 2024, 3rd year of war).
In other words: About 400+ mil. of rich Europeans relies on security from about 340+ mil. rich American, to protect them from about 100+ mil. poor Russians, which are opposed by about 30+ even more poorer Ukrainians.
There is no such thing as "NATO budget", there is "total military expenditure" of a country. Not all military expenditure is beneficial to NATO members. For example, US spends a lot of its military money on fleets, that serve to project its power across the globe, which does not serve interests of NATO, generally. In other words, US is not investing a huge chunk of its military expenditure in NATO or mutual defence, but uses it in its own military adventures across the world not connected to well-being of NATO.
Therefore, it can't be counted towards NATO budget and does not add to "debt" of other countries.
True, according to Korshak's last the Americans have 2 light and 1 heavy combat brigades and and 3 Air Force squadrons, along with the Med fleet, that is mostly there for Israel.
Yes, my bad, have not explained it. It's just virtual "budget". Since 2014 every NATO country promised to spend 2% GDP on defence. If you accumulate what most countries have not fulfilled to that 2% GDP from 2014 until today, that's the large debt I am talking about.
BTW that large fleets serve EU countries with other (beside self defence) aims too. How else, without USA would be EU e.g. able to help Taiwan if attacked? Or some EU countries use USA transport aircraft to foreign missions, etc.. Without USA EU would by just regional power and would have to accept China + Russia as superpowers. But in economical view, EU is much superior to Russia. So, EU is just to comfortable and cowardly.
Yes, Europe should be able to do more. Fund more etc. Mind you, 2 per cent of the GNP is not necessarily a good metric for defense spending, but it’s the metric we have agreed on. So we should use it. Regarding the relative strength of Russia versus Euope, well Russia is willing to let its population be killed mindlessly to conquer a neighbor. Europe collectively isn’t interested in conquest, definitely don’t want to rule Russia. So Europe will have to husband their soldiers and equipment carefully. That said, we could and should do better. But it will take time.
Also the health care of the armed forces is included in the US military budget. The rest of the world simply uses universal healthcare and pays the bills that way.
Well said. A lot of the US troops based in Europe are there to support operations in other theatres. A Stefan Korshak pointed out last week, there are only three active US combat brigades based in Europe. Plus seventy-two combat aircraft. It's a minuscule amount of the US defence budget.
Before the war Ukraine's military was considered weaker not just by Russia but also by other individual European countries like Poland and Germany. Hense the infamous 3 days to Kyiv "expert consensus". Combined the EU's military power is actually quite impressive. Not USA impressive but definitely much higher than Russia and Ukraine.
"The myth of Europe's weakness" however is a very dangerous myth for two reasons:
- In 2022 it did not matter how weak or strong Ukraine was. What mattered was that Putin believed it to be weak. So he attacked, resulting in a very costly war. Same can happen with Europe - Russia will lose much quicker than it does in Ukraine, but the costs will be enormous.
- Quick weapon deliveries to Ukraine make Europe more vulnerable in the short term. Sure, it makes Russia less likely to attack, but we don't know what's in Putin's head so that's intangible. While the loss of defensive capability is tangible. So if Europe feels in danger, it will reduce weapons delivered to Ukrajne, opting to defend itself. It would be a bad decision based on incorrect information. But the "myth of Europe's weakness" is exactly the kind of incorrect information that can cause it.
The problem of "weak EU" is problem of weak will, in other words comfortability and cowardice. EU has underfunded their defence since 2014 and it still underfunded now regarding the situation (3% of GDP should be min. now when the war is at their doors). (EU as whole, some countries fulfil that.)
Of course, Russia cannot fight e.g. with Poland. But next ones to swallow is Moldova, Georgia, some countries will form alliance with Russia like Hungary, Serbia, ...
It's true but at the same time - assumptions on weak will from the EU was another cornerstone of Putin's thinking when he invaded Ukraine.
Historically the EU is a relatively new organization and as a general rule, when challenged, it has always displayed more will than expected. This happened with Brexit and Trump 1.0, and very notably in 2022.
2014 was an example of weakness, but the EU and US are equally to blame there. It's just that US avoids blame by default, as we are not used to the thought of US being cowardly. But now as Trump has demonstrated that it's possible, it's much easier to go back and recognize it was also the case with Obama in 2014 and Bush in 2008. Not that the EU was blameless in these cases, but US was just as much at fault.
Urghhh, European politicians finding just now how obsolete the continent has become under their watch. First, Ukraine is not in NATO because of Germany. The US negotiating position is not giving up key demands from the beginning. Neither Germany nor US(Biden) ever wanted Ukraine in NATO so does anyone believe that Putin was going to seriously negotiate over this issue - oh we will give Chasiv Yar and Bakhmut back in exchange of Ukraine not joining NATO.?? That’s bat s… I haven’t looked at the agreement about the minerals but somewhat will agree that had Ukraine privatised and let US companies to operate its mines, to explore for shale oil and gas (yes I’m aware how this spectre twas exploited in 2014) and overall to have more business in the country, much of the pain could have been avoided - not least because Ukraine would have had much higher GDP prior to 2022.
Scholz could have let Ukraine use Taurus. The entire EU establishment could have suspended its carbon requirements for the defense industry, even better for the whole industry (as if when the whole front line is burning, the fudged decline of emissions in a given country makes a difference) - much fewer people would vote for the anti-establishment parties if energy prices are 20-30% lower.
Lots of verbal outrage, let's see if these words are backed by concrete actions.
It would be quite "interesting" to see Germany buying two dozen ASMP missiles from the French for their Eurofighters, plus three ballistic missile submarines...
I am astonished how the American hegemony of the 20th century (which was built at great cost) is being demolished from inside like this. Russians must be gleeful.
And this Hegseth guy is quite a piece of work. How on earth is the West going to establish a 800 miles DMZ without USA troops being heavily involved? The Korean DMZ is 200 miles long, and US has 30K troops stationed in it.
Stationing 200K troops for an indefinite duration is incredibly expensive. Much cheaper to flood Ukraine with Western weapons and munitions and let them destroy Russian army once and for all.
At least, Trump and his cohorts aren't hypocrites like the previous administration. They're telling what they want to do: No USA involvement, push Europe to do the armed policing, and get all the mineral wealth of Ukraine in return.
I am impressed that the orange agent of chaos has managed to make NATO look like a protection racket. But I guess that's his Mafia friends upbringing in NYC during the eighties...
And minister Hesgeth claiming that sending NATO troops into Ukraine isn't eligible for Article 5 protection is quite rich, coming from the only state who invoked Article 5.
I am, frankly astonished by this concept of pacification. They demand that the allies shoulder the huge cost of manning a huge DMZ, while taking all the resources for themselves without getting involved?
By that logic, why wouldn't Europe feel justified to say "we'll put troops, arms and munitions into Ukraine, and *we'll" get the rare earth, oil, coal, and reconstruction contracts instead of the US"?
And demanding that the victim of an invasion goes to compromise with the invader? It's like accusing a woman who's been raped that she was wearing a mini skirt, then force her to marry her attacker, because he's a "nice guy".
Yes, the Russian officials I have seen on TV is gleeful. And fawning Trump so much I heard that Putin has had to give orders not to give Trump so much credit. This is after all a Russian victory.
I’m of the opinion that while the two super powers talk shop etc etc that not only will weapons continue to flow into Ukraine from NATO counties but that we have actually seen very little in terms of the ground armour that has been donated actually in action.
It suggests to me that Ukraine are not only favouring using donated ex-Warsaw pact era equipment primarily but they are keeping a huge volume of Western equipment in reserve.
While there has been much made of the ZSU’s leadership or lack of at the highest level to manage the war and also too much top down interfering, I wonder if it is part of a greater ruse. To encourage the Russians to focus even more of their units on some very localised potential gains like Povrosk etc to the detriment of other parts of the front line. Not only sucking manpower and resources into the Kursk region but also depleting other zones and sectors which the ZSU are gearing up for an early spring ‘surge’ to drive for the Azov coastline and split Russian gained ground in two.
Coupled with a massive attack on both the southern rail network and the Kerch bridge to effectively isolate everything west of that line to the Dnipro and all of Crimea
All this while the US plays with Russia with ‘talks’
If PUTLER ever steps foot in the United States I HOPE and PRAY that some state or local law enforcement agency/entity arrests him under the auspices of the I.C.C. arrest warrant and IMMEDIATELY puts him an a plane to Canada so that Canada can extradite that short little ass'stain back to Europe....and a permanent STOCKADE!!!!!
Ian: his boots????? Maybe a few of them. Most of them either shove their heads between fence posts and giggle their asses around or the get on their knees for unspeakable acts in front of behind their Messiah/Master. But your in the ballpark... :0}
Just in case anyone here missed it, Illia Ponomarenko:
So you're telling me that JD Vance gave a fiery speech thrashing entire Europe over the lack of democracy and freedom of speech two days after the White House revoked the Associated Press’ accreditation for failing to obey and use “Gulf of America” in their reporting?
Ogaaaaaaaaaay.
The DK is usually strong in those who use disinformation opns/propaganda messaging.
Sorry to be not with it, what is DK?
Dinning Kruger effect, the disconnect with knowledge and context understanding, an example of JD Vance talking about freedom of speech.
Oh, Vance knew what was doing - propaganda attack.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect describes how people with little knowledge of a subject often greatly overestimate their understanding of it, whilst people with a deep comprehension of that same field tend to be cautious. In other words: fools underestimate their own incompetence.
I had missed that.
Thanks for good summary. Any idea why russia artillery looses are so high now( compared to dec and jan loosses are 2x bigger)? more munition for UA? or russia has started to use more artillery ? Can it be these new helsing drones or ? Thanks
It could simply be a temporary spike in losses, time will tell. It's possible that barrel wear is reducing the range of their artillery and they are forced to deploy their guns closer to the front. Or it could be Ukraine is detecting more of the guns because of new methods, better equipment, more equipment, or the guns are firing more often, making the more vulnerable to detection.
Or could it be that this is a typical overestimation of enemy losses by the Ukrainian side?
I think that overestimate is same in December and in februar.
I don't take the numbers given as literal but my presumption is that the methods are constant and they can at least indicate trends.
If the overestimate is consistent, the numbers should show a pattern at least.
We should consider the Ukrainian estimates as the top of the range, and the Russian announcements as the bottom, with actual Russian losses somewhere between these values.
I also think it’s the use of the Koksans by the Russians - they are far less manoeuvrable, and have little ability to traverse fire so are more easily countered once they begin firing. And it would tally as the suggestions they had 200+ shipped to Russia from NK last month then the sudden jump in Russian artillery pieces would chime with Koksans being used
Artillery losses on both sides are higher. Russians and Ukrainians are both losing artillery at higher rates than before - Ukrainians to optical wire drones which are deployed at mass on Russian side (at least that's the conclusion of experts who review confirmed losses' videos), Russians to intensified Ukrainian counter-battery operations (although it is just one possible explanation, there is no clear evidence like with wire drones).
The reason for increased arty losses are decreased number of ru attacks. When people are not busy countering incoming attack, they'll start working more intensively in the rears. In the end of the day, the number of daily "hits" is limited to a number of trained people and equipment they have. This tendency was correlated over many months and years. That is one of the reasons why ru army needs to keep pressure all the time.
The more artillery the Ukrainians destroy, the older and shorter ranged are the replacements the Russians field as replacements. Aged barrels will make it even worse. This forces them ever closer to the front line and into the FPV kill zone. It's also been noticeable that Ukraine is winning the EW war, allowing more of its ISR drones to penetrate Russian lines than a year ago. Their resulting direction of counter-battery fire is clearly very effective.
"Ukraine says they are producing 200,000 drones a month." - that's not production level, that's supply level, according to the article quoted. So production+import.
Thank you Don.
Unfortunately, for Ukraine, the US refusal of direct military aid will have fatal consequences. Europe will not be able to replace America in a number of key components - Patriot and ATACMS missiles, Starlink communications, satellite intelligence and targeting, and Europe openly admits this. On top of that, Europe is not united, it is spineless, and without the "leadership" of the US, it will quickly become bogged down in its own internal contradictions.
Things have changed but we don't exactly the range or extent of the changes yet. In the worst case scenario it will make things more difficult but it is not fatal.
Oh yeah, but where there is crisis, there is opportunity. The need to resolve internal contradictions and create a more vertical-oriented structure will become more apparent for EU elites; sometimes when you are forced to move quicker it is good long-term.
Well, USA hasn't provided a single jet fighter to Ukraine, and the number of tanks they sent is laughable (seriously, they expected to win the war with 31 M1 Abrams? They sent more than 2.000 Abrams in Iraq when they attacked Saddam Hussein).
There are some weapons Europe doesn't produce (yet) like ATACMS, but on the other hand USA doesn't provide the equivalent of Storm Shadow/SCALP EG, etc. If European defense industry starts producing in large quantities, they can cover the gap.
Well said, but, hey, you're vastly underestimating the number of Abrams. It's not 31, but 32! :)
Don't get disheartened about logistical and supply chain issues. There is only one problem - political will. Solve this and everything else will work itself out - European countries will find the materials, and/or come up with alternative designs, and/ or give their equipment, and/or buy weapons. It is primary and above all else a question of will
Go check out Oryx's weapons tracker and the Kiel Institute's support tracker. It takes seconds to find them online. If you do, you'll find it is nowhere near as bleak as you say. Don't fall for pro-Russian talking points, they're designed to appeal to you, me, everyone. Losing Patriots would be bad for Ukraine, but very bad for Trump too since they defend innocent civilians from Russian missiles and that's just about the only thing that's reported about this war in the US. Europe has deep supplies of F-16 spares and AAMs so rockets for HIMARS might be the only other munition of significance Trump could withhold. In just about every other weapons category Europe and Ukrainian manufacturing is independent of the US including Ukraine's home-grown alternative to ATACMS (and that's already in use). You can bet Ukraine is designing its own rockets for HIMARS too.
https://vikna.tv/ru/dlia-tebe/novyny-ukrayiny/zelenskyj-zayavyl-o-nehvatke-raket-do-ustanovok-pvo-patriot/
Thank you ver much.
Thank you for the excellent review. Let's see what Lord Edmure is going to show us next..
The global context is not about China. Last week most serious US media outlets reported intel "community" warnings that Netanyahu would strike Natanz and Fordow in the first half of this year using BLU-109 bunker busters. But Netanyahu clearly knows Israel cannot bring that conflict to any desirable end state with the IAF's capabilities alone. Simple inference: Trump is wrapping it up in Ukraine so that he can divert resources to fight a classical American war for Israel.
Trump isn't going to fight a war for Israel, and Netanyahu doesn't want to bring the conflict to any end. Any actual end is less desirable for Netanyahu than continuation of conflict. So your conclusion is based, in my opinion, on false idea that Netanyahu would not start something without knowing how to end it.
True. If Netanyahu ended up with peace someone could ask questions about what happened 6th of October 2023… or a lot of things. He wants to stay in power, war is good.
I am actually glad that USA is trying to disengage in Europe. It is time for European reformation. I want EU to become an actual, vertically-integrated state which is clearly superior to member states, taking over many things that member states do separately now, like military. It will not happen without desperate shock to Europe, and a lot of internal fighting, both political and possibly real.
A crisis is also an opportunity. I am not sure if that particular crisis is actually severe enough to bring any conclusion (I don't see it as severe), but at least it's a start.
Unfortunately Ukraine may fall victim to European infighting that is likely to happen in the next electoral cycle.
Also, I am looking forward for more nuclear proliferation and limited nuclear wars in some regions. It is, in my opinion, time to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. I don't see how the future may continue without some local nuclear mmm... resolutions and humanity have to kind of learn to be realistic about it and not covering in horror over mere idea.
I am worried about a possible win of AfD in Germany, which may have serious repercussions on military help to Ukraine. For all his faults and delays and hesitation, Scholz and Germany did alot for Ukraine, and they're sending 50.000 artillery rounds per month at the moment, etc.
why so? Afd has around 20% of polls and any other parties despise them...
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/germany/
As the old saying goes, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings"
Agreed.
Thanks Tom and Don again for the three part updates. Let us not forget that PRC is a part of the Russian support system since from the start and it is also DK for Trump and his clique/cabal that for portraying PRC as the main focus, conveniently forgetting that PRC is an enabler of the Russian actions since before.
The lifting of sanctions more than helps Russia, it allows more Chinese support for the Russians because regular economic activity would be legal again for the two 'Axis of Autocracy' members.
The shift to China is more baloney from team trump. They are not serious about confronting any near peer state, only little ones like Panama. If Xi made a move for Taiwan, trump would make a "deal" and call it a win. All he seems to want is to look good, sound important, and get even with enemies in the States. Again, these are not serious people. He has some real estate guy negotiating with Lavrov, but then again, after Sullivan and Blinkin, that could be an improvement.
That's one more strange thing - wasn't Kellogg supposed to be the "special envoy" to Ukraine? Why Trump sent a real estate guy who hasn't made any declaration regarding Russia or Ukraine ever?
Steve Witkoff is the guy who made a deal with Putin about releasing Marc Fogel. That obviously means that Steve Witkoff is the leading expert on deals with Putin (what deals have Kellogg made? Who that Kellogg is even? Never heard about him. Never met him. Fake news.) and obviously have to lead a new deal.
He also made a deal with Netanyahu, who is also practicly Russian, so he is a double expert in Russian dealings.
Very obvious once you get how Trump thinks. Or, rather, "thinks".
At the moment one has to wonder what Taiwan is thinking and feeling. What should they answer if Xi called them and said: We can do this the hard way or the soft way? Do you really believe US will support you? Even if Trump tells them he will support them, can they believe him? Trumps behavior will have repercussions for US credibility. But he doesn’t see it or understand it.
>> They undermine one of the basic principles held since the Second World War that stronger nations should not be allowed to take the territories of weaker nations.
- That principle did not work for Tibet or for the smaller countries annexed by India. Why should it work for Ukraine?
The whole quote is ridiculous.
Post-Second World War World Order was built on a principle that strong countries do what they want and weak countries suffer, but when strong countries disagree they fight their differences in proxy wars on territories of weak countries, without going into a global nuclear war. Thus Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe and endless line of military conflicts throughout the world where strong countries participated and citizens of small countries died. That streak continued through post-Soviet stage with Transnistria and Georgia and Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and whatever. If anything, war in Ukraine is the continuation of the same Good Old World Order and Putin is outraged that EU and USA want to break the World Order.
The war in Ukraine is, if anything, a return to Good Old World Order.
So by bringing about a maximalist victory for Ukraine & Europe, we would in fact be doing something new and innovative? The first point at which the "big players" were told no thats not how its going to go?
Only if Europe and Ukraine will do it without US. Otherwise it would be a victory of one big player over another. Ukraine being a proxy. :)
Well, that is increasingly looking like one of only two options, the other being let the USA sacrifice Ukraine to Russia!
Eh, it's not going to happen. There is not much Trump can do to sacrifice Ukraine. USA doesn't actually have much leverage, neither against Russia or Ukraine. What realistically can it do? Stop helping Ukraine - yeah, that's what Trump have already done, pretty much. Nothing else. And Russia? Well... USA can't pressure China and India to stop buying Russian oil. So... Nothing. No leverage against Russia.
Surprisingly, USA is pretty weak. And Trump doesn't help.
USA can stop some sanctions against Russia. But, again, surprisingly little, if Europeans would refuse to follow suit.
*shrug* let's be realistic. All that brouhaha with peace talks is about nothing. I don't even follow them, I am just not interested. There will be nothing worth our attention there.
Unsure what quote, but it doesn’t matter. You are of course correct when saying strong countries does whatever they will inside their sphere of influence. And in Europe that line was very clearly defined. In the rest of the world not so. But the disagreement should be kept to proxies in the «grey» zones. Now this line of thinking, allowing «great» nations to do what they wanted to in their sphere of influence is what underlies people like Mearsheimer and Sachs. Eastern Europe was Soviet sphere, hence no other choice but to accept Russia as hegemonic. Never mind that Soviet wasn’t strong enough for that. Never mind all the small states that didn’t want Russia. And actually Biden was so used to this way of thinking that he basically build his politics around it.
When money talks, then EU + GB + Canada has very large debt (historically) to NATO budget and they rely on USA to protect them. And even 2% GDP would not change it. (Canada, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and Belgium have not even reached that 2% in 2024, 3rd year of war).
In other words: About 400+ mil. of rich Europeans relies on security from about 340+ mil. rich American, to protect them from about 100+ mil. poor Russians, which are opposed by about 30+ even more poorer Ukrainians.
The shame in on EU especially.
That's not how it works!
There is no such thing as "NATO budget", there is "total military expenditure" of a country. Not all military expenditure is beneficial to NATO members. For example, US spends a lot of its military money on fleets, that serve to project its power across the globe, which does not serve interests of NATO, generally. In other words, US is not investing a huge chunk of its military expenditure in NATO or mutual defence, but uses it in its own military adventures across the world not connected to well-being of NATO.
Therefore, it can't be counted towards NATO budget and does not add to "debt" of other countries.
True, according to Korshak's last the Americans have 2 light and 1 heavy combat brigades and and 3 Air Force squadrons, along with the Med fleet, that is mostly there for Israel.
Yes, my bad, have not explained it. It's just virtual "budget". Since 2014 every NATO country promised to spend 2% GDP on defence. If you accumulate what most countries have not fulfilled to that 2% GDP from 2014 until today, that's the large debt I am talking about.
BTW that large fleets serve EU countries with other (beside self defence) aims too. How else, without USA would be EU e.g. able to help Taiwan if attacked? Or some EU countries use USA transport aircraft to foreign missions, etc.. Without USA EU would by just regional power and would have to accept China + Russia as superpowers. But in economical view, EU is much superior to Russia. So, EU is just to comfortable and cowardly.
Yes, Europe should be able to do more. Fund more etc. Mind you, 2 per cent of the GNP is not necessarily a good metric for defense spending, but it’s the metric we have agreed on. So we should use it. Regarding the relative strength of Russia versus Euope, well Russia is willing to let its population be killed mindlessly to conquer a neighbor. Europe collectively isn’t interested in conquest, definitely don’t want to rule Russia. So Europe will have to husband their soldiers and equipment carefully. That said, we could and should do better. But it will take time.
Maybe invest in mines, artillery, drones, and GBAD. Only the last item is very expensive.
Also the health care of the armed forces is included in the US military budget. The rest of the world simply uses universal healthcare and pays the bills that way.
Well said. A lot of the US troops based in Europe are there to support operations in other theatres. A Stefan Korshak pointed out last week, there are only three active US combat brigades based in Europe. Plus seventy-two combat aircraft. It's a minuscule amount of the US defence budget.
Before the war Ukraine's military was considered weaker not just by Russia but also by other individual European countries like Poland and Germany. Hense the infamous 3 days to Kyiv "expert consensus". Combined the EU's military power is actually quite impressive. Not USA impressive but definitely much higher than Russia and Ukraine.
"The myth of Europe's weakness" however is a very dangerous myth for two reasons:
- In 2022 it did not matter how weak or strong Ukraine was. What mattered was that Putin believed it to be weak. So he attacked, resulting in a very costly war. Same can happen with Europe - Russia will lose much quicker than it does in Ukraine, but the costs will be enormous.
- Quick weapon deliveries to Ukraine make Europe more vulnerable in the short term. Sure, it makes Russia less likely to attack, but we don't know what's in Putin's head so that's intangible. While the loss of defensive capability is tangible. So if Europe feels in danger, it will reduce weapons delivered to Ukrajne, opting to defend itself. It would be a bad decision based on incorrect information. But the "myth of Europe's weakness" is exactly the kind of incorrect information that can cause it.
The problem of "weak EU" is problem of weak will, in other words comfortability and cowardice. EU has underfunded their defence since 2014 and it still underfunded now regarding the situation (3% of GDP should be min. now when the war is at their doors). (EU as whole, some countries fulfil that.)
Of course, Russia cannot fight e.g. with Poland. But next ones to swallow is Moldova, Georgia, some countries will form alliance with Russia like Hungary, Serbia, ...
It's true but at the same time - assumptions on weak will from the EU was another cornerstone of Putin's thinking when he invaded Ukraine.
Historically the EU is a relatively new organization and as a general rule, when challenged, it has always displayed more will than expected. This happened with Brexit and Trump 1.0, and very notably in 2022.
2014 was an example of weakness, but the EU and US are equally to blame there. It's just that US avoids blame by default, as we are not used to the thought of US being cowardly. But now as Trump has demonstrated that it's possible, it's much easier to go back and recognize it was also the case with Obama in 2014 and Bush in 2008. Not that the EU was blameless in these cases, but US was just as much at fault.
Urghhh, European politicians finding just now how obsolete the continent has become under their watch. First, Ukraine is not in NATO because of Germany. The US negotiating position is not giving up key demands from the beginning. Neither Germany nor US(Biden) ever wanted Ukraine in NATO so does anyone believe that Putin was going to seriously negotiate over this issue - oh we will give Chasiv Yar and Bakhmut back in exchange of Ukraine not joining NATO.?? That’s bat s… I haven’t looked at the agreement about the minerals but somewhat will agree that had Ukraine privatised and let US companies to operate its mines, to explore for shale oil and gas (yes I’m aware how this spectre twas exploited in 2014) and overall to have more business in the country, much of the pain could have been avoided - not least because Ukraine would have had much higher GDP prior to 2022.
Scholz could have let Ukraine use Taurus. The entire EU establishment could have suspended its carbon requirements for the defense industry, even better for the whole industry (as if when the whole front line is burning, the fudged decline of emissions in a given country makes a difference) - much fewer people would vote for the anti-establishment parties if energy prices are 20-30% lower.
Excellent update Don. Detail on the reactions from European leaders to the Trump Administration was especially appreciated.
Those words need action backing them up; i hope that what's coming next 👍.
Lots of verbal outrage, let's see if these words are backed by concrete actions.
It would be quite "interesting" to see Germany buying two dozen ASMP missiles from the French for their Eurofighters, plus three ballistic missile submarines...
I am astonished how the American hegemony of the 20th century (which was built at great cost) is being demolished from inside like this. Russians must be gleeful.
And this Hegseth guy is quite a piece of work. How on earth is the West going to establish a 800 miles DMZ without USA troops being heavily involved? The Korean DMZ is 200 miles long, and US has 30K troops stationed in it.
Stationing 200K troops for an indefinite duration is incredibly expensive. Much cheaper to flood Ukraine with Western weapons and munitions and let them destroy Russian army once and for all.
At least, Trump and his cohorts aren't hypocrites like the previous administration. They're telling what they want to do: No USA involvement, push Europe to do the armed policing, and get all the mineral wealth of Ukraine in return.
I am impressed that the orange agent of chaos has managed to make NATO look like a protection racket. But I guess that's his Mafia friends upbringing in NYC during the eighties...
And minister Hesgeth claiming that sending NATO troops into Ukraine isn't eligible for Article 5 protection is quite rich, coming from the only state who invoked Article 5.
I am, frankly astonished by this concept of pacification. They demand that the allies shoulder the huge cost of manning a huge DMZ, while taking all the resources for themselves without getting involved?
By that logic, why wouldn't Europe feel justified to say "we'll put troops, arms and munitions into Ukraine, and *we'll" get the rare earth, oil, coal, and reconstruction contracts instead of the US"?
And demanding that the victim of an invasion goes to compromise with the invader? It's like accusing a woman who's been raped that she was wearing a mini skirt, then force her to marry her attacker, because he's a "nice guy".
> The Korean DMZ is 200 miles long, and US has 30K troops stationed in it.
Not in it, but we get your point.
> I am impressed that the orange agent of chaos has managed to make NATO look like an extortion racket.
I hadn’t thought about it that way, but so true.
Maybe "protection racket" is the more correct term?
As I'm not a native English speaker, sometimes I mess up the various idioms...
Yeah, "protection racket" is more correct.
Okay, fixed that one - thanks
Yes, the Russian officials I have seen on TV is gleeful. And fawning Trump so much I heard that Putin has had to give orders not to give Trump so much credit. This is after all a Russian victory.
Putin is specialized in handling people like Trump.
It's part and parcel of his KGB training.
I’m of the opinion that while the two super powers talk shop etc etc that not only will weapons continue to flow into Ukraine from NATO counties but that we have actually seen very little in terms of the ground armour that has been donated actually in action.
It suggests to me that Ukraine are not only favouring using donated ex-Warsaw pact era equipment primarily but they are keeping a huge volume of Western equipment in reserve.
While there has been much made of the ZSU’s leadership or lack of at the highest level to manage the war and also too much top down interfering, I wonder if it is part of a greater ruse. To encourage the Russians to focus even more of their units on some very localised potential gains like Povrosk etc to the detriment of other parts of the front line. Not only sucking manpower and resources into the Kursk region but also depleting other zones and sectors which the ZSU are gearing up for an early spring ‘surge’ to drive for the Azov coastline and split Russian gained ground in two.
Coupled with a massive attack on both the southern rail network and the Kerch bridge to effectively isolate everything west of that line to the Dnipro and all of Crimea
All this while the US plays with Russia with ‘talks’
I sincerely hope so
Note that Russia isn't a superpower.
There are three major parts in the power rating of a country: military, economic and "soft power".
With a GDP almost equal to Spain, Russia doesn't qualify.
If PUTLER ever steps foot in the United States I HOPE and PRAY that some state or local law enforcement agency/entity arrests him under the auspices of the I.C.C. arrest warrant and IMMEDIATELY puts him an a plane to Canada so that Canada can extradite that short little ass'stain back to Europe....and a permanent STOCKADE!!!!!
Bruh, all of your guys are licking "Literally Hitler" Trump's boots. Nobody is going to do anything lmao
Ian: his boots????? Maybe a few of them. Most of them either shove their heads between fence posts and giggle their asses around or the get on their knees for unspeakable acts in front of behind their Messiah/Master. But your in the ballpark... :0}
Are you even aware that the US doesn't recognize the ICC ?
Because if you did you'd have arrested Netanyahu... and some of your fellow Americans would also be in trouble...
They’re obviously aware. That’s why the said “state or local law enforcement”.
Yes.......SADLY aware of that pathetic crap.....
Thanks Don and Tom. It is truly time for Europe (with Ukraine) to step up and become strategically independent