"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (8 Viewers)

[GTX]

But since Jan 2022, Ukraine has benefited by close to half a trillion US$ in financial, material and military aid, including over $100 billion in weapons, kit and ammunition from the US and others.

What is your source of numbers? From what I understand, since Russia attacked in Feb 2022, the USA has provided approximately $44.2 billion in military assistance. If one adds in the estimated $47 billion in military assistance since Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, you are still coming up to less than $100 billion. If you are surprised that the war costs that much than you need to educate yourself what modern war takes.

I would also argue that a lot of that aid $ actually stays in the countries in question or at least generates work/jobs there since it goes to companies/factories etc producing the weapons etc. It isn't just a case of sending bundles of cash as some would try to have you think.

Finally, if one wants this to end/get a faster result, stop drip feeding the support. Instead of making the Ukrainians beg for weapons/support and then giving them just enough to keep their 'heads above water', given them what they need to win. e.g. instead of 31 Abrams MBTs, give them 310! Why make them wait 2+yrs for F-16s?

For how long and how much did Ukraine expect the US to fund Ukraine's defence?

See above comments. Also remember that in terms of % GDP, the USA is not actually giving the most.

Finally a question: Is there a timeframe you expect and then willingly walk away and let Russia win? Because that's is what Putin is counting upon.

 

[manta22]

What is your source of numbers? From what I understand, since Russia attacked in Feb 2022, the USA has provided approximately $44.2 billion in military assistance. If one adds in the estimated $47 billion in military assistance since Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, you are still coming up to less than $100 billion. If you are surprised that the war costs that much than you need to educate yourself what modern war takes.

I would also argue that a lot of that aid $ actually stays in the countries in question or at least generates work/jobs there since it goes to companies/factories etc producing the weapons etc. It isn't just a case of sending bundles of cash as some would try to have you think.

Finally, if one wants this to end/get a faster result, stop drip feeding the support. Instead of making the Ukrainians beg for weapons/support and then giving them just enough to keep their 'heads above water', given them what they need to win. e.g. instead of 31 Abrams MBTs, give them 310! Why make them wait 2+yrs for F-16s?

See above comments. Also remember that in terms of % GDP, the USA is not actually giving the most.

Finally a question: Is there a timeframe you expect and then willingly walk away and let Russia win? Because that's is what Putin is counting upon.

"Finally, if one wants this to end/get a faster result, stop drip feeding the support. Instead of making the Ukrainians beg for weapons/support and then giving them just enough to keep their 'heads above water', given them what they need to win. e.g. instead of 31 Abrams MBTs, give them 310! Why make them wait 2+yrs for F-16s?"

Agree!

 

[MiTasol]

Finally, if one wants this to end/get a faster result, stop drip feeding the support. Instead of making the Ukrainians beg for weapons/support and then giving them just enough to keep their 'heads above water', given them what they need to win. e.g. instead of 31 Abrams MBTs, give them 310! Why make them wait 2+yrs for F-16s?

See above comments. Also remember that in terms of % GDP, the USA is not actually giving the most.

Finally a question: Is there a timeframe you expect and then willingly walk away and let Russia win? Because that's is what Putin is counting upon.

Yes but that is political

 

[Admiral Beez]

What is your source of numbers?

I wrote total aid, not only weapons, kit and ammo. ~$350 billion as of last month.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/world/ukraine-money-military-aid-intl-dg/index.html

I suggest total aid will exceed half a trillion US $ by mid 2024. Hopefully by then Ukraine is beyond a stalemate.

you need to …..

I suggest you refrain from telling others what you think they need to do.

 

[Snautzer01]

Why make them wait

Because the hardware going to ukr has to be replaced and/or other hardware will need to fill up the store spaces. Just incase it would escalate. All of european nato members are putting out orders so replacement stuff is not in abundance.

 

[GTX]

Russia and Ukraine are building up huge armies, but they both have the same problem with using them in battle

Shortages of capable staff officers and junior leaders limit what the Russian and Ukrainian militaries can do on the battlefield.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[GTX]

On ATACMS for Ukraine, don’t settle for a job half done - Breaking Defense

In this op-ed, John Hardie and Bradley Bowman argue that the US should send Ukraine as many ATACMS as it can without impacting US military readiness.

breakingdefense.com

 

[GTX]

A bit of an odd one:

Unknown obsolete Su-17 Fitter fighter-bomber appeared over Ukraine

A Su-17 Fitter fighter-bomber, a Soviet-made aircraft, has reportedly been sighted in the airspace over Ukraine, as disclosed by the pro-Ukrainian NMFTE account

bulgarianmilitary.com

More on this:

Old Polish Bombers for Ukraine? Don’t Count On It.

No, there’s no reason to believe the Ukrainian air force is flying ex-Polish Sukhoi Su-22 bombers.

www.forbes.com

 

[GTX]

Under The Cover Of Drones And Helicopters, The Ukrainian Marine Corps Is Advancing—And Expanding Its Dnipro Bridgehead

The Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kherson is accelerating as it enters its second month. Russian sources reported more Ukrainian marines crossing the Dnipro River.

www.forbes.com

 

[GTX]

Ukraine’s Getting Nearly 200 Leopard 1A5 Tanks. Now It Needs New Tank Tactics.

Two hundred Leopard 1A5s is a lot of Leopard 1A5s. But even they will disappear quickly if the Ukrainians don’t deploy them the right way.

www.forbes.com

 

[GTX]

Mixing Leopard 2 Tanks And M-2 Fighting Vehicles In Fast-Moving Teams, The Ukrainian 47th Brigade Hits And Runs—And Blunts Russian Advances Near Avdiivka

Fast mechanized raids are one way the Ukrainians blunt Russian advances around Avdiivka. The raids are sustainable only because the 47th Brigade is aggressive as ever.

www.forbes.com

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wrote total aid, not only weapons, kit and ammo. ~$350 billion as of last month.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/world/ukraine-money-military-aid-intl-dg/index.html

I suggest total aid will exceed half a trillion US $ by mid 2024. Hopefully by then Ukraine is beyond a stalemate.


I suggest you refrain from telling others what you think they need to do.

Let's put it this way: we're 20 months into this. 20 months into WWII, Europe was crushed, Britain stood alone, and the Wehrmacht stood from the Arctic Circle to the sands of Libya. England had a Channel in its defense. Ukraine doesn't.

In both cases, it is in the American interest to fund the defense against aggression. I can guarantee you that not one single Congresscritter wants to be seen as the Neville Chamberlain of 2024, and I have no doubt that that has been made plain in the halls of Capitol Hill.

 

[GTX]

View: https://youtu.be/vOovNb4TRY0?si=SkCr2DlV9TR6UNdc

 

[GTX]

View: https://youtu.be/HlD6_sOcIzA?si=MOuAWJQjmJMtz8M0

 

[GTX]

View: https://youtu.be/dCKFGtnD2Jw?si=mlarNTEJNg_n_HLY

 

[Admiral Beez]

"Finally, if one wants this to end/get a faster result, stop drip feeding the support. Instead of making the Ukrainians beg for weapons/support and then giving them just enough to keep their 'heads above water', given them what they need to win. e.g. instead of 31 Abrams MBTs, give them 310! Why make them wait 2+yrs for F-16s?"

Agree!

It's a good point. By spring 2025 Ukraine will have the military it needed in spring 2023. Three lost years.

 

[Glider]

Thee is a well known phrase. There are lie, damn lies, and statistics.

Politicians Of all hues in every country say that we have donated this many billions and that so many billions and a high proportion and so much of it is bull. Lets just take the UK which has contributed a fair amount. So much of what we have given was going to be disposed of. The Sky Shadow, which has been effective, were about to go out of service and be destroyed because they were reaching the end of their shelf life. The anti tank rockets, again were and are very effective, but the were the early versions about to be replaced by a later version. The Challangers, 13 is a useless number in that the effort to support them will almost be more than they are worth and we had a lot more becoming available because the Challenger 3 is entering production and the difference between the number of Mk 2's going out of service and the Mk 3's coming in was a hell of a lot more than 13. A high proportion of the 155 guns we supplied were in reserve and again were being replaced by more modern equipment.

The UK is far from the only country playing the numbers game. In the vast majority of cases Ukraine has been fighting with second hand equipment that was about to be scrapped or given to friendly countries for next to no money.

Yet you can be sure that when a country says that have donated X Billion, I would lay a penny to a pound that they haven't used the scrap or second hand value value of the equipment. It will be what it cost to build or the cost of a replacement.

And people are correct, the ammunition is expensive and is new build, as has been pointed that money is almost always being spent in country and not 'given away' as our dear leaders claim.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And people are correct, the ammunition is expensive and is new build, as has been pointed that money is almost always being spent in country and not 'given away' as our dear leaders claim.

And even there, here in America, firing those ammo plants up not only employs more Americans, not only supplies Ukraine, but also sets up lines to refresh our own stockpiles. I'm fine with that because we would've needed to do all that anyway.

And what better way to scrap it than shooting it off against an aggressor which continually works against our national interest?

 

[gumbyk]

And what better way to scrap it than shooting it off against an aggressor which continually works against our national interest?

That's probably cheaper than paying for disposal anyway.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Under The Cover Of Drones And Helicopters, The Ukrainian Marine Corps Is Advancing—And Expanding Its Dnipro Bridgehead

The Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kherson is accelerating as it enters its second month. Russian sources reported more Ukrainian marines crossing the Dnipro River.

www.forbes.com

Ukraine essentially has no navy, but the navy has a marine infantry force. Would it make more sense from the POV of chain of command for the amphibious troops to be part of the Ukrainian army? For example, France's amphibious forces, Troupes de marine are part of the army, not navy.