Since any member of NATO can veto it, you can say it is a decision for Trump.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Sorry for coming across so abrasive.Source is what @4bars posted: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
This is the most complete and accurate info on it that I know of, all sources are stated and data corrected if/when any error comes to light. Have a look through the downloadable dataset, there's a lot more detail than shown on the site, just wait until tomorrow when they publish the next dataset update (its currently up to October 24).
I don't think it is widely known that Europe has provided as much military aid as the US, like at all, even before looking at the values over and above that have already been committed. Although those 'to be allocated' € includes some long term plans for future security and not necessarily will effect the current war.
To debate about what a US pull out means, we also need to show the increase in Ukraine's own domestic production and its trajectory. Another thing the world seems oblivious to and something Biden contributed to.
I don't have time to dig into it all right now but just off the top of my head, you've got the 4 Rheinmetall factories, 2 already in operation, the Bradley replacement will be coming out of there for one. They are producing their own shells, their own 155m self-propelled artillery, drone production is insane and still expanding. Long range capability... we're seeing the evolution of every day (also can't understate the importance of it being Ukr weapons striking deep within Russia, not US/NATO).
Factor in the price of a switchblade included in those US aid numbers, Ukraine is producing 50 FPV drones for the same amount. Just one example.
Europe will step up, other remaining sane countries around the world will step up, people/civilians will step up. Volunteers are still going to Ukraine from all over the world on a daily basis to join the foreign legion, I help sponsor one of them, I'll be applying to help out another this month.
I've sure got hopes @That_Bloke but I don't rely on them. I'm not too precious about being wrong. Trump will do damage no doubt, but Ukraine has only ever grown stronger as this war has progressed, not weaker, I keep hearing that but there's not a whole lot to back it up with apart from media bile and conjecture. Russia on the other hand has only got weaker, will only get weaker, that is plain for all to see.
I'd be the first one to pop up a bottle of champagne if the EU pulled its finger out of its arse, and decided to become something else other than the US door mat, and do not think for one second that I'm relishing at Ukraine's current situation.
Here's some of my own sources in terms of aid to Ukraine (the military aid is especially relevant):
https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-pol...2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9477/CBP-9477.pdf
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218
https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/
I just don't understand how one could remotely think that Ukraine would be able to sustain its war effort without the US. It ain't gonna work. Not today, not tomorrow and not in two, three, or ten years.
Trump is really working hard to make Zelensky look incompetent and insignificant.
Worrying times. One of the somewhat underestimated factors is perception. If everyone perceives that Ukraine gets sold out, it could set other things in motion.
New refugee waves, domestic political attacks on the Zelensky gov, increased desertions and draft dodging and so forth. Ukrainian domestic unity could be severely tested by the perception that a major military & intel backer will stop their support.
It could also rejuvenate Putin in thinking that he was right to be patient and he has nothing to worry about.
Anyway, that's my rambling. Good luck convincing non-nuclear armed countries to stay non-nuclear.
New refugee waves, domestic political attacks on the Zelensky gov, increased desertions and draft dodging and so forth. Ukrainian domestic unity could be severely tested by the perception that a major military & intel backer will stop their support.
It could also rejuvenate Putin in thinking that he was right to be patient and he has nothing to worry about.
Anyway, that's my rambling. Good luck convincing non-nuclear armed countries to stay non-nuclear.
That being said, has the Trump administration said something about continuing support if negotiations fail?
You are being defeatist. As one man (actually wizard) said. "Courage is the best defense you have."
And it is true. You mentioned, that Ukraine is holding for dear life. But that is not true (unless we are talking locally about donbass region). Kiev and western ukraine is under no threat of russian army (bar occassional long range missile threats). Blimey, not even Khakriv is under direct threat.
The progress russians are making right now is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
The issue Ukraine has is internal and its resolve and manpower. As long as they have resolve they can keep fighting. I like to draw a comparison with 90s war in Croatia, where Croatian forces were in much worse position. In fact at the start of war croatia was completely disarmed. However, what we knew is that we were fighting for our survival as a nation. Ukraine has already won that fight. Whatever happens, Ukraine as an independent country will survive. So their resolve may not be as strong.
Losing US support, might be even beneficial for Ukraine in the long war, as it might force them out of this ww1 attritional style warfare and perhaps force them into more assymetrical style again.
He hates his popularity amongst people in the West. Trump is such a small, petty man.
Ah, here come the "defeatism" accusations. Can't wait for the "saboteur", "fifth columnist", "russian bot" and "foreign agent" ones.
Yeah, we just got to toss the ring into Mount Doom's lava. Get the feck out of here.
Yeah, no.
Russia is not interested in annexing all of Ukraine. It's not part of the plan, and militarily as well as economically infeasible. It wants its four oblasts in the East.
No big deal at all. I suppose you found a way to 3D print and equip ready-to-go soldiers.
That's really not the most apt comparison.
In what form and size, is the current question.
Last edited:
All the ingredients are there for a bad outcome for Ukraine:
1. He never liked Zelenskyy, and he always loved Putin. That’s at the personal level.
2. He prefers dictators over elected leaders.
3. He wants to show that he can bring peace quickly. How to do it: sell the Ukraine to Putin. The same in Gaza: take over Gaza and/or force people out, and you will have PEACE!
Ukraine can say no, but it will lose the U.S. support. If it says yes, it will accept a deal that they could’ve accepted a while ago.
What would that deal be though? Even if they cede territory what guarantees will they have there won't be a new invasion? the US doesn't want to welcome them in NATO and to trigger art. 5 in this case why would they even negotiate a deal in the first place?
Any deal that they accept will entail ceding territory. It also means that Crimea is gone for good. It won’t be on the table.
As for another invasion: no guarantees, and that’s why this is bad for Ukraine. They might get some short-term “peace”, followed by another invasion few years from now, to be followed by another land grab by Russia…
It’s a bad fix for Ukraine no matter what they choose to do.
Not if negotiations fail, no, but he did mention briefly about continuing support for now:
But for how long and on what conditions isn't sure.
So it seems.
That said, I would wait a bit before drawing any conclusion. While it indeed looks bleak for Ukraine at the moment, the orange madman is all over the shop and has no idea what he's talking about.
He's on a sort of shock and awe roll, showing "how things get done", blathering one outrageous declaration after another without even knowing what comes next.
If you say so.
Way to miss a point. Are you denying the value of courage in defending forces? History has plenty of examples of dogged and stubborn defenders halting overwhelming offensive forces.
Excellent argument.
Says you. As far as I know, russian goals are denazification, demilitarization and pacification of Ukraine. As far as I know, officially those goals never changed and are impossible to accomplish. Russia, Putin that is, might settle for grabbing those regions in order to have something to spin as a victory.
Oh, more sarcasm. And again missing the point. No military aid has provided manpower to Ukraine. It is an internal resource of Ukraine. Just like resolve is.
Now, with US abandoning Ukraine, resolve will likely waver, but if they can get around that and maintain it, they can still fight effectively.
Excellent argument. Here is mine. Yes it is an apt comparison.
The form? Independent republic.
Size? Ukraine might lose donbas, but even without it, it will be a large country. Just remember the fate of Ukraine 3 years ago. Expectations were they would fall within 3 weeks.
Yeah, I agree with you and that's my point. Peace without guarantee means Ukraine shouldn't accept any deal like that regardless whether they will lose support.
Crimea is done for good even before the invasion. It was occupied for close to a decade and no one did anything about it.
The only way Crimea can be brought back is if regime in Russia collapses completely and whatever new government emerges returns it in exchange for some aid.
Explain that logic please.
In order to accept a new state into NATO all member states need to ratify it. Its not by a majority vote, has to be unanimous. So if Trump says: "no, you are not getting in" there is nothing that can be done. By that time however, US might have pulled out of NATO completely which would render this whole point moot, of course.
Oh I understood that. I thought you were thinking of something else. Both thank you.
Trump has already sold the Palastinians down the river, as well as expecting Jordan and Egypt taking millions of displaced people, but none to the US....
And he now thinks he will do the same to Ukraine.
The man is a human wrecking ball with zero strategy. Just tactical short termism so he can think how clever he is.
It’s hard to blackmail someone like Trump though. There’s already enough public controversies with him to finish a hundred of separate political careers. His supporters just don’t care (and others don’t need any additional proof that he’s, to put it mildly, unfit for office).
Exactly. This notion that "Putin has a kompromat on him" really needs to die. Might have been feasible in his first term , but now he's had a homelander moment already. Nobody gives a feck, and he will get away with literal murder.
I indeed do.
You come at me with a Gandalf quote and expect from me a serious reply? It's your right to believe in fairy tales. I don't.
There's even more that saw those defenders being wiped out. You also tend to mistake battle with war.
The Russians are slowly but surely grinding territory by each passing day. 4,000 square kilometers gained in 2024, seven times more than in 2023. Other than continuously wasting already scarce forces in that foolish Kursk adventure which in return deprived other, more important, fronts from valuable human and material resources, Ukraine has lost the initiative on the battlefield, for more than a year and is more and more confronted to manpower, ammunition and firepower shortage.
So yeah, no.
Yes, I do.
Denazification and pacification are empty words for domestic propaganda first and foremost.
You can't seriously think of launching a war of conquest against a country as big as Ukraine with about 200,000 soldiers. Even if you won, you'd be constantly exposed to daily guerilla operations which would cripple your army and economy.
It's not only impossible, it's not worth it. Russia and other countries have already been there and done that. History taught us that occupation never works when the natives don't want you there, unless you kill them all. You always lose in the long run (Israel didn't get the memo, but the US are paying the bills, so).
What Putin wanted was a Blitzkrieg, followed a rapid fall of the Ukrainian government, and replace it with a puppet regime whilst grabbing the eastern territories (the Donbas especially) where the population would theoritically be more amenable to an "annexation" (see Crimea). It massively backfired and to the surprise of everyone, especially the West, Ukraine held its ground, inflicting tremendous casualties to the Russians. The landgrab in the East is still on the table though.
Yeah.
It's a vital resource that's ever shrinking. You don't seem to understand that soldiers must be equipped and trained before being sent to the battlefield, otherwise they'll die within minutes in their first engagement and their death completely pointless. Russia during WWII was (relatively) able to throw bodies at the Germans because it had plenty of them. Ukraine doesn't. Experience is also not something that can be replaced and your "resolve" bullshit can't compensate for the losses. When you're out of men and ammo, you're out of the fight.
No, they fecking can't.
Comparing a civil war with a conventional one against one of the biggest military superpowers on this planet is just plain stupid, and not worthy of any further discussion.
I don't think that you truly understand what the loss of Donbas would mean for the Ukrainian economy and Ukraine in general.
Last edited:
Unless the deal includes Ukraine never joining NATO. And I can definitely see Trump wanting to renegotiate/scrap article 5 anyway.
There's no point to NATO without article 5
Article 5 is the core principle that defines NATO as a military alliance. Without it, NATO would lose its primary deterrence mechanism and raison d'être - the organisation would dissolve. That might be Tump's long-term goal, but I think in the short-term, the Ukraine deal would include a stipulation that the country will never be allowed to join NATO. Trump will lean heavily on European nations to create (and police) a demilitarised zone between the front lines of the new, internationally recognised, Russia-Ukraine territorial boundary (with those troops also not being subject to Article 5, thereby preventing the US from ever being drawn into a war when Russia inevitably makes further attempts at conquering Ukraine in the years ahead).
No other country would accept this, they'd rather create a parallel alliance without the US.
The reality is that without the US it would mean certain countries would be completely fecked in the short-medium term, without US airlift capabilities the rest of NATO couldn't possibly defend the likes of Latvia or Lithuania
If the article 5 is gone the US won't come for assistance either way. So it's better to have an alliance of actual "allies".
a EU army is more important than ever. Or at least streamline a standarization of arms and equipment. 1 design for all europe for tanks, for planes, submarines, small arms, etc...
Of course it is better but it won't make a whole lot of difference until said new alliance can match some of the essential US capabilities, airlift being one of the biggest
it never stops amazing me how much people overrate Russia's military potential and underrate Europe + Turkey. Just 3 years ago Russia was literally unable to capture Kyiv and beat Ukraine that was on their own, what was supposed to be a few days special operation turned into a major and costly war for them. It's a military society yes and they have manpower, but they've been proving their absolute incompetence over and over again (not only in Ukraine) so I think it's time people put the myth of Soviet army "2nd in the world' to bed. it's not longer an empire, but an extremely corrupt country with a GDP equal to that of Benelux - and half of it is already stolen. They've been unable to beat a much weaker Ukraine and are not winning a conventional war against a bigger opponent anytime soon. Sure, they have the nukes and can threaten those that buy those threats.
even without US airlift capabilities and no US involvement at all NATO could easily defend the Baltics, there's already tens of thousands of NATO soldiers (vast majority of them non-American) stationing in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, add to that other hundreds of thousands nearby in Poland etc.
Will probably get fired because of optics.Weak!
I think it's worse than that, he's paving the way to throw him under the bus.
Though I share some of this points, there is a situation that is not talked enough. Russia might be all what you say but they resilience it can't be overstated. Resilience for 2 factors. The most important is that they have an authoritarian and repressive rule that doesn't allow dissent. The other is that I have the perception (and I might be wrong) that their people are used or at least brainwashed that sacrifices to Russia and that means not being as comfortable than in the west (bar Moscow?) and they accept economic draw backs. Compared to europe, throw a couple of missiles in Berlin and Paris and see how the economy plummets and people panicks like never seen. People fleeing the countries abandoning jobs, specially key jobs furthering the consequences
Europe might be on paper more advanced than Russia and it has a stronger economy, but certainly it has a none resilient economy that would fall like a house of cards. Also, Europe would not be able to match Russia in the short -medium term the output capacity of military equipment.
Russia is down there and would drag europe down with it. Europe could win in the end, maybe thanks to allies but would not recover in decades while Russia would recover their "Russia level" sooner
You are somehow envisioning the ww1 style artillery slugfest that's currently ongoing , translated to a bigger scale when Europe joins. That can't be further from the truth. It will be operations with gained air superiority , so RA can be kept at bay without the need for ordnance expenditures that are currently required. This of course doesn't involve capturing (except some buffer zones) signficant Russian territory. And if the US somehow joins it becomes conventional obliteration.
Their fighter jets, even the very latest have been found wanting during the war in Ukraine.
China has overtaken them, so much so that they no longer rely on Russian jet engines and have now developed their own.
That would only work if those military equipment manufacturers in Europe were only producing for Europe.
But that is not going to happen because the military manufacturers will of course want to sell their products for export. Meaning they would have to compete with products made outside Europe.
I think this is far from what would happen. Europe's economy might implode but even an imploded European economy would vastly outperform Russia. I also think you underestimate the resilience of the population. Russians might be better prepared for it but human beings are highly adaptable and life always gone on until you're dead. That aside, Europe's military would likely completely annihilate any ground forces Russia would send. Putin wasn't even able to implement air superiority in Ukraine, he'd be completely and utterly destroyed by European air forces. So in essence, it would come down to sending a few missiles every day in some European cities and Europe won't crumble under that. Even if he'd be able to force Europe into a ground war, a European war economy would look much different and there would probably be laws put in place that force arms manufacturers to only produce for domestic supply.
And that's not even consider nukes. Deterrance goes both ways. The threat of Russian intelligence in terms of election interferrences, sabotage, etc. is far bigger than the military one.