10-13-2025, 04:40 PM
Given more and more data that seems to confirm Russia's buildup of a large military troop reserve, I'd say Tomahawks are easily on the table.
Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine
10-13-2025, 07:59 PM
(10-13-2025, 07:31 AM)GK3 Wrote: Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down? I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.
(10-13-2025, 04:40 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Given more and more data that seems to confirm Russia's buildup of a large military troop reserve, I'd say Tomahawks are easily on the table.
IMO the President is commenting on Tomahawks to Ukraine only because it is known that Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked for them An example of this is https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/ While I would hope this is a real possibility, I doubt that it is. The President likes to keep everybody guessing. He may well have decided what he is going to do about Tomahawks, but he isn't going to tell us what that is until absolutely forced.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/06/trump-t...y-decision
I would hope that if he intends to supply them (which I doubt) he will keep it private until Ukraine is ready to use them operationally. This will give Russia the least possible warning.
An interesting approach would be to tell Putin that for every violation of NATO airspace by Russian aircraft, the US would give N (e.g. 10) Tomahawks to Ukraine. Further, for any Russian drones that crash in NATO territory, the US would give M (e.g. 5) Tomahawks to Ukraine. For any casualties caused by Russian drones in NATO territory, Ukraine will get 75 Tomahawks. So Vlad, it is entirely up to you on how you proceed. However the consequences will also be quite clear. Never going to happen, but it would IMO make lots of sense.
(10-13-2025, 07:31 AM)GK3 Wrote: Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down? I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.
(10-13-2025, 04:40 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Given more and more data that seems to confirm Russia's buildup of a large military troop reserve, I'd say Tomahawks are easily on the table.
IMO the President is commenting on Tomahawks to Ukraine only because it is known that Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked for them An example of this is https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/ While I would hope this is a real possibility, I doubt that it is. The President likes to keep everybody guessing. He may well have decided what he is going to do about Tomahawks, but he isn't going to tell us what that is until absolutely forced.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/06/trump-t...y-decision
I would hope that if he intends to supply them (which I doubt) he will keep it private until Ukraine is ready to use them operationally. This will give Russia the least possible warning.
An interesting approach would be to tell Putin that for every violation of NATO airspace by Russian aircraft, the US would give N (e.g. 10) Tomahawks to Ukraine. Further, for any Russian drones that crash in NATO territory, the US would give M (e.g. 5) Tomahawks to Ukraine. For any casualties caused by Russian drones in NATO territory, Ukraine will get 75 Tomahawks. So Vlad, it is entirely up to you on how you proceed. However the consequences will also be quite clear. Never going to happen, but it would IMO make lots of sense.
10-13-2025, 08:51 PM
(10-13-2025, 07:59 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-13-2025, 07:31 AM)GK3 Wrote: Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down? I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.
(10-13-2025, 04:40 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Given more and more data that seems to confirm Russia's buildup of a large military troop reserve, I'd say Tomahawks are easily on the table.
IMO the President is commenting on Tomahawks to Ukraine only because it is known that Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked for them An example of this is https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/ While I would hope this is a real possibility, I doubt that it is. The President likes to keep everybody guessing. He may well have decided what he is going to do about Tomahawks, but he isn't going to tell us what that is until absolutely forced.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/06/trump-t...y-decision
I would hope that if he intends to supply them (which I doubt) he will keep it private until Ukraine is ready to use them operationally. This will give Russia the least possible warning.
An interesting approach would be to tell Putin that for every violation of NATO airspace by Russian aircraft, the US would give N (e.g. 10) Tomahawks to Ukraine. Further, for any Russian drones that crash in NATO territory, the US would give M (e.g. 5) Tomahawks to Ukraine. For any casualties caused by Russian drones in NATO territory, Ukraine will get 75 Tomahawks. So Vlad, it is entirely up to you on how you proceed. However the consequences will also be quite clear. Never going to happen, but it would IMO make lots of sense.
I think you are correct.
(10-13-2025, 07:59 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-13-2025, 07:31 AM)GK3 Wrote: Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down? I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.
(10-13-2025, 04:40 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Given more and more data that seems to confirm Russia's buildup of a large military troop reserve, I'd say Tomahawks are easily on the table.
IMO the President is commenting on Tomahawks to Ukraine only because it is known that Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked for them An example of this is https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/ While I would hope this is a real possibility, I doubt that it is. The President likes to keep everybody guessing. He may well have decided what he is going to do about Tomahawks, but he isn't going to tell us what that is until absolutely forced.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/06/trump-t...y-decision
I would hope that if he intends to supply them (which I doubt) he will keep it private until Ukraine is ready to use them operationally. This will give Russia the least possible warning.
An interesting approach would be to tell Putin that for every violation of NATO airspace by Russian aircraft, the US would give N (e.g. 10) Tomahawks to Ukraine. Further, for any Russian drones that crash in NATO territory, the US would give M (e.g. 5) Tomahawks to Ukraine. For any casualties caused by Russian drones in NATO territory, Ukraine will get 75 Tomahawks. So Vlad, it is entirely up to you on how you proceed. However the consequences will also be quite clear. Never going to happen, but it would IMO make lots of sense.
I think you are correct.
10-16-2025, 06:47 PM
(10-13-2025, 08:51 PM)GK3 Wrote:(10-13-2025, 07:59 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-13-2025, 07:31 AM)GK3 Wrote: Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down? I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.
(10-13-2025, 04:40 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Given more and more data that seems to confirm Russia's buildup of a large military troop reserve, I'd say Tomahawks are easily on the table.
IMO the President is commenting on Tomahawks to Ukraine only because it is known that Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked for them An example of this is https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/ While I would hope this is a real possibility, I doubt that it is. The President likes to keep everybody guessing. He may well have decided what he is going to do about Tomahawks, but he isn't going to tell us what that is until absolutely forced.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/06/trump-t...y-decision
I would hope that if he intends to supply them (which I doubt) he will keep it private until Ukraine is ready to use them operationally. This will give Russia the least possible warning.
An interesting approach would be to tell Putin that for every violation of NATO airspace by Russian aircraft, the US would give N (e.g. 10) Tomahawks to Ukraine. Further, for any Russian drones that crash in NATO territory, the US would give M (e.g. 5) Tomahawks to Ukraine. For any casualties caused by Russian drones in NATO territory, Ukraine will get 75 Tomahawks. So Vlad, it is entirely up to you on how you proceed. However the consequences will also be quite clear. Never going to happen, but it would IMO make lots of sense.
I think you are correct.
A more current thought. If NATO countries are willing to cough up billions of dollars to buy weapons from us to give to the Ukraine, why not Tomohawks too? We are no longer "giving" the weapons to Ukraine, simply selling them to NATO who elects to give or sell or whatever the weapons to Ukraine.
(10-13-2025, 08:51 PM)GK3 Wrote:(10-13-2025, 07:59 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-13-2025, 07:31 AM)GK3 Wrote: Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down? I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.
(10-13-2025, 04:40 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Given more and more data that seems to confirm Russia's buildup of a large military troop reserve, I'd say Tomahawks are easily on the table.
IMO the President is commenting on Tomahawks to Ukraine only because it is known that Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked for them An example of this is https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/ While I would hope this is a real possibility, I doubt that it is. The President likes to keep everybody guessing. He may well have decided what he is going to do about Tomahawks, but he isn't going to tell us what that is until absolutely forced.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/06/trump-t...y-decision
I would hope that if he intends to supply them (which I doubt) he will keep it private until Ukraine is ready to use them operationally. This will give Russia the least possible warning.
An interesting approach would be to tell Putin that for every violation of NATO airspace by Russian aircraft, the US would give N (e.g. 10) Tomahawks to Ukraine. Further, for any Russian drones that crash in NATO territory, the US would give M (e.g. 5) Tomahawks to Ukraine. For any casualties caused by Russian drones in NATO territory, Ukraine will get 75 Tomahawks. So Vlad, it is entirely up to you on how you proceed. However the consequences will also be quite clear. Never going to happen, but it would IMO make lots of sense.
I think you are correct.
A more current thought. If NATO countries are willing to cough up billions of dollars to buy weapons from us to give to the Ukraine, why not Tomohawks too? We are no longer "giving" the weapons to Ukraine, simply selling them to NATO who elects to give or sell or whatever the weapons to Ukraine.
10-16-2025, 07:17 PM
https://kyivindependent.com/we-need-them...-zelensky/
"We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too. We have a lot of them but we need them. I mean, we can't deplete for our country," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"I don't know what we can do about that," he added.
BC
"We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too. We have a lot of them but we need them. I mean, we can't deplete for our country," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"I don't know what we can do about that," he added.
BC
https://kyivindependent.com/we-need-them...-zelensky/
"We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too. We have a lot of them but we need them. I mean, we can't deplete for our country," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"I don't know what we can do about that," he added.
BC
"We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too. We have a lot of them but we need them. I mean, we can't deplete for our country," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"I don't know what we can do about that," he added.
BC
10-16-2025, 08:07 PM
(10-16-2025, 07:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://kyivindependent.com/we-need-them...-zelensky/The RN and the RAN also have Tomahawks in their inventory. They could "sell" some of them them to Ukraine as long as the US would allow these nations to order replacements. The US has an immense Tomahawk inventory. The administration is however correct that we tend to launch large numbers of these missiles whenever we use any. Even allowing for that, we do have a very adequate number of these missiles. The administration could make it happen if they wanted to do so.
"We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too. We have a lot of them but we need them. I mean, we can't deplete for our country," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"I don't know what we can do about that," he added.
BC
It is clear that the President wants to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Last March, it appeared that he was going to sell Ukraine out to Russia to do so. That didn't happen, fortunately. What the President now intends will become clearer (hopefully) after Zelenskyy visits on Friday. It is quite possible Putin arranged the call with the President because he feared that Tomahawks were a "go" for Ukraine. At a minimum, it is probable IMO that Putin has bought himself some time. The administration may choose to delay any action on the missiles. It could end up being even worse than that if Putin somehow convinces the administration that Russia will actually participate in a cease-fire.
The situation in Ukraine right now is "interesting". Ukraine claims they have reduced Russian refining capacity by 38%. There are definitely shortages of refined petroleum in Russia right now. It isn't a crisis yet, but if Ukraine could get even 25 Tomahawks right now, it could become one. OTOH the Ukrainian rail system is being significantly degraded by Russian missile activity. That reduces Ukraine's ability to move troops and logistics around when needed. It also is obviously bad for the population in general. Who has the greater staying power at the moment is unclear. Looking at the last 9 months in this war presents an interesting picture.
(10-16-2025, 07:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://kyivindependent.com/we-need-them...-zelensky/The RN and the RAN also have Tomahawks in their inventory. They could "sell" some of them them to Ukraine as long as the US would allow these nations to order replacements. The US has an immense Tomahawk inventory. The administration is however correct that we tend to launch large numbers of these missiles whenever we use any. Even allowing for that, we do have a very adequate number of these missiles. The administration could make it happen if they wanted to do so.
"We need Tomahawks for the United States of America too. We have a lot of them but we need them. I mean, we can't deplete for our country," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"I don't know what we can do about that," he added.
BC
It is clear that the President wants to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Last March, it appeared that he was going to sell Ukraine out to Russia to do so. That didn't happen, fortunately. What the President now intends will become clearer (hopefully) after Zelenskyy visits on Friday. It is quite possible Putin arranged the call with the President because he feared that Tomahawks were a "go" for Ukraine. At a minimum, it is probable IMO that Putin has bought himself some time. The administration may choose to delay any action on the missiles. It could end up being even worse than that if Putin somehow convinces the administration that Russia will actually participate in a cease-fire.
The situation in Ukraine right now is "interesting". Ukraine claims they have reduced Russian refining capacity by 38%. There are definitely shortages of refined petroleum in Russia right now. It isn't a crisis yet, but if Ukraine could get even 25 Tomahawks right now, it could become one. OTOH the Ukrainian rail system is being significantly degraded by Russian missile activity. That reduces Ukraine's ability to move troops and logistics around when needed. It also is obviously bad for the population in general. Who has the greater staying power at the moment is unclear. Looking at the last 9 months in this war presents an interesting picture.
"Would you mind if I gave a couple of thousand Tomahawks to your opposition?" does not sound to me like any serious negotiating tactic. It feels like something I would say to a misbehaving child, "Would you mind if I gave all your toys away?". Not a threat, not a veiled threat, not a consequence. The two weeks deadline that ended in (was it?) March has never loomed. Putin is going to stretch this out, waiting for Trump to wander his attention to some other topic (how many have there been since March?). My guess is that Putin will do something dramatic when he feels he can get no more time (if that is ever). Clearly he knows how to play Trump to put things off.
Meanwhile, the US military is starting be active on multiple fronts, with military activities in South America and newly revealed threats of action in Gaza, not to mention a supposed strategic focus on China. And, I believe Trump recently suggested using active regular troops in US cities. I would expect all this would hamper the focus of military planning and logistics for supporting Ukraine. I expect the Russians understand that. Plus whatever disruption the US government shutdown has on the edges of support for the troops.
I could hypothesize about this flare up of military action during the shutdown, but whatever opinions I have would be improper on this board.
Meanwhile, the US military is starting be active on multiple fronts, with military activities in South America and newly revealed threats of action in Gaza, not to mention a supposed strategic focus on China. And, I believe Trump recently suggested using active regular troops in US cities. I would expect all this would hamper the focus of military planning and logistics for supporting Ukraine. I expect the Russians understand that. Plus whatever disruption the US government shutdown has on the edges of support for the troops.
I could hypothesize about this flare up of military action during the shutdown, but whatever opinions I have would be improper on this board.
"Would you mind if I gave a couple of thousand Tomahawks to your opposition?" does not sound to me like any serious negotiating tactic. It feels like something I would say to a misbehaving child, "Would you mind if I gave all your toys away?". Not a threat, not a veiled threat, not a consequence. The two weeks deadline that ended in (was it?) March has never loomed. Putin is going to stretch this out, waiting for Trump to wander his attention to some other topic (how many have there been since March?). My guess is that Putin will do something dramatic when he feels he can get no more time (if that is ever). Clearly he knows how to play Trump to put things off.
Meanwhile, the US military is starting be active on multiple fronts, with military activities in South America and newly revealed threats of action in Gaza, not to mention a supposed strategic focus on China. And, I believe Trump recently suggested using active regular troops in US cities. I would expect all this would hamper the focus of military planning and logistics for supporting Ukraine. I expect the Russians understand that. Plus whatever disruption the US government shutdown has on the edges of support for the troops.
I could hypothesize about this flare up of military action during the shutdown, but whatever opinions I have would be improper on this board.
Meanwhile, the US military is starting be active on multiple fronts, with military activities in South America and newly revealed threats of action in Gaza, not to mention a supposed strategic focus on China. And, I believe Trump recently suggested using active regular troops in US cities. I would expect all this would hamper the focus of military planning and logistics for supporting Ukraine. I expect the Russians understand that. Plus whatever disruption the US government shutdown has on the edges of support for the troops.
I could hypothesize about this flare up of military action during the shutdown, but whatever opinions I have would be improper on this board.
10-17-2025, 11:55 AM
(09-26-2025, 06:05 AM)Mick Wrote:(09-25-2025, 11:49 AM)fullmetal Wrote: China is more likely to entrap Russia in a one-sided economic treaty or resource deal than it is to conquer territory. Russia would certainly prefer not to have to send troops eastward, and Russia could end up receiving some substantial amount of materiel in exchange for Chinese access to a needle-moving amount of natural resources in whatever form the Chinese require.
You're probably right. They're certainly cooperating on military terms.
Russia training Chinese air unit for possible Taiwan attack, analysts warn - The Washington Post
Zeihan gives an interesting thought on potential Chinese penetration of Siberia.
Should China Invade Siberia? || Peter Zeihan
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(09-26-2025, 06:05 AM)Mick Wrote:(09-25-2025, 11:49 AM)fullmetal Wrote: China is more likely to entrap Russia in a one-sided economic treaty or resource deal than it is to conquer territory. Russia would certainly prefer not to have to send troops eastward, and Russia could end up receiving some substantial amount of materiel in exchange for Chinese access to a needle-moving amount of natural resources in whatever form the Chinese require.
You're probably right. They're certainly cooperating on military terms.
Russia training Chinese air unit for possible Taiwan attack, analysts warn - The Washington Post
Zeihan gives an interesting thought on potential Chinese penetration of Siberia.
Should China Invade Siberia? || Peter Zeihan
Audaces fortuna iuvat
10-22-2025, 03:49 PM
The WSJ is reporting that the U.S. lifted restrictions on Ukraine using British Storm Shadow missiles, which have a 300 km range, to attack targets inside Russia. That report came after Ukraine struck a chemical plant with the Storm Shadow. The U.S. then issued a denial that it has anything to do with Ukraine's use of the Storm Shadow, which is a strange denial because it doesn't address the reporting that the U.K. gave the missiles and that the U.S. merely lifted a restriction on their use. Anyway, assuming the U.S. did as the WSJ is reporting, good for the U.S. for not disclosing the decision in advance, so Ukraine could have the advantage of surprise for the first use. I wonder whether the U.S. will move forward after dipping its toes in the water.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
The WSJ is reporting that the U.S. lifted restrictions on Ukraine using British Storm Shadow missiles, which have a 300 km range, to attack targets inside Russia. That report came after Ukraine struck a chemical plant with the Storm Shadow. The U.S. then issued a denial that it has anything to do with Ukraine's use of the Storm Shadow, which is a strange denial because it doesn't address the reporting that the U.K. gave the missiles and that the U.S. merely lifted a restriction on their use. Anyway, assuming the U.S. did as the WSJ is reporting, good for the U.S. for not disclosing the decision in advance, so Ukraine could have the advantage of surprise for the first use. I wonder whether the U.S. will move forward after dipping its toes in the water.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
10-23-2025, 09:59 AM
The administration announced that it would level sanctions against Russia's two largest oil companies (Rosneft and Lukoil). Supposedly, P.M. Modi of India has agreed to stop buying Moscow's oil.
Ukraine reacts to Trump's surprise oil sanctions on Russia
Ukraine reacts to Trump's surprise oil sanctions on Russia
Audaces fortuna iuvat
The administration announced that it would level sanctions against Russia's two largest oil companies (Rosneft and Lukoil). Supposedly, P.M. Modi of India has agreed to stop buying Moscow's oil.
Ukraine reacts to Trump's surprise oil sanctions on Russia
Ukraine reacts to Trump's surprise oil sanctions on Russia
Audaces fortuna iuvat
10-24-2025, 08:51 AM
For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
10-24-2025, 11:05 AM
(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
10-24-2025, 11:28 AM
(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
It is "real" as far as it goes. The problem with the "Coalition of the willing" is that in most cases they are not part of the "Coalition of the able". Few realize how greatly the massive quantity of material sent by the US has affected Ukraine's ability to fight this war. Under the previous administration every so often the US would authorize another tranche of material to be sent to Ukraine. These shipments contained many single-source weapons (like Patriot missiles and AMRAAM missiles) as well as massive quantities of other arms and support items (like radios etc.). Europe simply does not have the ability to fill that gap. They have neither the stockpiles nor the manufacturing capacity to do so in the short term. They will do their best, but it won't be enough to offset the loss of material from the US. It is critical the US continue the level of support for Ukraine we provided previously. While the current administration is allowing the purchase of arms for use in Ukraine, it isn't donating any. It isn't unilaterally shipping many tons of "stuff" to Ukraine as a matter of course. This approach is clearly inadequate in the long term. Of course, the current administration is operating under the assumption that a cease fire is "imminent" and so the long term is not an issue.
Politically and economically the Coalition of the Willing has done a lot with sanctions and monetary support for Ukraine. Their current attempt to use frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine is one example. It is probable that the recent US sanctions on Russia and the lifting of the range limit on Storm Shadow missiles by the US was orchestrated by this group. This group was also key in previously preventing the current administration from throwing Ukraine under the bus in order to obtain a cease fire. Hopefully that can continue, but IMO that is far from a sure thing.
(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
It is "real" as far as it goes. The problem with the "Coalition of the willing" is that in most cases they are not part of the "Coalition of the able". Few realize how greatly the massive quantity of material sent by the US has affected Ukraine's ability to fight this war. Under the previous administration every so often the US would authorize another tranche of material to be sent to Ukraine. These shipments contained many single-source weapons (like Patriot missiles and AMRAAM missiles) as well as massive quantities of other arms and support items (like radios etc.). Europe simply does not have the ability to fill that gap. They have neither the stockpiles nor the manufacturing capacity to do so in the short term. They will do their best, but it won't be enough to offset the loss of material from the US. It is critical the US continue the level of support for Ukraine we provided previously. While the current administration is allowing the purchase of arms for use in Ukraine, it isn't donating any. It isn't unilaterally shipping many tons of "stuff" to Ukraine as a matter of course. This approach is clearly inadequate in the long term. Of course, the current administration is operating under the assumption that a cease fire is "imminent" and so the long term is not an issue.
Politically and economically the Coalition of the Willing has done a lot with sanctions and monetary support for Ukraine. Their current attempt to use frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine is one example. It is probable that the recent US sanctions on Russia and the lifting of the range limit on Storm Shadow missiles by the US was orchestrated by this group. This group was also key in previously preventing the current administration from throwing Ukraine under the bus in order to obtain a cease fire. Hopefully that can continue, but IMO that is far from a sure thing.
10-24-2025, 12:04 PM
(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
10-24-2025, 12:24 PM
(10-24-2025, 12:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
should be a gift link here
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...=url-share
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(10-24-2025, 12:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
should be a gift link here
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...=url-share
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-24-2025, 01:06 PM
(10-24-2025, 12:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
Thanks, makes sense.
(10-24-2025, 12:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
Thanks, makes sense.
10-24-2025, 06:49 PM
(10-24-2025, 01:06 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 12:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
Thanks, makes sense.
I just read an article where some small NATO country whose name I can't recall, sponsored something like a crowd funded long range cruise missile for Ukraine and achieved its goal in days and the first of those missles, in theory equipped with hardened GPS guidance, at least 1,000 lb warhead and a 3,000 Km range has already been fired. Apparently a lot of the stuff having to do with that weapon is being produced in other NATO countries.
If true, a weapon like that might make life for Putin very difficult. He has been forced to call reserves to active duty to help stop drone attackes, this would seem to further attenuate other economic growth.
As was once said "it ain't over until its over"
Also interesting to note that refineries in more Russian friendly states like Hungary have had "accidents".
(10-24-2025, 01:06 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 12:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(10-24-2025, 11:05 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(10-24-2025, 08:51 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: For a long time, all the press reports sounded negative. Now I’m seeing more stuff like this. Is it real or wishful thinking?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/world...ky-uk.html
Behind paywall, but thanks
Sorry for the faux pas. I would gift the article, but I don't subscribe either. I just got a glimpse of the article and was sharing it to illustrate a point about the tenor of the headline.
Thanks, makes sense.
I just read an article where some small NATO country whose name I can't recall, sponsored something like a crowd funded long range cruise missile for Ukraine and achieved its goal in days and the first of those missles, in theory equipped with hardened GPS guidance, at least 1,000 lb warhead and a 3,000 Km range has already been fired. Apparently a lot of the stuff having to do with that weapon is being produced in other NATO countries.
If true, a weapon like that might make life for Putin very difficult. He has been forced to call reserves to active duty to help stop drone attackes, this would seem to further attenuate other economic growth.
As was once said "it ain't over until its over"
Also interesting to note that refineries in more Russian friendly states like Hungary have had "accidents".
11-06-2025, 04:14 PM
After things bogged down for Russia for a good long time, they seem poised to overcome the defenses at Petrovsk.
https://www.wsj.com/world/russian-forces..._permalink
BC
https://www.wsj.com/world/russian-forces..._permalink
BC
After things bogged down for Russia for a good long time, they seem poised to overcome the defenses at Petrovsk.
https://www.wsj.com/world/russian-forces..._permalink
BC
https://www.wsj.com/world/russian-forces..._permalink
BC
11-07-2025, 01:03 PM
Yeah Pokrovsk seems likely to fall imminently, I do hope the pocket directly east doesn't collapse, Ukraine mostly seems to retreat from areas with minimal losses, though Avdiivka had it's issues. The significance of Pokrovsk seems to have diminished since areas South and southeast of the town already fell, it was a big logistics hub. The question now is how long will Siversk hold, and will Russia be able to take Slovyansk or Kramatorsk anytime soon, if at all.
Yeah Pokrovsk seems likely to fall imminently, I do hope the pocket directly east doesn't collapse, Ukraine mostly seems to retreat from areas with minimal losses, though Avdiivka had it's issues. The significance of Pokrovsk seems to have diminished since areas South and southeast of the town already fell, it was a big logistics hub. The question now is how long will Siversk hold, and will Russia be able to take Slovyansk or Kramatorsk anytime soon, if at all.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...33187.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...30309.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/zele...27150.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...02126.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crklljyx6mzo
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk...er-crisis/
Indeed it looks like the end is near in Pokrovsk. If it is approximately true that there are about 300 Russian troops in the city one would think Ukraine would simply commit an infantry battalion (500-600 troops) to winkle out the Russians. The Russian troops are infiltrators and probably not concentrated into groups larger than platoons, if that. The Ukrainian infantry could easily gain overwhelming local superiority and eliminate these groups one at a time. That hasn't happened.
IMO there are a combination of factors involved. First, Ukraine probably doesn't have a "reserve" infantry battalion to commit. It would of necessity have to come from nearby because Ukrainian infantry is quite immobile. This lack of reserves is mostly due to the ongoing troop shortage in the Ukrainian military. According to Zelenskyy Ukraine is outnumbered 8 to 1 in this battle area. Second, such an operation would cause relatively high casualties in the battalion doing it. Ukraine can't afford high casualties unless there is an adequate reward. Third, a battalion (if you could scrounge one up) would have no easy access into and out of Pokrovsk. Apparently Russia has control by fire of most (all?) the ways in and out. The battalion may not ever make it into the battle before it is rendered combat ineffective. If the battalion makes it in but the battle is subsequently lost they may be impossible to withdraw. If they do make it in supplying them will be difficult at best. Thus, IMO the whole area around Pokrovsk as well as Pokrovsk itself is effectively lost. What we are currently seeing is a rear-guard action. Hopefully Ukraine will not suffer too many KIA/WIA/POWs as a result.
The value of Pokrovsk as a key hub on supply lines for the rest of eastern Donetsk and the "fortress belt" has been gone for a while now, as Russia had effectively cut it weeks ago. The question of what the alleged 170,000 Russian troops are going to "do" after the fall of Pokrovsk is an interesting one. If Russia had a "normal" military one would expect the 170,000 troops would include one or more exploitation forces that would pass through the Russian troops in the Pokrovsk area and "exploit" the assumed disarray, immobility and lack of fallback positions for the Ukrainian forces. They would have the objective of "bouncing" the entire fortress belt in one go. Based on recent past experience one doubts the Russians are capable of that. It also depends on how much disarray Ukraine is actually exhibiting. In the recent past Ukraine has proved resilient. Eventually though the Russian manpower advantage will grind them down. Is that time now? We shall see.
At this point there continues to be a race between Russian brute force infantry advances plus continual missile attacks on the Ukrainian population vs Ukrainian drone destruction of Russian POL facilities and EU/US sanctions on Russian POL exports. How long can Ukraine hold on? How long before the Russian government runs out of capital, both financial and political?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...30309.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/zele...27150.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...02126.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crklljyx6mzo
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk...er-crisis/
Indeed it looks like the end is near in Pokrovsk. If it is approximately true that there are about 300 Russian troops in the city one would think Ukraine would simply commit an infantry battalion (500-600 troops) to winkle out the Russians. The Russian troops are infiltrators and probably not concentrated into groups larger than platoons, if that. The Ukrainian infantry could easily gain overwhelming local superiority and eliminate these groups one at a time. That hasn't happened.
IMO there are a combination of factors involved. First, Ukraine probably doesn't have a "reserve" infantry battalion to commit. It would of necessity have to come from nearby because Ukrainian infantry is quite immobile. This lack of reserves is mostly due to the ongoing troop shortage in the Ukrainian military. According to Zelenskyy Ukraine is outnumbered 8 to 1 in this battle area. Second, such an operation would cause relatively high casualties in the battalion doing it. Ukraine can't afford high casualties unless there is an adequate reward. Third, a battalion (if you could scrounge one up) would have no easy access into and out of Pokrovsk. Apparently Russia has control by fire of most (all?) the ways in and out. The battalion may not ever make it into the battle before it is rendered combat ineffective. If the battalion makes it in but the battle is subsequently lost they may be impossible to withdraw. If they do make it in supplying them will be difficult at best. Thus, IMO the whole area around Pokrovsk as well as Pokrovsk itself is effectively lost. What we are currently seeing is a rear-guard action. Hopefully Ukraine will not suffer too many KIA/WIA/POWs as a result.
The value of Pokrovsk as a key hub on supply lines for the rest of eastern Donetsk and the "fortress belt" has been gone for a while now, as Russia had effectively cut it weeks ago. The question of what the alleged 170,000 Russian troops are going to "do" after the fall of Pokrovsk is an interesting one. If Russia had a "normal" military one would expect the 170,000 troops would include one or more exploitation forces that would pass through the Russian troops in the Pokrovsk area and "exploit" the assumed disarray, immobility and lack of fallback positions for the Ukrainian forces. They would have the objective of "bouncing" the entire fortress belt in one go. Based on recent past experience one doubts the Russians are capable of that. It also depends on how much disarray Ukraine is actually exhibiting. In the recent past Ukraine has proved resilient. Eventually though the Russian manpower advantage will grind them down. Is that time now? We shall see.
At this point there continues to be a race between Russian brute force infantry advances plus continual missile attacks on the Ukrainian population vs Ukrainian drone destruction of Russian POL facilities and EU/US sanctions on Russian POL exports. How long can Ukraine hold on? How long before the Russian government runs out of capital, both financial and political?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...33187.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...30309.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/zele...27150.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...02126.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crklljyx6mzo
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk...er-crisis/
Indeed it looks like the end is near in Pokrovsk. If it is approximately true that there are about 300 Russian troops in the city one would think Ukraine would simply commit an infantry battalion (500-600 troops) to winkle out the Russians. The Russian troops are infiltrators and probably not concentrated into groups larger than platoons, if that. The Ukrainian infantry could easily gain overwhelming local superiority and eliminate these groups one at a time. That hasn't happened.
IMO there are a combination of factors involved. First, Ukraine probably doesn't have a "reserve" infantry battalion to commit. It would of necessity have to come from nearby because Ukrainian infantry is quite immobile. This lack of reserves is mostly due to the ongoing troop shortage in the Ukrainian military. According to Zelenskyy Ukraine is outnumbered 8 to 1 in this battle area. Second, such an operation would cause relatively high casualties in the battalion doing it. Ukraine can't afford high casualties unless there is an adequate reward. Third, a battalion (if you could scrounge one up) would have no easy access into and out of Pokrovsk. Apparently Russia has control by fire of most (all?) the ways in and out. The battalion may not ever make it into the battle before it is rendered combat ineffective. If the battalion makes it in but the battle is subsequently lost they may be impossible to withdraw. If they do make it in supplying them will be difficult at best. Thus, IMO the whole area around Pokrovsk as well as Pokrovsk itself is effectively lost. What we are currently seeing is a rear-guard action. Hopefully Ukraine will not suffer too many KIA/WIA/POWs as a result.
The value of Pokrovsk as a key hub on supply lines for the rest of eastern Donetsk and the "fortress belt" has been gone for a while now, as Russia had effectively cut it weeks ago. The question of what the alleged 170,000 Russian troops are going to "do" after the fall of Pokrovsk is an interesting one. If Russia had a "normal" military one would expect the 170,000 troops would include one or more exploitation forces that would pass through the Russian troops in the Pokrovsk area and "exploit" the assumed disarray, immobility and lack of fallback positions for the Ukrainian forces. They would have the objective of "bouncing" the entire fortress belt in one go. Based on recent past experience one doubts the Russians are capable of that. It also depends on how much disarray Ukraine is actually exhibiting. In the recent past Ukraine has proved resilient. Eventually though the Russian manpower advantage will grind them down. Is that time now? We shall see.
At this point there continues to be a race between Russian brute force infantry advances plus continual missile attacks on the Ukrainian population vs Ukrainian drone destruction of Russian POL facilities and EU/US sanctions on Russian POL exports. How long can Ukraine hold on? How long before the Russian government runs out of capital, both financial and political?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...30309.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/zele...27150.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...02126.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crklljyx6mzo
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk...er-crisis/
Indeed it looks like the end is near in Pokrovsk. If it is approximately true that there are about 300 Russian troops in the city one would think Ukraine would simply commit an infantry battalion (500-600 troops) to winkle out the Russians. The Russian troops are infiltrators and probably not concentrated into groups larger than platoons, if that. The Ukrainian infantry could easily gain overwhelming local superiority and eliminate these groups one at a time. That hasn't happened.
IMO there are a combination of factors involved. First, Ukraine probably doesn't have a "reserve" infantry battalion to commit. It would of necessity have to come from nearby because Ukrainian infantry is quite immobile. This lack of reserves is mostly due to the ongoing troop shortage in the Ukrainian military. According to Zelenskyy Ukraine is outnumbered 8 to 1 in this battle area. Second, such an operation would cause relatively high casualties in the battalion doing it. Ukraine can't afford high casualties unless there is an adequate reward. Third, a battalion (if you could scrounge one up) would have no easy access into and out of Pokrovsk. Apparently Russia has control by fire of most (all?) the ways in and out. The battalion may not ever make it into the battle before it is rendered combat ineffective. If the battalion makes it in but the battle is subsequently lost they may be impossible to withdraw. If they do make it in supplying them will be difficult at best. Thus, IMO the whole area around Pokrovsk as well as Pokrovsk itself is effectively lost. What we are currently seeing is a rear-guard action. Hopefully Ukraine will not suffer too many KIA/WIA/POWs as a result.
The value of Pokrovsk as a key hub on supply lines for the rest of eastern Donetsk and the "fortress belt" has been gone for a while now, as Russia had effectively cut it weeks ago. The question of what the alleged 170,000 Russian troops are going to "do" after the fall of Pokrovsk is an interesting one. If Russia had a "normal" military one would expect the 170,000 troops would include one or more exploitation forces that would pass through the Russian troops in the Pokrovsk area and "exploit" the assumed disarray, immobility and lack of fallback positions for the Ukrainian forces. They would have the objective of "bouncing" the entire fortress belt in one go. Based on recent past experience one doubts the Russians are capable of that. It also depends on how much disarray Ukraine is actually exhibiting. In the recent past Ukraine has proved resilient. Eventually though the Russian manpower advantage will grind them down. Is that time now? We shall see.
At this point there continues to be a race between Russian brute force infantry advances plus continual missile attacks on the Ukrainian population vs Ukrainian drone destruction of Russian POL facilities and EU/US sanctions on Russian POL exports. How long can Ukraine hold on? How long before the Russian government runs out of capital, both financial and political?
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »