History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) :

I found a double-protocol problem with the first link and fixed it.

So if the EU is collectively donating a bit more than half of all aid, and US aid were lost, they'd still have to nearly double their contributions on average to make up the shortfall, which is a big ask with so many EU countries already donating relatively large fractions of their GDP.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

What this guy said.

If the US drops out of this, someone is going to have to fill that hole or Ukraine wont be able to continue.  And I hope someone is able to in order to allow them to fight their fight.

All I'm saying.

GameboyRMH said:

In reply to Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) :

I found a double-protocol problem with the first link and fixed it.

So if the EU is collectively donating a big more than half of all aid, and US aid were lost, they'd still have to nearly double their contributions on average to make up the shortfall, which is a big ask with so many EU countries already donating relatively large fractions of their GDP.

Thanks.  I'll give it a gander here in a minute.  But, you're not wrong.   In fact, when I refreshed this thread I noticed that my "after-work" brain mis-understood Mr. Asa's post (that started this portion of the discussion).  Said brain translated it to "EU NEEDS to step up..." which was what lead to me snagging that graph (sorry, I'm at a US base right now and the guys here have been talking endlessly to that point...  That graph has been shown to a lot of people who seem to be very surprised that other countries are donating too)

But on that subject, maybe I can offer some local insight to move things along:  Everyone IS nervously paying attention to the situation, but really there's nothing we (people over here) can do about it (good or bad) so things for us move forward as if nothing's changed.

(I promise the following is just for info only.  There's a whole different thread for further discussion)

I'm a member of various volunteer and logistics groups and there was a bit of discussion on the subject when the results came in:

From the foreign volunteers on the front, the response was unanimous.  On the subject of the possibility that they will lose all US funding, they state that "death alongside (their) Ukrainian brothers and sisters is preferable to any future without them" (of course, this was commented on and copied by many different people.  But the sentiment is the same) and then said volunteers promptly went back to work.

On that same subject, from my support network in the US, the response was equally unanimous:  "We are not abandoning Ukraine.".  Almost overnight $300 appeared in a paypal account I use for Ukraine (non-lethal) military funds.  This would be normal if I had fundraiser going, but it was a bit of a surprise to see the cash when I had made no such announcement (three donors).

Me?  I operate at the grace of those two book-ends.  As long as they remain unchanged in their resolve, I intend to operate as the bridge between the two. 

(I've read Gameboy's link now.  Has anyone taken the cash value of seized Russian equipment and added it to any charts like the one he posted?  It would be hilarious to see what the cash total of that was )

Another factor to consider is that much of the EU-donated material originated in the US. Transfer of US-manufactured equipment can only happen with US agreement, though this is less of a concern now, as much of the European inventory of such has already been moved. The bigger problem for the EU is that their defense industrial base is well behind that of the US in terms of R&D and production, both in terms of capacity and speed, and requires more political cooperation in order to function, meaning that replenishment is either going to be from US sources and slow, or from domestic sources and slower still; it will be expensive in any case. To a certain extent, the EU military reserve that was sent to Ukraine was a single-use asset, and it is now much depleted; the US is in a similar situation to an extent, but it retains greater flexibility in many ways. Put simply, the EU's aid options are increasingly limited, political will notwithstanding.

Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:

(I've read Gameboy's link now.  Has anyone taken the cash value of seized Russian equipment and added it to any charts like the one he posted?  It would be hilarious to see what the cash total of that was )

Is it really an increase if it takes so much money to update it from 1964 specs?

I've been thinking for a while that the EU has been too dependent on the US as a "military security guarantee".  We have our own stuff going on sometimes (See:  Taiwan, Middle-East, North Korea, etc) and they really should have had a military industrial base set up to better be self sufficient for a case like this.

I'm very curious to see how it all plays out.  If they CAN get their heads together AND their butts moving then I think they'll emerge from this a world influence (similar to how the US is).

If they can't? Well... much less positive thoughts there.

Couple related but non related notes:  

1) Boeing is eating E36 M3 right now and big military/aerospace contractors supply Boeing airbus and the us/world military.  If we reduce spending most of these large contractors will have to do a lot of layoffs.  Pratt and Whitney's owner RTX in particular is using these military sales to make up for its cash bleeding due to GTF issues.  That engine is lasting half of the hours on wing and costing the org massive in warranty costs.  

2) Germany is in a bad way right now. Their economic moves haven't paid off, they probably will but later.  While vw has made the news lately. Rhinemetal hasn't. But they are  totally at capacity. I can't even get a simple gage out of them.  
 

3) China's economy is stagnating. They want to get back to growth. I'm selling machines to all the countries around China as most western companies look for cheaper wages and less ip theft. 
 

soooo basically it's in no one's interest economically to stop making war material. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

To follow on with that a bit more:  I heard one analysis that Russia could also fall into a very bad economic situation if it stopped the war.  It is currently in a pretty much full war time economy and bringing that to a screeching halt would likely cause all sorts of economic issues (even the US had that issue after WWII), and it is in an already precarious state.  Since they have lost a lot of their previous trading partners, and there are VERY few who are interested in buying their weapons now (based on the horrible demo they have been putting on) what will they shift their economy over to?

In reply to Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) :

I've long held that the situation the EU has re: decision-making and the collective good is analogous to the US during the brief period of the Articles of Confederation. In brief, the US set up a national government that had no executive, extremely limited judiciary power, required unanimous consent for most important decisions, and no functional military capability (sound familiar?). The result was that each state pursued its own interests first and the collective interest second, creating an underfunded, indecisive government that failed to achieve much of anything, and ultimately collapsed when it could not put down a small farmers' revolt (Shay's Rebellion) without the help of state militia, in no small part because it had no means to compel the other states to pay for the necessary troops. The Third Constitutional Convention quickly determined that the whole system was unworkable, threw it out, and wrote the Constitution we have today. The US figured out the problem in less than a decade because it was a matter of survival; Europe has been able to float along under the delusion that such a system can actually function for many decades because of the US security umbrella. If that safety net is withdrawn, Europe may be forced to address difficult domestic questions they have been studiously ignoring for the better part of a century - I doubt the results will be pretty.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Couple related but non related notes:  

1) Boeing is eating E36 M3 right now and big military/aerospace contractors supply Boeing airbus and the us/world military.  If we reduce spending most of these large contractors will have to do a lot of layoffs.  Pratt and Whitney's owner RTX in particular is using these military sales to make up for its cash bleeding due to GTF issues.  That engine is lasting half of the hours on wing and costing the org massive in warranty costs.  

2) Germany is in a bad way right now. Their economic moves haven't paid off, they probably will but later.  While vw has made the news lately. Rhinemetal hasn't. But they are  totally at capacity. I can't even get a simple gage out of them.  
 

3) China's economy is stagnating. They want to get back to growth. I'm selling machines to all the countries around China as most western companies look for cheaper wages and less ip theft. 
 

soooo basically it's in no one's interest economically to stop making war material. 

Sounds a little too much like it could be a backstory to this for comfort:

https://ghostintheshell.fandom.com/wiki/Sustainable_War

Actually I can think of some other recent developments that mesh way too nicely with some of the darker points of GiTS backstory for my liking...

A lot of Chinese companies or companies who had previously built in China are moving their factories to Mexico right now. It's a multi year play.  China is getting squeezed. They don't want to get deeper involved with Putin and they don't want to push Taiwan harder because the more unsettled their part of the world is.  The more they lose in factories...  us tariffs would be bad for their manufacturing and bad for our farmers.  Soooo. My guess is they stay out of it beyond some minor support for Vlad. 

In reply to aircooled :

I'm interested in this.  If our administration stays the course with Russia we could absolutely crush them to the point of regime change( it's possible).  Buuuut. I don't think thstll happe.  

Looks like both Ukraine and Russia are aiming to end the war in their favor before any potential one-day solution next year, Ukraine attacked Moscow(!) with a huge number of drones yesterday and Russia responded in kind:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-ukraine-drones-moscow-1.7379721

Maybe a bit of an indication of the perspective involved:

...the first conversation between the two men since Trump won the election, Washington Post reports.  Trump advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington's sizable military presence in Europe.

The commander fo the British army announced that Russian forces suffered their largest monthly losses in October 2024, with an average of 1,500 dead and wounded daily.

And, if you want really absurd:

The Taliban was invited to the UN climate conference for the first time.

This is about the only response I have to this:

In reply to j_tso :

Yeah, I suspect that is also a great example of how this will go:

   "I am here for an argument"

       "No you aren't"

   "Yes I am"

      "No you aren't"

Russian forces reportedly lost almost 200 tanks, over 650 armored vehicles, and suffered an estimated 80,000 casualties in taking roughly 1,500 square kilometers during a period of intensified Russian offensive operations in September and October 2024.

Russian forces will eventually make operationally significant gains if Ukrainian forces do not stop ongoing Russian offensive operations, but the Russian military cannot sustain such loss rates indefinitely, especially not for such limited gains.

Russian forces reportedly lost almost 200 tanks, over 650 armored vehicles, and suffered an estimated 80,000 casualties in taking roughly 1,500 square kilometers during a period of intensified Russian offensive operations in September and October 2024.

Damn.  Just damn.

Some more potential for a direction (note that this is a candidate, not the current Chancellor):

Friedrich Merz, candidate for German Chacellor, said he's ready to talk to Putin about ending the war in Ukraine, but only under certain conditions.

"If there's a reason and consensus among European and transatlantic partners, then yes," he noted.

Merz added that he would issue Moscow an ultimatum to halt hostilities within 24 hours; if ignored, he would supply Ukraine with Taurus missiles and permit strikes deep into Russian territory.

In reply to aircooled :

Ultimatums rarely work well, especially when issued to an entity that's bigger and more powerful than you. A time limit of 24 hours is basically saying "we're going to do this, so there's no rush to refuse." If Merz issued that from a position of authority (he's campaigning, which makes all of this quite theoretical) and I were Putin, I'd be spending those 24 hours looking at how to target German assets abroad, not thinking about a stupid public pronouncement.

Someone is saying this is a proposed plan (I have my doubts).  Anyone see any issues here? 

Based on what o2 has talked about, what do you suspect Russia would feel about having an area directly on the Russian border, patrolled and guarded by NATO troops?  This also seems to ignore that a very significant part of the initial attack came from Belarus.

Merz wants to talk? Is Ukraine the new Sudetenland?

In reply to aircooled :

How big is the DMZ, and more importantly, how many troops are committed to monitoring it, where are they from, what are they armed with, and what are their ROEs? How much defensive aid is committed to Ukraine in the deal? How long are the monitors committed for, and under what authority (it sure as hell won't be NATO, and probably not the EU, so the UN? or some other made-to-order organization?)? What are the naval arrangements? Are there associated economic development arrangements? Is there a formal declaration of neutrality, or does the possibility of NATO membership remain open?

If I remember correctly Ukraine was a major wheel in the Soviet military manufacturing sector.  What are the chances of them being able to build up that part of their economy using export sales to drive it?  Might that help them become more self efficient?

In reply to aircooled :

That map looks pretty close to what snippets I've heard of concrete info on the "one-day solution."

The current administration is also stocking up Ukraine for any potential dry spells of US aid:

https://time.com/7176164/biden-sending-aid-to-help-ukraine-keep-fighting-blinken-says/

An interesting and potentially rather telling development.  Russia seems to be pushing, maybe even harder, and getting what you would expect, even more casualties (two rather large attacks in the Kursk area where essentially obliterated).

The concept of essentially "selling yourself / sons for money for the family" is apparently a pretty big thing (it's a lot of money for some).  An interesting "economy"...  You have to wonder how many soldiers "self cashed in" if you know what I mean, and may be a reason for the new sliding scale.  

This certainly isn't going to help Putin's recruitment issues.

Putin Slashes Soldiers' Payouts as Russia's Losses in Ukraine Skyrocket

Russia will reduce payments to troops injured in Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine as his government faces ballooning war costs and huge personnel losses.

A Kremlin decree introduced Wednesday and signed by the Russian president restricts medical payouts of 3 million rubles ($30,000) to those who suffer severe injuries in combat.

Previously the sum was available to anyone wounded. Now those with less severe injuries will only get between one million rubles ($10,000) and 100,000 rubles ($1,000).

Under the Kremlin's new guidelines, soldiers will only receive full compensation if they suffer "Section I" injuries that endanger their life or health or cause significant damage to their organs, such as severe spinal injuries, brain damage, rib fractures and broken limbs.

Less severe or "Section II" injuries warranting $10,000 compensation are temporary wounds such as, concussions, minor fractures and gunshot wounds that don't affect organs. Newsweek has contacted the Russian defense ministry for comment.

Legislation introduced at the start of the war in March 2022 entitling the families of those killed in the war to 7.4 million rubles ($75,000) compensation remains in place.

Deputy defense minister Anna Tsivileva raised the issue of injury compensation earlier this month, saying that the previous system did not take into account the seriousness of injuries and authorities had earlier discussed introducing a sliding scale of payments, Russian business newspaper RBC reported.

Estimates from researchers in the U.S. in July suggested that the Kremlin faces eye-watering costs for its payouts to casualties in the war.

Thomas Lattanzio from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and Harry Stevens from the Center for the National Interest estimated in an article for the website War on the Rocks that the price tag as of May 2024 was 2.3 trillion rubles ($26 billion)— or around 6 percent of the country's total 2024 budget.

Russian forces are reportedly making incremental gains on the battlefield in the Donetsk region but at a high cost, with Ukraine's defense ministry saying on Thursday that Moscow had suffered 1,690 casualties over the previous day.....

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-troops-losses-1985722