Ukraine wins by not losing. There is no conceivable scenario wherein Russia takes over all of Ukraine. Moldova and the Baltics? Nope.
Currently the Russian ruble is worth < $0.01. Nobody trades with Russia unless they pay in gold - the Chinese and Iranians and North Koreans are not "friends". Russia has lost around 800,000 troops, both killed and injured. 9,000 tanks. 20,000 APVs, 20,000 artillery systems. 331 helicopters. 369 airplanes. Etc. To give you any idea how staggering this is, Russia has the ability to build maybe 250 tanks per year. In three years, they have lost 36 years production. The United States has, total, 5,500 tanks. Russia has lost double the total number of tanks the U.S. maintains.
About a million Russians have left Russia. They are heavily weighted toward young men with marketable skills. because of that Russia is falling apart. The Russian oil industry is disintegrating - it is tricky pulling oil out of Siberia, and everyone that knows how to do the O&M has left the country. The railway system is disintegrating - Russia can't make new ball bearings, not do they have the ability to service the ball bearings for the rail cars.
Six months. If Ukraine can keep up the pressure six more months Russia will not only withdraw, but they may also disintegrate. Ukraine is planning on building 4 million drones, in house, this year. they are 80% effective. The math all favors Ukraine.
Seriously - Europe - scrape up some money and BUY weapons for Ukraine from Trump. Call it a contribution toward NATO. Trump will happily sell them whatever they want. And again, you only need to do this over the short term. Russia won't last six more months. The horrible war is almost over. It will not last past this year.
I mostly agree with you. But a couple of disagreements:
1. The West wins if Ukraine does not lose. Ukraine only wins if there's a peace that leaves Russia chastened. And that means giving up most, if not all the land they've conquered.
2. Russia still has a lot more people. And they're comfortable sending them into the meat grinder. Don't make the mistake of how bad a situation would cause the U.S. to quit with how Russia measures that. Very different cultures. Russia's killed and wounded in WWII was way far beyond what the U.S. would have accepted.
3. If Putin accepts a cease fire where he's viewed as the loser, he's done. So he is working from that trade-off.
I think Europe truly getting serious in terms of armament production, military training, etc. is the best thing they can do to prove to Russia that they can't win.
And again, very thoughtful comment you wrote - lots of spot-on points.
1) I agree. But Russia will take a generation to recover, if it ever recovers. And I think Russia will give up a lot of land, including Kherson, Zaporizhia, and even Crimea (maybe as some sort of quasi-independent demilitarized state affiliated with Ukraine). Portions of Luhansk and Donetsk will become Russian, and that's about it.
2) Imagine a tank is damaged in Russia and needs repair - how does that happen? Well, you need to find the parts (difficult) and someone to do the work (even more difficult). And hope an FPV done doesn't find you. In Ukraine, the tank is shipped to Poland, where, in complete safety, it is fixed and shipped back.
3) Putin is done either way. I assume Russia ends the war with Putin out of power, or in severe trouble. Crimea is the biggest sticking point for both countries. Ukraine can't live without it for economic reasons (it blocks the entrance to their largest navigable river for example), and neither can Russia for emotional reasons. But also, Russia can't live with it - it has no fresh water and can't be supported without land corridor through Ukraine. There was a reason Khruschev handed it over to Ukraine in the 1950s. I think Russia has compelling reasons to give it up.
Anyhow, we'll see what the New Year brings. Mostly the Ukrainians need economic support, and bullets. I don't think they need much in the way of "systems" like fighters or tanks. Just send them bullets - even Trump might agree to that, especially if the Euros pay.
Moving European military budgets to 4-5% of GDP, given what I know about your expertise, seems like a bit of a WAG. Any professional in a field linked to military strategy supporting such a move?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2024), military by GDP in the most recent year reported: Ukraine spent 33.5%. Israel spent 4.5%. Russia spent 4.1%. The United States spent 3.4%.
European nations likely have a fairly good idea of what is possible for themselves. Shifting government spending from where they were to 2% of GDP they pledged in response to Russia occupying Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 has been a lift. Doubling (and more) to reach military spending at 4% of GDP to answer what appears to be a military stalemate is politically unlikely. Imagine the response in the United States if the budget proposal moved from 3.4% (about $840B) to 4.0% ($990B), an increase over 17.5%. Germany is now in the middle of a snap election. What would happen to a proposal from a party to take military spending from about 1.6% of GDP to 4.0% of GDP? Government spending share of 3.1% to nearly 8%?
I have no idea what Russia would do in response to a military buildup of the size you are proposing. But consider that if German military spending reached 4% of GDP, it would be outspending Russia by nearly $40B annually.
European nations spending more to support Ukraine and stop Russia is likely a necessity as the United States moves into the Trump 2.uhoh regime. What "more" is needed and can be delivered deserves more careful development.
They need to make up for lost time and that's expensive. And 4% - 5% beats the hell out of 25% in 7 years when they're fighting Russia directly.
As to the U.S., we're going to have to see an increase in our military budget, much of which will go to bringing back industrial production. Otherwise in another 6 - 10 years China will be able to tell us to butt out of the rest of the world and we'll have to acquiesce.
I think Ukraine has already won this war.
Ukraine wins by not losing. There is no conceivable scenario wherein Russia takes over all of Ukraine. Moldova and the Baltics? Nope.
Currently the Russian ruble is worth < $0.01. Nobody trades with Russia unless they pay in gold - the Chinese and Iranians and North Koreans are not "friends". Russia has lost around 800,000 troops, both killed and injured. 9,000 tanks. 20,000 APVs, 20,000 artillery systems. 331 helicopters. 369 airplanes. Etc. To give you any idea how staggering this is, Russia has the ability to build maybe 250 tanks per year. In three years, they have lost 36 years production. The United States has, total, 5,500 tanks. Russia has lost double the total number of tanks the U.S. maintains.
About a million Russians have left Russia. They are heavily weighted toward young men with marketable skills. because of that Russia is falling apart. The Russian oil industry is disintegrating - it is tricky pulling oil out of Siberia, and everyone that knows how to do the O&M has left the country. The railway system is disintegrating - Russia can't make new ball bearings, not do they have the ability to service the ball bearings for the rail cars.
Six months. If Ukraine can keep up the pressure six more months Russia will not only withdraw, but they may also disintegrate. Ukraine is planning on building 4 million drones, in house, this year. they are 80% effective. The math all favors Ukraine.
Seriously - Europe - scrape up some money and BUY weapons for Ukraine from Trump. Call it a contribution toward NATO. Trump will happily sell them whatever they want. And again, you only need to do this over the short term. Russia won't last six more months. The horrible war is almost over. It will not last past this year.
I mostly agree with you. But a couple of disagreements:
1. The West wins if Ukraine does not lose. Ukraine only wins if there's a peace that leaves Russia chastened. And that means giving up most, if not all the land they've conquered.
2. Russia still has a lot more people. And they're comfortable sending them into the meat grinder. Don't make the mistake of how bad a situation would cause the U.S. to quit with how Russia measures that. Very different cultures. Russia's killed and wounded in WWII was way far beyond what the U.S. would have accepted.
3. If Putin accepts a cease fire where he's viewed as the loser, he's done. So he is working from that trade-off.
I think Europe truly getting serious in terms of armament production, military training, etc. is the best thing they can do to prove to Russia that they can't win.
And again, very thoughtful comment you wrote - lots of spot-on points.
1) I agree. But Russia will take a generation to recover, if it ever recovers. And I think Russia will give up a lot of land, including Kherson, Zaporizhia, and even Crimea (maybe as some sort of quasi-independent demilitarized state affiliated with Ukraine). Portions of Luhansk and Donetsk will become Russian, and that's about it.
2) Imagine a tank is damaged in Russia and needs repair - how does that happen? Well, you need to find the parts (difficult) and someone to do the work (even more difficult). And hope an FPV done doesn't find you. In Ukraine, the tank is shipped to Poland, where, in complete safety, it is fixed and shipped back.
3) Putin is done either way. I assume Russia ends the war with Putin out of power, or in severe trouble. Crimea is the biggest sticking point for both countries. Ukraine can't live without it for economic reasons (it blocks the entrance to their largest navigable river for example), and neither can Russia for emotional reasons. But also, Russia can't live with it - it has no fresh water and can't be supported without land corridor through Ukraine. There was a reason Khruschev handed it over to Ukraine in the 1950s. I think Russia has compelling reasons to give it up.
Anyhow, we'll see what the New Year brings. Mostly the Ukrainians need economic support, and bullets. I don't think they need much in the way of "systems" like fighters or tanks. Just send them bullets - even Trump might agree to that, especially if the Euros pay.
Moving European military budgets to 4-5% of GDP, given what I know about your expertise, seems like a bit of a WAG. Any professional in a field linked to military strategy supporting such a move?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2024), military by GDP in the most recent year reported: Ukraine spent 33.5%. Israel spent 4.5%. Russia spent 4.1%. The United States spent 3.4%.
European nations likely have a fairly good idea of what is possible for themselves. Shifting government spending from where they were to 2% of GDP they pledged in response to Russia occupying Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 has been a lift. Doubling (and more) to reach military spending at 4% of GDP to answer what appears to be a military stalemate is politically unlikely. Imagine the response in the United States if the budget proposal moved from 3.4% (about $840B) to 4.0% ($990B), an increase over 17.5%. Germany is now in the middle of a snap election. What would happen to a proposal from a party to take military spending from about 1.6% of GDP to 4.0% of GDP? Government spending share of 3.1% to nearly 8%?
I have no idea what Russia would do in response to a military buildup of the size you are proposing. But consider that if German military spending reached 4% of GDP, it would be outspending Russia by nearly $40B annually.
European nations spending more to support Ukraine and stop Russia is likely a necessity as the United States moves into the Trump 2.uhoh regime. What "more" is needed and can be delivered deserves more careful development.
They need to make up for lost time and that's expensive. And 4% - 5% beats the hell out of 25% in 7 years when they're fighting Russia directly.
As to the U.S., we're going to have to see an increase in our military budget, much of which will go to bringing back industrial production. Otherwise in another 6 - 10 years China will be able to tell us to butt out of the rest of the world and we'll have to acquiesce.
Freedom is expensive.