The BBC's coverage and questions to Zelensky at a press conference today was far from optimistic about Ukraine's chances in 2024.
Nobody is denying their tenacity but with dwindling Western aid and increasing uncertainty the prospects aren't rosy unless the Kremlin implodes.
Why would it? Biden can't close the border, so that's that. The Russian economy is an order of magnitude bigger than Ukraine's, with 4 x the population. How can Putin possibly lose?
Well, Putin did lose 87% of the forces he originally committed to Ukraine.
As to American aid in 2024, I am betting Biden will be able to come to a compromise.
Relative sizes of economies and populations aren't immediately relevant - the question is how much of that extra resource can be effectively committed to the front lines. It's clear that Ukraine has been much more effectively using their more limited resources - otherwise the Russian flag would have been flying over Kyiv and Lviv a year ago rather than the war being near a stalemate with a static front. It's also clear that Russian popular support for the war is less, there have been a small number of Ukrainians leaving the country to avoid being drafted - but a much smaller proportion than the number of Russians who fled for the same reason. The regular reports of Russians drafting convicts is also a reflection of the lack of public support, if there were large numbers of young men volunteering to serve in the Russian army out of patriotic duty there'd be no need for that. Also, a fair bit of Russian resource still needs to be deployed elsewhere - including internal security as a result of Putin's (possibly justified) paranoia, keeping political opponents under observation and maybe helping them find a high window.
Ultimately, it's not theoretical considerations about population and economy that are important. It's what's happening on the ground. And, on the ground Russian forces have been on the back foot for the entire war excluding the first week or so. We're now into winter, and unless either side have a large force of specialist forces equipped and skilled in winter warfare then nothing much is going to change until the spring.
As Stalin said, in an analogous situation, quantity is quality. As China demonstrated in Korea.
As for Biden looking like he's closing the border to deliver aid for next year - his last - that will only just be able to support stalemate for that year, there's no sign. Why would the isolationist libertarians in Congress compromise without that?
How does whether Biden can or can't 'close' the Southern border link with aid to Ukraine?
Republicans in the U.S. Congress have made a practice of taking important but unrelated legislation hostage and demanding the approval of items important to them be passed. In this case Republicans in the House of Representatives are holding military aid to Ukraine (and Israel) hostage until Biden does something about refugees crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The issues are not linked in any other way, it's just the latest hostage of convenience for Congressional Republicans.
How many times has Russia attacked civilian targets, killing children? Unfortunately it is a tactic used to dispirit civilian populations. The difference is, Ukrainians have no choice but to fight on; whereas, Russians are fighting an unpopular war to begin with. The hope of the Ukrainians is that the Russian population will eventually convince the Russian government to sue for peace.
That might take rather a long time, @Gramps49. The tone and tenor of the BBC reportage is that despite heavy casualties and the unpopularity of Putin's war, he ain't going away anytime soon and most people who don't approve of his policies simply hunker down and try to make the most of things.
Meanwhile, the Russian missile and drone barrage increases in intensity, Ukraine engages in tit-for-tat strikes and the butcher's bill goes on rising on both sides.
Which could be Ukrainian missiles (or, drones) targeting military facilities near residential areas of Belgorod, rather than targeting civilians. We know from recent experience in Ukraine and Israel that drones and missiles that get shot down impact areas that were not the target - if the attacking missile is destroyed there'll be debris impacting on the ground (from both the attacking missile and the intercepting missile), if it's just damaged it can come down a significant distance from the target. From a military perspective the important issue is protection of military assets, logistics etc - if that results in loss of civilian life from parts of defensive weapons or fragments of both missiles then that's probably considered a price worth protecting military assets.
Or, it could be a defensive missile fired at something interpreted as a Ukrainian missile or drone, but was actually something else entirely. I don't know what could appear as a missile or drone on military radar, but I don't think we can rule out misidentification of radar signals.
Ukraine is not in the business of targeting children. Russia is. By comparison. Like Israel. Neither of the latter is targeting obvious military or other strategic targets. Both are waging total war without constraint, by comparison.
Well, the Ukrainians have decimated 1/3 of the Russian Black Fleet. And Russian planes still keep falling out of the sky.
There is a long history of the America First movement going back to even before WWI. Some would even say it was George Washington that warned about American involvement in European Affairs.
If it does come down to a vote, I think there are a bipartisan group of Representatives and Senators that would pass aid for the Ukrainians and other allies, but the House Leadership is fearful of crossing Trump's wishes.
Avdiivka was lost because the House Republican Leadership will not bring the bill authorizing continued military support to the floor. They just do not want to cross Trump. However, Russia won it at great cost to them. Thousands of Russian troops were killed and hundreds of military equipment was destroyed.
We just cannot let Trump and his cronies win again.
The West is losing Africa and all its strategic minerals too. Again. But more enduringly this time. Because it cannot act with impunity and has no strategy against those that do. Including internally in the US. Europe cannot arm Ukraine without mobilizing.
The West is losing Africa and all its strategic minerals too. Again. But more enduringly this time. Because it cannot act with impunity and has no strategy against those that do. Including internally in the US. Europe cannot arm Ukraine without mobilizing.
No. The West never 'had' Africa to lose, and isn't entitled to its strategic minerals any more than other neoglobal extractive corporates or arms dealers or warlords. Sweeping statements before my second mug of coffee are hard to take.
The West is losing Africa and all its strategic minerals too. Again. But more enduringly this time. Because it cannot act with impunity and has no strategy against those that do. Including internally in the US. Europe cannot arm Ukraine without mobilizing.
No. The West never 'had' Africa to lose, and isn't entitled to its strategic minerals any more than other neoglobal extractive corporates or arms dealers or warlords. Sweeping statements before my second mug of coffee are hard to take.
I understand that @MaryLouise. The transatlantic horrors of over 500 years of rapacious European African imperialism cannot be overstated. It's just a geopolitical fact that Russia is cynically capitalizing on its support of African independence to maintain any warlord who'll let it, extracting vast amounts of gold and denying the West strategic minerals except by blackmail.
I think this is untrue as well. I think Europe could very easily arm Ukraine without mobilizing (if what you mean is "getting ready to declare war on Russia").
I think this is untrue as well. I think Europe could very easily arm Ukraine without mobilizing (if what you mean is "getting ready to declare war on Russia").
OK, so how, apart from mobilizing their economies, are the EU and UK, going to more than double their military contributions alone? Where is the UK going to find another ten billion a year? It can't be done democratically.
Ah, so what you mean is that European countries won't arm Ukraine; the British people and the British government won't choose to find £10 billion a year. We could if we really wanted to - but we don't really want to. Well, I probably agree with you in that case.
And it makes the Republican case somewhat - Europe won't do this, so why on earth should America do so?
Enlightened self interest
Of course that is true! But it is a whole lot less convincing when Europe, whose self-interest ought to be much more immediate and evident, is showing such lack of urgency.
Upto end Oct 2023 (the latest data I can find) the EU institutions gave €85b, with individual nations giving on top of that (eg: Germany €21b), and the US €71b (the site I found was European, and had converted everything to Euros). Maybe the EU and European nations could donate more, but when they're giving significantly more than the US I'm not sure their lack of generosity would be a factor in deliberations among elected US politicians.
Those are interesting figures @Alan Cresswell (do you have the site link?). I guess that is working out at of the order of £50 billion a year from each of Europe and the US. Which is considerable, but hardly total mobilization of the economy.
I got them from this statistical compilation with pretty graph. The raw data used come from the Kiel Institute which has been tracking aid commitments since the start of the war two years ago. That data has been updated to mid January this year, but few nations have made any new commitments since October so the numbers don't change. The Kiel Institute also has data on aid given to refugees, and other support that hasn't gone to Ukraine directly.
And American military aid looks greater by twice as much than everyone else's combined. The EU per se military aid is negligible. Europe needs to triple its military aid.
Comments
Well, Putin did lose 87% of the forces he originally committed to Ukraine.
As to American aid in 2024, I am betting Biden will be able to come to a compromise.
Ultimately, it's not theoretical considerations about population and economy that are important. It's what's happening on the ground. And, on the ground Russian forces have been on the back foot for the entire war excluding the first week or so. We're now into winter, and unless either side have a large force of specialist forces equipped and skilled in winter warfare then nothing much is going to change until the spring.
As for Biden looking like he's closing the border to deliver aid for next year - his last - that will only just be able to support stalemate for that year, there's no sign. Why would the isolationist libertarians in Congress compromise without that?
Doublethink, Admin
As to who is crossing the Southern Border, Gov Abbott did point out he is aware people from 100 different countries have crossed it.
Eta: think I've just seen the answer in Styx!
Republicans in the U.S. Congress have made a practice of taking important but unrelated legislation hostage and demanding the approval of items important to them be passed. In this case Republicans in the House of Representatives are holding military aid to Ukraine (and Israel) hostage until Biden does something about refugees crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The issues are not linked in any other way, it's just the latest hostage of convenience for Congressional Republicans.
Meanwhile, the Russian missile and drone barrage increases in intensity, Ukraine engages in tit-for-tat strikes and the butcher's bill goes on rising on both sides.
Those who are onboard with supplying Ukraine have mostly demonstrated they have no issue with their allies committing war crimes very, very recently.
Turns out one of the missiles that slammed into a child's room in Belgorod was a Russian Air Defense missile. Story here.
I haven't read the article you linked but presumably Russian air defence missiles were responding to Ukrainian missiles?
Or, it could be a defensive missile fired at something interpreted as a Ukrainian missile or drone, but was actually something else entirely. I don't know what could appear as a missile or drone on military radar, but I don't think we can rule out misidentification of radar signals.
Doublethink, Admin
I don't want to crow either but I've long felt @Gramps49's sunny optimism was misplaced.
There is a long history of the America First movement going back to even before WWI. Some would even say it was George Washington that warned about American involvement in European Affairs.
If it does come down to a vote, I think there are a bipartisan group of Representatives and Senators that would pass aid for the Ukrainians and other allies, but the House Leadership is fearful of crossing Trump's wishes.
And to be "fair" to some extreme Republicans, some oppose Ukraine not for mercenary reasons but because they like Putin and want him to win.
Yeah, big win.
We just cannot let Trump and his cronies win again.
Meanwhile, nobody's winning in Ukraine.
No. The West never 'had' Africa to lose, and isn't entitled to its strategic minerals any more than other neoglobal extractive corporates or arms dealers or warlords. Sweeping statements before my second mug of coffee are hard to take.
I understand that @MaryLouise. The transatlantic horrors of over 500 years of rapacious European African imperialism cannot be overstated. It's just a geopolitical fact that Russia is cynically capitalizing on its support of African independence to maintain any warlord who'll let it, extracting vast amounts of gold and denying the West strategic minerals except by blackmail.
I think this is untrue as well. I think Europe could very easily arm Ukraine without mobilizing (if what you mean is "getting ready to declare war on Russia").
OK, so how, apart from mobilizing their economies, are the EU and UK, going to more than double their military contributions alone? Where is the UK going to find another ten billion a year? It can't be done democratically.
Enlightened self interest
Of course that is true! But it is a whole lot less convincing when Europe, whose self-interest ought to be much more immediate and evident, is showing such lack of urgency.