• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The War in Ukraine

The only solution is to give Ukraine the equipment and support it needs to make Russia go back to the 1991 border.

Anything else simply rewards Putin for a war of aggression to annex territory and sets the stage for it to occur again, and to other countries.

More F-16’s, more HIMARS/MLRS, a few hundred M1A2 and more AD assets.
Cheap at 100x the price.
And on that note:


 
The only solution is to give Ukraine the equipment and support it needs to make Russia go back to the 1991 border.

Anything else simply rewards Putin for a war of aggression to annex territory and sets the stage for it to occur again, and to other countries.

More F-16’s, more HIMARS/MLRS, a few hundred M1A2 and more AD assets.
Cheap at 100x the price.
Several hundred Bradleys and Tomahawks wouldn't hurt either. Or all the mothballed A10's.
 
So today’s “deal” was a smashing success. A moratorium on targeting a Russian strategic weakness. Their oil is now safe. Meanwhile…
Darth Putin nails it again ...
 

The Misleading Metric of Aid to Ukraine​

By Meaghan Mobbs
March 20, 2025
AP

The Misleading Metric of Aid to Ukraine: Why Dollars Didn’t Equal Support

In the ongoing discourse surrounding Western support for Ukraine, a peculiar and misleading metric has taken center stage: the dollar value of aid. The fixation on the total amount allocated—often in the hundreds of billions—has distorted public perception, muddied strategic discussions, and concealed operational shortcomings. It has served as a sleight of hand, misdirecting both the American people and policymakers away from what truly matters: battlefield effectiveness, operational efficiency, and the ability to meet Ukraine’s evolving military needs.

At the heart of this problem is the way aid is valued. The dollar amounts assigned to military assistance are determined not by the recipient nation but by the home country providing the aid. These figures are frequently inflated, unreliable, and based on questionable assessments of the worth of transferred equipment. Worse still, much of the equipment provided has been outdated, depreciated, or poorly maintained—rendering its battlefield utility limited at best. In many cases, Western nations, particularly the United States, have used this opportunity to offload aging stockpiles of weaponry while simultaneously backfilling their arsenals with more modern, reliable systems. This process has been framed as generosity when in reality it is often a transactional reshuffling of military assets.


By focusing on dollars rather than deliverables, the West has allowed itself to be captured by a bizarre and counterproductive narrative. The promised sums have frequently not materialized in tangible, functional military aid. Even when delivered, many of these systems arrived in disrepair, with insufficient logistical support or inoperable conditions, or did not meet the intended tactical, operational, or strategic goal. For example, the critical shortfall in engineering equipment necessary to breach Russian defensive lines during Ukraine’s failed 2023 counteroffensive underscored how misleading these dollar figures were. Billions were pledged, but without the right equipment at the right time, the results were disastrous.

Biden made it ‘all about the Benjamins when it should have been about the battle plan. The obsession with dollar figures has distracted from a more pressing and uncomfortable reality: the West’s—especially Europe’s—dire lack of military readiness. President Trump's push for increased European defense spending is long overdue. For too long, the U.S. has shouldered the financial and operational burden of collective security while European nations have underfunded their own defense, leaving NATO vulnerable in a time of rising threats. By touting high-dollar commitments, Western leaders have masked their own shortages and their failure to meet their own defense obligations. The illusion of robust support for Ukraine has also obscured how unprepared NATO is should conflict escalate beyond Ukraine’s borders.

Under the Biden administration, this flawed ‘counting dollars instead of deliverables' approach became institutionalized. By using massive dollar amounts as the primary indicator of support, the administration set a precedent for misleading narratives which fundamentally misinformed the American public, leading them to believe that Ukraine has received unprecedented, overwhelming support. In reality, the aid has often been piecemeal, mismanaged, and strategically inadequate. Worse, it was virtue signaling at the cost of the trust of the American people, and Ukrainian lives.

Now, with the war entering its fourth year, Ukraine stands in a weakened position as negotiations become serious under President Trump’s leadership. Years of misguided aid policy under Biden, rooted in the illusion of financial generosity rather than operational necessity, have left Ukraine with dwindling options. It is no longer in a position to mount another counteroffensive, and it must enter peace talks with a significantly diminished bargaining position—a direct consequence of past failures.

The lesson should be clear: future security assistance must be judged not by abstract monetary totals but by its actual impact on the battlefield. The true measure of support is effectiveness, not dollars spent. America’s strategy moving forward must be guided by pragmatic military assessments, not political optics. Otherwise, we will continue to mistake the illusion of aid for the reality of security—at great cost to allies, American credibility, and global stability.


Meaghan Mobbs, PhD, is the Director of the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women.
 
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Original DEU media source (in German)
Google English translation here.
 
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Original DEU media source (in German)
Google English translation here.
Well I think we could quite safely say that the Russians wouldn't attack them. And the more troops they have in Ukraine the less they have available to invade Taiwan. /s

Maybe it wouldn't be such a crazy idea. They wouldn't want the political backlash of turning on Ukraine as they would never be trusted again and they might not be willing to turn a blind eye to Russian attempts to break a ceasefire as it would cause them to lose face by failing in their mission.

For China they probably see a big opportunity to secure rights to infrastructure like the port of Odessa and a link into Europe through a non-NATO member in return for investing in re-building Ukraine.
 
Interesting happenings from Ukraine's Belgorod incursion, they may have bagged another top brass.


 
Interesting happenings from Ukraine's Belgorod incursion, they may have bagged another top brass.


Windows.

Always the windows.
 
Interesting bit on Russian medical evacuation and the effects of drones on that

Of all the injuries to Russian soldiers received during non-active combat, more than 75% were caused by attacks by Ukrainian UAVs.

These statistics were cited by Russian military doctors - their article was published in the March issue of the Military Medical Journal, which is published by the Russian Ministry of Defense. For the study, doctors interviewed about 6 thousand wounded servicemen.

Another 20% of the soldiers surveyed were injured as a result of artillery shelling, and 4% were injured by small arms.

Doctors classify inactive combat actions as periodic, low-intensity clashes and positional warfare, when the parties do not conduct an offensive. As stated in the report of military doctors, the main Ukrainian means of destruction during this period are small attack UAVs.

Drones also affected the time it took to evacuate the wounded for surgical care. It increased threefold, to 14.5 hours, the researchers write.

In July 2024, the same group of doctors published a similar study: on wounds received during active combat, for example, during assaults. At that time, the researchers did not single out wounds received from UAVs as a separate group. But, according to their data, during active combat, the absolute majority of wounds, 94.4%, are shrapnel and explosive. All wounds received from drones fall into these two categories.

The Russian-Ukrainian war is the first large-scale conflict in which drones are used so widely. According to the Ukrainian side, drone attacks account for 70 to 80% of all military losses.

Drones are also effective in destroying military equipment, including heavy equipment. For example, of the 31 Abrams tanks that the United States delivered to Ukraine in 2023, 19 were disabled, including by drones, The New York Times wrote, citing a high-ranking Ukrainian official.
 

Donald Trump is holding a gun to the head of Volodymyr Zelensky, demanding huge reparations payments and laying claim to half of Ukraine’s oil, gas, and hydrocarbon resources as well as almost all its metals and much of its infrastructure.

The latest version of his “minerals deal”, obtained by The Telegraph, is unprecedented in the history of modern diplomacy and state relations.

“It is an expropriation document,” said Alan Riley, an expert on energy law at the Atlantic Council. “There are no guarantees, no defence clauses, the US puts up nothing.

“The Americans can walk away, the Ukrainians can’t. I’ve never seen anything like it before.”

The text leaves little doubt that Mr Trump’s chief objective is to incorporate Ukraine as a province of America’s oil, gas and resource industries.

It dovetails with parallel talks between the US and Russia for a comprehensive energy partnership, including plans to restore West Siberian gas flows to Europe in large volumes, with US companies and Trump-aligned financiers gaining a major stake in the business.

The revived gas trade would flow through Ukraine’s network, and later via the Baltic as the sabotaged Nord Stream pipelines are brought back on stream.

The new draft states that the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund will control Ukraine’s “critical minerals or other minerals, oil, natural gas (including liquified [sic] natural gas), fuels or other hydrocarbons and other extractable materials”.

The US will control infrastructure linked to natural resources “including, but not limited to, roads, rail, pipelines and other transportation assets; ports, terminals and other logistics facilities and refineries, processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction and/or regasification facilities and similar assets”.

Three of the five board members on the new fund will be chosen by the US. It will have “A” shares and golden shares. America will receive all the royalties until Ukraine has paid off at least $100bn of war debt to the US, with 4pc interest added – less than the $350bn floated earlier by Mr Trump but still half of Ukraine’s GDP, and unpayable.

Ukraine has only “B’ shares and will receive 50pc of the royalties only once its arrears are paid off.

The fund is registered in Delaware but under New York jurisdiction. The US has the first right of refusal on all projects. It has authority to examine the books and accounts of any Ukrainian ministry or agency whenever it wants during working hours.

This reduces Ukraine from a sovereign state to a division of a US corporation. A corporation working with Putin to lock up the oil and gas business, if not the energy business.

If true - how favourable do we reckon Trump will be to us opening taps in competition to him? Or him selling weapons to us for our sovereign use?
 







This reduces Ukraine from a sovereign state to a division of a US corporation. A corporation working with Putin to lock up the oil and gas business, if not the energy business.

If true - how favourable do we reckon Trump will be to us opening taps in competition to him? Or him selling weapons to us for our sovereign use?
A question based on a slightly different analogy: how likely are you to get a good deal approaching a mob or biker gang boss?
 







This reduces Ukraine from a sovereign state to a division of a US corporation. A corporation working with Putin to lock up the oil and gas business, if not the energy business.

If true - how favourable do we reckon Trump will be to us opening taps in competition to him? Or him selling weapons to us for our sovereign use?

Is the Telegraph is still considered a reliable source? Lately I've heard some real howlers from the paper and I'll wait until I see some conformation from other sites. Speaking of which, here is a report about a possibly deal between Russia and Ukraine is this update from the SOFREP website:

 
Is the Telegraph is still considered a reliable source? Lately I've heard some real howlers from the paper and I'll wait until I see some conformation from other sites.
Slightly less … brash papers are quoting “anything we can get”, so the Telegraph might be at least within the same beaten zone of reality…
 
Is the Telegraph is still considered a reliable source? Lately I've heard some real howlers from the paper and I'll wait until I see some conformation from other sites. Speaking of which, here is a report about a possibly deal between Russia and Ukraine is this update from the SOFREP website:


Suggest cross referencing anything in any of the daily UK papers with the Spectator, just to be safe ;)
 
What would be a WAG of the timeline that Ukraine would need if they started on 6 Nov in putting together some type battlefield or further out nuclear device?

Could they be playing for time right now in the peace talks?
 
Well that partial ceasefire didn't last long. Perhaps Zelensky may have been on to something with how many times he's said Putin and Russia can not be trusted at all? Time to light up some more refineries.

Alt: https://archive.ph/XH7My
 
I am not religious, but this is so absurd I can't wrap my head around that anyone that is (even Russian) not find this incredibly offensive. The grip the Kremlin has on the country is terrifying.

 
Back
Top