The russian casualty odometer just clicked past 700k:
The russian casualty odometer just clicked past 700k:
Jeez this is interesting. How the changes seen on the battlefield in Ukraine will effect things going forward. Kirchhoff is an interesting dude. He founded the pentagons Silicon Valley office
There have been more rumors of some sort of secret negotiations going on, but this is realistically (if it's actually happening) more of a prisoner exhange agreement, or possibly some agreement to stop attacking infrastructure (?)
A recent assessment of Russians negotiating stance:
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's (RFE/RL) Sistema project released an investigation on November 4 detailing Russia's initial 2022 demands for Ukraine's total capitulation, further supporting ISW's long-standing assessment that Russia has never been willing to engage in good-faith negotiations with Ukraine on any terms but its own.[10] RFE/RL reported on November 4 that it obtained a draft of the treaty that Russia offered to Ukraine on March 7, 2022, entitled "Treaty on the Settlement of the Situation in Ukraine and the Neutrality of Ukraine." The draft document includes seven provisions, all of which amount to Ukraine's complete surrender and disarmament and the abandonment of its sovereignty, lands, and people...
Russia is entering into some serious economic concerns, though not likely a short term issue, this seems like it could haunt them for a while.
Russia’s economy is overheating but Putin cannot change course
Russia’s Central Bank raised its key policy rate to 21 percent in late October as the Russian authorities struggle to manage a wartime economy that is in danger of overheating due to a combination of factors including rising inflation, sanctions pressure, and record defense sector spending. While Kremlin officials and many international analysts insist that the Russian economy remains in remarkably good shape, the country’s longer term economic outlook is becoming increasingly precarious....
....A range of factors are fueling the current growth of the Russian economy, with military expenditure perhaps the single most important driver. The Russian authorities allocated around six percent of GDP for the military in 2024, representing the highest total since the Cold War. Further increases are planned for 2025. Nor does this cover all war-related costs. Significant additional spending is required to fund a range of defense-related industries and to finance the occupation of Ukrainian regions currently under Kremlin control.
It wouldn't be the first time during this war that the Russian economy seemed to be doing surprisingly well right up until it ate E36 M3 in a big enough way that not even an opaque authoritarian state could cover it up, so I think there will be little to no warning of anything terrible that may happen to it. If I woke up one morning to news that the Ruble underwent Weimar-style hyperinflation overnight I wouldn't be surprised.
Also Russia is still funding sabotage, their latest plot sounds a bit Lockerbie-ish:
So I have to think that our election results are going to change the Ukraine war outlook considerably, and on the face of it, Russia seems likely to be the beneficiary. The threat of our possible pullout is likely to force the sides to the negotiating table. What do you guys think will be the result? And is my premise right?
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
I'll bet that hundreds of thousands of people who would have been killed will live and that the US will be better off.
And Poland and a few other countries will have MUCH bigger armies.
Noddaz said:And Poland and a few other countries will have MUCH bigger armies.
Not to mention the Scandinavian countries joining NATO and all of Europe giving Russia the side eye as a serious threat.
Why would Putin think he needs to negotiate now that Ukraine's main armer is out?
Please avoid letting this latest development stray into politics beyond what is necessary for discussion.
I like reading the analysis of strategy and policy and would like to see it remain unlocked.
I think there are some realities involved here that are unlikely to change. Russia has never shown any real intent to negotiate in any non-maximalist (give us all of it) way. With the potential for reduced support, that only strengthens that stance. As 02 has pointed out many times, there has to be some mutual "pain" on both side to create not only a reasonable agreement, but an intent to even enter into an agreement. Reducing the pain for the side you are trying to get to negotiate with, especially with the psychology of the people / leader involved, is exactly the opposite of what you want to do.
I cannot make any real predictions, but my guess is that people with some knowledge of the realities will make this clear, and the need to support Ukraine is seen as a practical necessity. The war in Ukraine is certainly costing treasure (but small in comparison to total defense spending), but to this point, no blood for the US. The "reset" mentioned below, has some value (let's forgive the transgressions of the past), but I suspect, realistically, it is very small (on both sides).
As noted many time before, Russia has very little reason to negotiate at this time. Their economic situation is crap, and will be very bad in the future, but short term it is not critical and will likely not play a part vs short term land capture. It MIGHT be a path to negotiation if they are honest and aware of what their future looks like (although, I think this is unlikely)
One possible route(!?) would be to increase the pain on Russia by opening up some of the restrictions on western weapons. This of course risks escalation, but I am not sure how much more Russian can turn that dial. There is always nukes, but that is a story that does not end well for Russia and I think they are well aware of that.
The West can also crank up the sanctions dial, but I don't think there is much range left in that one either (?)
In regards to saving lives: Certainly possible. Also possible, long term, it could result in far more deaths. But there are also many who choose to risk death for their freedom (see New Hampshire's state motto).
One thing I am pretty certain of, this has created some very intriguing scenarios for 02 to ponder on....
Russian President Vladimir Putin is attempting to shape US President-elect Donald Trump's foreign policy and achieve another Russia–US reset on Russia's terms. Putin addressed the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club on November 7 and advocated for a reset of US–Russia relations. Putin implied that Trump’s presidential campaign expressed a "desire to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis" and later noted that Russia is open to the "possibility of restoring relations with the United States."[1] Putin attempted to blame the United States for undermining US–Russia relations, noting that the United States imposed sanctions and restrictions on Russia, and chose to support Kyiv - without mentioning that these measures were in response to Russia’s illegal and unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Putin's statement implies that Russia would only accept any reset in US–Russia relations if the US dropped sanctions and restrictions against Russia and stopped supporting Ukraine — effectively entirely on terms that benefit Russia at the expense of US interests. Putin reiterated the boilerplate narrative that NATO is a "blatant anachronism," accused the West of maintaining a bloc-oriented mentality, and deliberately misrepresented his invasion of Ukraine as NATO's efforts to remain relevant. Putin attempted to frame BRICS as a non-bloc alternative to NATO and falsely implied that Russia is not interested in becoming a hegemon, despite the fact that the Kremlin has been forming a new anti-Western bloc composed of Iran, North Korea, and China.
One, small, potential angle:
Ukrainian strikes on Russia and Western sanctions are reportedly disrupting Russia's energy industry. The Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service reported on November 6 that Russian authorities partially halted operations of Russia's Volgograd; Ilsky, Krasnodar Krai; and Yaisky, Kemerovo Oblast oil refineries in October 2024 due to failure to complete scheduled repairs of damage caused by Ukrainian strikes.[12] The Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service stated that the shutdowns will reduce domestic Russian refining capacity, hinder exports, worsen fuel supply issues in Russia, and raise maintenance and modernization costs. The Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service noted that Russian authorities could not complete the repairs because they lacked the necessary Western equipment and components as a result of Western sanctions and failed import substitution efforts. The Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service reported that Russian manufacturers only supply 30 to 45 percent of the necessary components for Russian oil refineries and that the Russian reliance on Chinese equipment has proven problematic due to compatibility issues, which is increasing the repair costs. ISW previously reported on the effectiveness of Western sanctions and the need to strengthen them to prevent Russia from evading their impact via third parties, as well as the effectiveness of Ukrainian strikes on targets inside Russia.[13]
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Noddaz said:And Poland and a few other countries will have MUCH bigger armies.
Not to mention the Scandinavian countries joining NATO and all of Europe giving Russia the side eye as a serious threat.
I'm wondering if Eu will step up, myself
It is far too early to assume that the US will execute a simple 180-degree turn and cease support for Ukraine outright. I imagine, based on what I've heard and my own analysis, that what we are most likely to see is a strong push toward compromise that involves freezing existing lines (perhaps with adjustments) and establishing some sort of agreement that sees Ukraine neutralized in some form, along with a package of defensive armaments (some component of which would likely be supplied by Europe). The difference lies in the approach that if either party obstructs a deal, rather than just Russia doing so, the US will move to push them toward a resolution; whether this works of course remains to be seen.
A few points deserve mention:
- Ukrainians involved have stated that discussions for a resolution involving territorial adjustments have been going on in Washington behind closed doors since 2022 (correction: 2023). Zelensky gains nothing by talking about them, but pressure on his government is mounting in the face of relentless losses, and he is clearly aware of the possible necessity of such an agreement.
- There is at least a perception among both Ukrainians and Russians, that while there may be a reduction in arms supplied to Ukraine, there may also be a greater willingness to allow weapons to be used directly against targets inside Russia. This may alter the dynamic somewhat.
- There will be a strong push to get all remaining allocated military aid (some 6bn) out the door before January, which could result in a brief surge or the establishment of a larger material reserve in some areas.
The only thing that is certain is that US policy will change, but how quickly and how radically that happens remains to be seen.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Cant discuss why, but... feels optimistic
Mr_Asa said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Noddaz said:And Poland and a few other countries will have MUCH bigger armies.
Not to mention the Scandinavian countries joining NATO and all of Europe giving Russia the side eye as a serious threat.
I'm wondering if Eu will step up, myself
If I may, I do believe that the EU (Obviously barring Hungary, and post-Fico Slovakia) have been pulling their fair share of the weight?
source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
"Help" really shouldn't be a competition anyway. It's not often that someone doing more than you will complain about the work you're doing.
Mr_Asa said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Noddaz said:And Poland and a few other countries will have MUCH bigger armies.
Not to mention the Scandinavian countries joining NATO and all of Europe giving Russia the side eye as a serious threat.
I'm wondering if Eu will step up, myself
They have little choice. This is happening next door. The Ukraine may push on with the help of the EU.
If we decide to go isolationist, the rest of the world will go on without us.
In reply to Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) :
Since that's a percentage of national GDP it doesn't necessarily show who is donating the most. Not saying that they aren't providing aid, but looking at it Vs GDP feels like a manipulation of statistics.
Not belittling or saying its a competition at all, just that if the US cuts off funding of military assets, monetary, and humanitarian aid there is going to be a massive hole there. And I hope its filled.
https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/
In reply to Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) :
The trouble is that while lots of European countries have been making larger contributions relative to their GDPs and indeed very much pulling their weight, in absolute terms the US' contribution dwarfs everyone else's, examples:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1364467/ukraine-weapon-deliveries-value-by-country/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
Since the Ukrainian war machine doesn't run on metaphorical weight-pulling, everyone else would have to step up significantly to make up such a shortfall in total dollars.
Edit: Mr. Asa basically beat me to it...
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Agreed. It's not quite "the US provides more than the other 13 combined" but it's not far off that figure. The US gives more than #2 thru #5 combined.
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
And that's as a whole. It appears that US dominates military aid.
Can't repel invaders if you can't put warheads on foreheads
In reply to Mr_Asa :
It may well be. I'm just giving my assessment of a fluid situation full of unknowables on all sides. What's definitely changed is that the outgoing administration was vocally committed to continuing the conflict (with a desired outcome, yes, but not one of its own definition), while the incoming one has suggested that it is going to be committed to ending it in some form. How committed the latter is, how quickly it intends to act, and what levers it's willing to pull, remain open questions.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Fair enough
In reply to 02Pilot :
Fair enough
I'll agree to disagree on which (percentage versus total donations) matter. I do take a bit of beef with your graph though (oh, I couldn't open Gameboy's first link!) as I noticed it splits "EU institutions" from the contribution of EU member countries. If I simply the grab the EU countries I see listed there and add it in with the "EU institutions" title, I get 86.5 Billion (I did not count the UK). That alone makes them very much "Neer peer" donors with the USA. I think we can be more thorough though:
Citing this source: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine I'm told that the US has donated over $175 Billion to Ukraine. The GDP is 27.36 trillion.
Citing this source: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253 the EU (27 member nations) have donated $168-Billion with $50-billion more slated last October that I wont count. While the collective GDP of the EU is 19.403 Trillion.
To me that says a collective of countries with a smaller total GDP than the US is (as near as makes no difference) matching the USA's contributions to Ukraine at a higher effort ratio when compared to what they can possibly draw from (GDP). If we add in that 50-billion that was slated for October that I excluded (they didn't add it in with their total, so I didn't either), then they would be contributing a greater total amount than the US.
You'll need to log in to post.
