Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Syt]

Bundeswehr was (is?) signed up for Nuclear sharing with the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Ordnance_Brigade

My home town had a Special Ammunition Storage that mostly stored nuclear artillery ammo, guarded by US Army and designated for use by the 6th Panzerivision. Though I guess the Trump wouldn't let Germans use their toys against Russians anymore.

[viper37]

Starmer: I am ready and willing to put British troops in Ukraine

Sir Keir Starmer has announced he is "ready and willing" to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to enforce any peace deal.

In an exclusive article for The Telegraph, the Prime Minister said he had not taken the decision to consider putting British servicemen and women "in harm's way" lightly.


It is the first time he has explicitly said he is considering deploying British peacekeepers to Ukraine, and comes ahead of a meeting with European leaders in Paris on Monday.

The emergency gathering was called by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, after it emerged that European leaders had not been invited to early Ukraine peace talks between the US and Russia, and senior members of Donald Trump's administration signalled that US security support for Europe would be scaled back.
Sir Keir's decision to speak out will put pressure on allies – especially a reluctant Germany – to publicly back the idea of a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine. The Prime Minister also suggested Britain could play a "unique role" as a bridge between Europe and the US in the Ukraine peace process.
The foreign ministers of Russia and the US will meet in Saudi Arabia on Monday to kick off talks over a peace agreement.
Ukraine has not been invited to the negotiating table and Sir Keir warned against cutting Kyiv out of the talks, likening it to the US decision to cut the Afghan government out of negotiations over the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
He wrote: "The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine. This includes further support for Ukraine's military – where the UK has already committed £3 billion a year until at least 2030.
"But it also means being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm's way.
"But any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine's security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent and the security of this country. The end of this war, when it comes, cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin attacks again."
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, UK prime ministers have refused to publicly consider sending British soldiers to the country. But in recent weeks Sir Keir has opened the door to considering Mr Macron's proposals for a Europe-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
The idea has been increasingly talked about privately in Europe after it became clear that Mr Trump would never sign off US troops playing that role, with discussions centring on how to make sure that Ukraine is never invaded again after any ceasefire.
A No 10 insider familiar with Sir Keir's thinking said his decision to go public before the Paris meeting was in part a result of US statements at the Munich Security Conference last weekend, when US administration figures made it clear that Europe would have to play a greater role in its own defence.
The Prime Minister will join the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, the European Commission, the European Council and Nato in Paris.
Exactly what a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine would look like remains unclear. The Telegraph understands that one proposal to be discussed is for European soldiers to be deployed away from the front line that would be established in a peace agreement.
Ukrainians would be deployed at the newly established border, and soldiers from other European nations would be behind them.
But whether European allies would be willing to provide enough troops to make such a peacekeeping force effective remains to be seen. Some estimates have suggested that 100,000 soldiers would be needed.
In his Telegraph article, the Prime Minister wrote: "These crucial days ahead will determine the future security of our continent. As I will say in Paris, peace comes through strength. But the reverse is also true. Weakness leads to war.
"This is the moment for us all to step up – and the UK will do so, because it is the right thing to do for the values and freedoms we hold dear, and because it is fundamental to our own national security."
Sir Keir is planning to discuss whatever agreements come out of the Paris talks with Mr Trump in Washington, where the two leaders are due to meet before the end of the month.
The issue is becoming complicated by UK wrangling over how fast and how far defence spending should increase in the coming years.

Interesting.

We'll see how other countries react.

It will also put pressure on the US.

[Josquius]

An optimistic outlook.

After the tumultuous events of the NATO meeting and then the earthquakes of the Munich Security Conference, I was tempted to break it down. But so much has been written I doubt I could add anything that would make it any more comprehensible. The one thing I haven't mentioned was the fact the United States Vice President met with the leader of Germany's AfD (Alternative for Deutchland) party. He basically endorsed an extreme right wing politician in the middle of the German elections. It's a mind numbing moment, horrible, disappointing and the day after he had laid a wreath at Dachau concentration camp. Clearly historical comprehension isn't one of his strong points. The Germans accused him of interfering in their politics.


Boris Pistorius, German Defence Minister lambasted JD Vance's attack on European values as insulting.
We have now moved on to a week that will see the start of negotiations to end the war. It commenced with the Kremlin yet again questioning the sovereignty of Ukraine and its right to even be in the room. Frankly I question why the United States needs to be in the room, who are they to hijack the process for their own ends? Yet that's exactly what the Russians want. Europe, which should have been the joint leader in these negotiations with the US has been told it will not even be in the room. Again, a Russian win because they will do anything to prevent the EU from becoming the fourth pole in the otherwise three power multi-polar world they think they're entitled to, of Russia the US and China. The EU asserting its position in the world and refusing to be ignored isn't something they want, and nor do the Americans. That is about to change I think. And the fact is they both made sure it happens by trying to make sure it does not.

Europe is – as we will likely find out today – quietly seething with anger. It is now in effect, dumped by its long term partner on which it has been overly reliant for a very long time, to its own detriment. Certainly it should have done more before this to balance the relationship.


Ursula von der Leyen, EU President, gave a pragmatic and realistic speech about Europe and Ukraine in a changing world.
However this time it has Ukraine in its corner. Europe and Ukraine together are a big deal, and now is the time they must work together. Because one way or another, Ukraine is in a far better position than Russia, and President Zelensky has made it absolutely clear Ukraine will not accept any 'diktat' coming from Russia or America. If it doesn't suit Ukraine, if it isn't reasonable and meets their requirements then they will say 'no' – even at the risk of American support.

Ukraine is in a far better position than Russia to decline to say no. It isn't the defeated power here – it's held its own despite the challenges thrown at it. It's made some mistakes, it's had and continues to have multiple issues – what country at war does not? Yet the tide of the war turned in an act of desperation that was a stab in the dark, had no real strategic vision and even its principle organizer has admitted, he really didn't see why it should be this. Neither Zelensky or Syrski knew what would come of it, they just had to do something to throw the Russians off balance, show they could do something offensive while in the middle of being relentlessly driven back through the summer season. And they needed to lift morale urgently, and get Ukraine back into the headlines. So they attacked in Kursk.

In doing so they did succeed in throwing the Russians off balance. It took months though for the lumbering and incompetent Russian war machine to respond. After a brief success it went totally pear shaped, and now is a painful thorn in Russia's side. Yet the fact is Russia was stretched, further and more dramatically than it was greatly realized. It was only truly appreciated when the North Koreans turned up, just how bad the Russian situation was getting.

The Ukrainian methods of attrition in retreat, conceding only when they had to, taking down Russian manpower at levels close to 7:1 and more, eventually had its effect. The reduction in Russian artillery dominance from 10:1 to 2:1 has been because of a relentless never ending campaign to find and destroy artillery by drone attack. The Russians loose as many 30-60 artillery units a day, every day. Its been so consistent its almost no longer mentioned, yet its been a critical game changer for an army that considers artillery the 'God of War'. Loss of Russian tanks, IFV's and APC's has been so clearly noticeable its dragged down the pace of Russian advances.

These days a major battle involves 30 vehicles – and half of them are likely to be motorbikes and high speed ATV's. The skies are full of drones, most of them Ukrainian and the Ukrainians have found some means of jamming the Russian drones out of use in wide areas. This is why the Russians been concentrating so heavily on fiberoptic versions, despite their range and terrain limits, and limited availability. Ukraine is winning the drone war, in terms of production, technology, capability and effectiveness. Some of that is because countries like the UK, Denmark, Norway, Germany and others have been deeply involved in assisting in technological and manufacturing development. A new German drone, 6,000 of which are heading to Ukraine right now, are an allegory for the Lancett-3 – but far better in range, loitering capacity and have a fearsome AI if they get cut off from their operator, combined with greater speed. They also have a networking capability and can work out a coordinated strike without assistance if necessary.


The new Helsing X-2, 6,000 of which have been funded by an unnamed donor – on their way to Ukraine
Add to this the vast strides in strategic drone operations and the relentless attacks on Russian economic targets, which have ramped up on a scale that makes Russian attacks on Ukraine look progressively less effective. The Russians wasted their time attacking civilian infrastructure – a mistake I remember discussing on my Telegram channel two years ago. They could attack housing and schools and universities to their hearts content, but if they thought it was going to make Ukraine surrender they were seriously mistaken, because it did not materially affect the Ukrainians ability to prosecute the war.

And let's not forget the situation in the Black Sea. The Russian fleet has been defeated and isolated by a country that doesn't even have an operational warship. Little in military history at sea can express the significance of that victory.

The Ukrainians have European backing economically, and they will continue to get it. They have the Czech Initiative that only yesterday, was confirmed as having delivered 1.6 million 155mm shells in the past year and is set to increase that to 1.8 to 2 million in the coming one. Ammunition from Europe and elsewhere has finally caught up with needs. It's increasing at the very point the Russian artillery is decreasing. The pendulum is swinging the other way.

Overall, though the Russians will never accept it, they are finding their position increasingly difficult. They have it seems, stretched themselves as far as they can without utterly wrecking their domestic situation – and they're close enough to that to be worried.

Like Germany in WW2, Russia had all the advantages and the power, but eventually the economic power of the West and communist Russia's motivation and organisation and shear size, exhausted the Germans and then left them rolling backwards to defeat. Ukraine has faced down the Russians, is supported fully by the majority of a Europe that's barely begun to animate its military industry. The US may have supplied a lot of equipment, but Europe (including the non-EU states), has exceeded it in money spent. And it will do so even if the US backs off and walks away.


Zelensky made a magnificent and well thought out speech putting Ukraine fully at the center of a future EU military organization.
I'm convinced that Ukraine is still on the rise – and I believe that at the very top, in Putin's mind, he can see the reality of it, even if he is unwilling to accept it. He would never say it or admit to anyone. Russia needs this peace, economically and militarily. Ukraine might want it but it doesn't need it. If the war goes on another year, Russia will eventually find itself on the back foot, some of its land gains recovered by their legal owners. It knows that cannot be allowed to happen, morale is already bad, defeats would be a disaster. And it would put him in a bad position for any negotiations.

The Ukrainians know they have not been defeated, they know they can make Russia even worse off. They haven't yet targeted the key oil shipment loading ports, which would shut down exports from Russia completely. They could, if Russia tries again to attack its electrical infrastructure, do the same thing back, because they now can. That would bring the war home to Russia like nothing else.

In the air, Ukraine has in many ways secured the west of the country. There hasn't been a Russian strike against any of Ukraine's air bases in a long while. The overall air defence situation in central Ukraine is now at its peak and still improving. Only Israel has a better air defence system.


Patriot continues to bring down Russian Iskander's and Kinzhal hypersonics.
Would there be a downside for Ukraine rejecting an American brokered peace? 47 would be deeply unhappy and slightly humiliated in his own mind – and he would react accordingly, bullying the country into signing by cutting off aid. Yet even then it still would not be enough to make the Ukrainians sign a bad deal. The Russians would be faced with continuation – which they don't want, and would no doubt use every propaganda tool at their disposal to blame Ukraine. Europe would stand up and stay with Ukraine. It would not this time, turn its back and ignore it.

That very fact is Ukraine's ace card, because in the end the Europeans have this war on their borders, they have put their money and material in to defending Ukraine and barely broken a sweat doing it if truth be told. Supporting it is just as much about principles and ideals as it is military practicality. If Europe is to stand up for itself what better reason to do so?

There may also be merit in Ukraine walking out of peace talks if it feels their interests are under threat. If it does so, with good explanation, and with EU backing, and refuse to rejoin without EU representation – which the other two will initially reject – eventually they'll come around. Russia will need the talks to succeed because its desperate to buy time, 47 wants it to get a Nobel Peace Prize and the wider effort to create this three pole power system that separates China and Russia, neither of them have Ukraine's interest at heart. Only the Europeans do.

Together Ukraine and Europe don't have to play second fiddle to anyone. Russia and the new US administration need to learn that lesson. Europe now has to prove it to them. Ukraine deserves a just peace, not one brokered to serve a convicted criminals peace prize quest and a war criminal's imperialist ambitions

https://themilitaryanalyst.com/2025/02/17/ukraine-a-better-position-than-russia/

[viper37]

All of these gains needed US help.

US funds for emergency humanitarian aid, US intelligence, US old military hardware.
Not alone, but US was a major contributor.

We saw what happened when Musk betrayed Ukraine for Russia.

Now, it will be the entire US betraying Ukraine for Russia, working against everyone else.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting.

We'll see how other countries react.

It will also put pressure on the US.

Playing the role the UK has throughout - not the biggest or most important supporter of Ukraine, but the one normally willing to act as a vanguard/break a taboo.

Macron yesterday saying deploying a huge force is "far-fetched" (in an annoying example of Twitter's utility - really interesting discussion between the Economist's Shashank Joshi and Carnegie's Michael Kofman on what a deployment could look like) adding that "we have to do things that are appropriate, realistic, well thought, measured and negotiated."

Tusk has said Poland won't send troops and is also opposed to building an alternative to NATO - adding that anyone offering security guarantees to Ukraine (as Britain has) "must be sure they could fulfill them."

Via Bloomberg and Reuters, the list of questions the US has put to European countries (I can't criticise any of these and think we do need an answer to them):


Interesting on the last point especially as European imports of both Russian LNG and (laundered) Russian oil hit their highest levels since the war started.

Edit: Other European responses following Poland's. Sweden will "absolutely" be willing to participate. Germany says it's premature to talk about this (in fairness difficult to give a statement until there's an election and new government).

[The Minsky Moment]

An optimistic outlook.

It's true that the Putin Bitch wing of the GOP now driving administration policy is making the same mistake their Russian masters keep making: failing to take into account Ukranian agency.  If the US never gave another dime of aid, it still would not give Russia the power to obtain its war goal of complete subjugation of Ukraine.

But we should not kid ourselves - it is a disaster for Ukraine; it may not cause Russia to win the war outright but it sill mean a great deal more death, suffering and misery.

One can also hope that the EU will respond by stepping up its own assistance and by making real moves to cement its own security structures.  But the EU has its own forces of chaos within and it own coordination problems that have to be overcome.

No matter what happens though, the US will be a big loser. The US postwar empire began much as the ancient Athenian empire, as a genuinely cooperative alliance where a strong maritime power provided protection to an alliance of smaller states threatened by a superpower (Persia).  The Athenian Empire eventually collapsed, not just because of the outside pressure from Sparta, but because it proceeded to exploit the allied states through extractive demands for resources, which made the members more willing to risk living outside the belt of Athenian protection.  Postwar American leaders were smart enough to avoid that mistake and NATO evolved as a genuinely equitable alliance with both the central superpower and the smaller powers obtaining mutual benefits. Under Trump, however, the US is making the same mistake that Athens made and the consequence will be the same: a collapse in influence, power and reach.

[The Brain]

Via Bloomberg and Reuters, the list of questions the US has put to European countries (I can't criticise any of these and think we do need an answer to them):

If we give give this information to the US then they will immediately hand it to the Russians. No way we should answer. Or rather, if we answer the answers have to be fake.

[frunk]

At the moment my best case scenario is that the US remains neutral towards Ukraine rather than actively helping Russia.

[Sheilbh]

Via Bloomberg and Reuters, the list of questions the US has put to European countries (I can't criticise any of these and think we do need an answer to them):

If we give give this information to the US then they will immediately hand it to the Russians. No way we should answer. Or rather, if we answer the answers have to be fake.

Apparently prompted because the Europeans were proposing to commit troops for a post-war Ukraine - with an American backstop (according to the Washington Post). Again I just think we're still writing scripts for a world that doesn't exist any more.

FWIW, as throughout the war I think the country getting this right in terms of what their leaders are saying is Poland.

[Tamas]

Via Bloomberg and Reuters, the list of questions the US has put to European countries (I can't criticise any of these and think we do need an answer to them):

If we give give this information to the US then they will immediately hand it to the Russians. No way we should answer. Or rather, if we answer the answers have to be fake.

For real though this reads like a "my Russian friend is asking" set of questions.

[Zanza]

Nuclear proliferation is a realistic measure that would give Ukraine significant deterrence. European powers have the means to do that. More realistic than large ground forces.

[mongers]

At the moment my best case scenario is that the US remains neutral towards Ukraine rather than actively helping Russia.

I'm sure most Americans, including some MAGA fans don't to see an independent democratic country like Ukraine destroyed by an invader, but Trump and his cronies appear to active want Russia to win.

[mongers]

Nuclear proliferation is a realistic measure that would give Ukraine significant deterrence. European powers have the means to do that. More realistic than large ground forces.

Yep, Nukes for Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and the three Baltic republics. 

[grumbler]

Via Bloomberg and Reuters, the list of questions the US has put to European countries (I can't criticise any of these and think we do need an answer to them):

If we give give this information to the US then they will immediately hand it to the Russians. No way we should answer. Or rather, if we answer the answers have to be fake.

I don't think that you need to worry.  There's no evidence that the Europeans suddenly decided to be honest or realistic about defense issues.

[Valmy]

If Russia allows European troops to be stationed in Ukraine then that is a pretty big win for Ukraine. That is as good as joining NATO.

And frankly that is where European troops should be stationed. That is the frontier of Europe.