"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (7 Viewers)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Cyber warfare isn't really much different in many respects in strategy and intention than aggressive diplomacy, espionage and economic machinations. That aspect is all rather business as usual, tbh. As conducted to date, its an inconvenience - and much of it is by hackers and non state agents. Yes, it has huge potential for the future as we blindly continue to remove hard cash, paper and 20th century telephony from our national networks (criminal short-sightedness in my opinion), but its still hasn't had the political or social impact of a single conventional bomb or missile hitting a capital city.

Really? In Dec 2015, Russia hacked Ukraine's power net, depriving 230,000 people of power at the onset of winter. Stuxnet did physical damage to the Iranian nuclear power program. The attack on the Colonial Pipeline a few years back seriously impacted America's fuel supplies. It hasn't hit its full stride, of course, but it has already done physical damage to infrastructure.

People talk about 'lines being drawn'. Ordinarily, I'd agree. But the trouble with that strategy now is that we already have one brinksman too many already in the form of Putin. Once someone else has their feet up on the oak desk, there will be two. Personally, I don't want to see ANY more lines for the time being, because we'll have two individuals who have a proven track record of completely ignoring them. That simply invites both rapid escalation and the danger of things running out of control. Then WW3 will become something of an inevitable self-fulfilling prophesy. No thanks - I like my molecules attached, thank you very much.

I'm not fond of remaining a hostage to a threatening bully. I'm not sure how to approach it, which is why I'm thinking about this a lot. But I don't think that being blithe is a useful approach.

 

[GTX]

Technically an embassy is considered sovereign soil of a nation...

Multiple embassies in Kyiv damaged in Russian drone, missile strikes

Portugal has strongly condemned a Russian strike on Kyiv which damaged a building that housed its embassy and the offices of several other countries.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SplitRz]

I'm not fond of remaining a hostage to a threatening bully. I'm not sure how to approach it, which is why I'm thinking about this a lot. But I don't think that being blithe is a useful approach.

Which is why, I assume, you remain as unsure how to approach the issue as I am - presumably including what lines 'have to be drawn'.

In fairness, we can join the worlds leaders and diplomats on that quandary too.

Really? In Dec 2015, Russia hacked Ukraine's power net, depriving 230,000 people of power at the onset of winter. Stuxnet did physical damage to the Iranian nuclear power program. The attack on the Colonial Pipeline a few years back seriously impacted America's fuel supplies. It hasn't hit its full stride, of course, but it has already done physical damage to infrastructure.

Yes - as I said previously: it has huge potential for the future but it still hasn't had the political or social impact of a single conventional bomb or missile hitting a capital city.

The other main difference is the ability (or lack) to forensically pin precise blame on any individual national agency. If cyber attacks become a 'drawn line' but an independent criminal or proxy organisation beyond a suspected sponsoring state border is responsible, how's that squared? Even worse, given the difficulty of accurately and convincingly apportioning blame, how can action be supported internationally on the basis of what will often have to remain suspicion rather than provable fact?

Our culture and our political and commercial leadership needs to take both blame and responsibility for such bone headed stupidity as to have allowed critical state infrastructure and databases to be networked into the WWW over the last 30 years! WFT did they think the implications of that were going to be?! Its one of the most spectacularly obvious and predictable weak links and own goals imaginable. And yet the process continues and the risk grows year on year!

Rather than lines being drawn, perhaps it would be better to address the fundamental vulnerability we're building into our national lives in the first place, rather than finding a new threat to rattle sabres at...?

 

[GTX]

Exclusive: US to announce final package of new arms for Ukraine in coming days

 

[GTX]

Ukraine collects vast war data trove to train AI models

 

[GTX]

Russian rush-hour missile strike on Kyiv kills one, damages embassies

 

[GTX]

Russia Pummels Kyiv In Retaliation For ATACMS, Storm Shadow Strikes On Its Soil

Ukraine Situation Report: Russia vowed revenge earlier this week after a key fuel production site in the Rostov region was struck.

www.twz.com

 

[GTX]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIj6VXY5Sc

 

[fubar57]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIj6VXY5Sc

 

[MiTasol]

I agree with President Zelensky, however, Ukraine was supposed to have security guarantees under the Budapest Memorandum and we see how that's worked out so far...

To me the only Ukrainian security gaurantee that will truly stop Putin is for Ukraine to become part of NATO.

Unfortunately Putin's puppets will prevent that.

 

[MiTasol]

I'd also like to see Europe step up to the plate and to mandate ALL member nations of the EU and NATO to deliver the 2.5% GDP defence spending commitment as a direct condition of membership, in return for some meaningful continued US support

Last time I saw figures, about 3 months back, the USA was the eleventh highest contributor to the war in Ukraine in terms of percentage of GDP. President Biden's recent moves will have moved the US up the list but still nowhere near as high as most of the NATO members that border Russia.

Yes US gives the most total aid but as a percentage of GDP or percentage of budget it lags way behind many other countries.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The United States have a much larger scope of responsibility. How much aid has Estonia, for example, earmarked for Taiwan, Israel, the Phillipines, global anti-piracy and drug and human trafficking efforts?

 

[MiTasol]

The United States have a much larger scope of responsibility. How much aid has Estonia, for example, earmarked for Taiwan, Israel, the Phillipines, global anti-piracy and drug and human trafficking efforts?

While that is true to an extent I just checked the latest aid figures at Bilateral aid to Ukraine by country GDP 2024 | Statista and in terms of bilateral aid to Ukraine the US at .35% is currently 17th with Denmark providing 5.23 times as much support in the lead and with six countries providing more that double what the US does.

On the other hand Australia's aid has been abysmal with the government and opposition both dragging their collective heals and the US is the third biggest supporter of NATO as a % of GDP.

 

[SplitRz]

The current 2% of GDP is a commitment but not a condition. NATO isn't meant to be some sort of club where you have to pay membership fees. It is there for the collective defence of all involved.

Then, given the current state of the world, it SHOULD be, surely?

NATO is an organisation which relies on mutual defence and the willingness of each and every member to step-up and make the ultimate test of that promise, if required: All out war in which your own citizens lay down blood and treasure to defend a fellow nation. (And if taken to the ultimate, Mutually Assured Destruction by default). That's what NATO members sign up to.

2.5% is not an unreasonable national commitment in the post Ukraine world, because its measured on GPD - poorer or smaller countries are making payments proportionate to the size and health of their economy. Otherwise we're in he surreal world in which nation A can choose to spend 0.9% of its GDP on the military and the other 1.6% that its neighbour B is paying, on state subsidised 'nice things'. Nation A can buy votes off of its citizens by having state funded swanky events and infrastructure, feeling cosy and shielded by its more Spartan neighbour who's had to make civic sacrifices up to afford a halfway credible military. I can't see Nation B feeling thats either fair or proportionate to a mutual agreement and the stakes it entails.

In the normal post Cold War world, the nations that spent less of the peace dividend were those who still had significant diplomatic and inclination to military involvement in the wider world - or those who weren't so quick to unlearn the lessons of history, usually because they shared a border with a nation who's spots may not have changed for real

NATO became for many of the more isolationist countries, a convenient cost saving exercise, enabling them to run their defences down on the understanding that the collective force of NATO was just about credible enough to provide the bare essentials. With the frankly lazy assumption of automatic backup of Uncle Sam in the unlikely event anything really bad happened.

Putin has changed all of that. And the incoming POTUS is going to underline it. And tbh, whilst I think blunt hints are an incredibly unwise piece of brinksmanship at this time, I do actually see where that individual is coming from and why it sits well with his voters. Europe, collectively *has not* been paying its way, militarily. I don't think anyone can deny that, can they?

If NATO *is* for the collective defence of all involved, and all involved are therefore expected to honour that, why are some paying disproportionately far more by population and wealth, than others? When so many nations are under social strain as it is, and when so many others feel a proper existential threat, how can that be sustainable without at least an agreed minimum commitment?

 

[SplitRz]

the USA was the eleventh highest contributor to the war in Ukraine in terms of percentage of GDP

[EDIT sorry, I re-read your post and see you entirely got this from the get-go, so this is entirely in agreement with you!]

BY GDP and as an individual country, yes. But remember, European countries make their donations as individual states - many of whom pay well under 2% of their national GDP on their entire defence budget. Their GDP percentage as contributions to Ukraine will be tiny or utterly negligible in many instances. The point is that the USAs GDP is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than everyone elses to start with, so as a percentage, it looks small - but the amount is vast.

European expenditure on defence by GDP - how much nations are investing in their own defence. Followed by -

This is old info, for year before last, but it shows the disparity between what even the most generous of rest of the world has given compared to the USA in raw greenbacks:

 

[fubar57]

According to this, EU gives no military aid

 

[SplitRz]

According to this, EU gives no military aid

View attachment 810961​

It doesn't - the EU is a trading block with federal legislative powers and a parliament, but its not not a nation and doesn't have an army.

Out of interest, is that a distinction not understood by a lot of North Americans? (I'm not being patronising btw, its a distinction a lot of Brits don't get either, even when we were in the EU for all those years!)

It does however have a LOT of institutions funded by member states. I'd imagine that's why it shows as humanitarian and financial aid. Remember, the nation states who are members of the EU pay in (to a greater of lesser extent - another sore issue) to those funds.

 

[fubar57]

According to the chart above the one I posted, it says the EU-Instituions gave 5.6 billion Euros of military aid to Ukraine

 

[SplitRz]

According to the chart above the one I posted, it says the EU-Instituions gave 5.6 billion Euros of military aid to Ukraine

Search me!

(contradictions like this helped convince millions of Brits to vote to leave the EU!)

I suspect (but can't be sure), it may mean 'soft' generic military logistical support - medical kits, tents, ration packs, blankets, fuel, transportation, logistical and bureaucratic support - things like that

EDIT - looks like it includes a lot of military training too - About EU Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine)

 

[MiTasol]

I must admit that getting a truly accurate indication of each countries military support for Ukraine is a real minefield.

A lot of countries, including the US and Aus, are donating end of life materials to save themselves disposal costs. How are these items valued?

At purchase cost? Probably in most cases.

At written down cost? That is if it has 5% of life left is it costed at 5% of purchase cost.

At "real" value? As in it will cost us $X to dispose of so we show it on our budget as a $X payment from Ukraine because that is how much they saved us

Then there is the countries military spending.

IF a country buys 100 item x gives them to Ukraine is this shown as:

• Only aid to Ukraine?
• Aid to Ukraine and also part of NATO contribution?
• Aid to Ukraine and also part of the countries own military expenditure?
• Other double dipping?

I have no doubt that all combinations, and more, are at play given that politicians are inherently dishonest and love to make themselves look good when ever possible and at the least expense they can connive.