Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Bauer]

The mineral deal talk gives me bad vibes.  It's like you find a kid who just got hit by a drunk driver, you help them to their feet, then call up their parents and demand something before taking them to the hospital.  Oh and also blame the kid for diving into the car.

[Razgovory]

Nevermind, there already Chinese in Ukraine fighting for Russia.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-ask-rubio-answers-chinese-fighters-ukraine-2025-04-30/

WASHINGTON, April 30 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers have asked the State Department to brief them about Russia's use of Chinese fighters in its war in Ukraine, saying in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday that Moscow could only employ Chinese mercenaries with Beijing's "tacit approval."
Earlier this month, Ukraine said its forces had captured two Chinese men in eastern Ukraine and that at least 155 Chinese nationals were fighting on the Russian side.


U.S. officials have confirmed the intelligence to Reuters, but described the men as mercenaries who do not appear to have a direct link to China's government.
The letter, sent by the House of Representatives' select committee on China, reflects a growing desire among China hawks in Congress to see President Donald Trump's administration pressure China over its alignment with Russia.
The Republican chair of the committee, John Moolenaar, and its top Democratic Representative, Raja Krishnamoorthi, said the presence of Chinese fighters in Ukraine showed those deepening ties.
"Given the Chinese Communist Party's broad control in Chinese society, it is clear that Russia's recruitment campaign of PRC (People's Republic of China) nationals could not exist without at least the tacit approval of the Party," the lawmakers told Rubio in the April 30 letter seen by Reuters

They asked the State Department to outline for Congress whether the U.S. has confronted Beijing about the developments and what actions it was pursuing to address it.
China, which has declared a "no-limits" partnership with Russia, has condemned "irresponsible remarks" about its nationals fighting in Russia's war in Ukraine. Beijing has tried to position itself as an actor in attempts to negotiate an end to the war, though it has refrained from criticizing Moscow's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
China's embassy in Washington reiterated that the Chinese government always asks Chinese nationals to "avoid any form of involvement in armed conflict, and in particular avoid participation in any party's military operations."
The State Department has called the reports of Chinese men fighting in Moscow's war "disturbing."

[Josquius]

I do get the impression the mineral deals only purpose is to give the US a "win" over Ukraine.
As surely Ukraine would be keen for investment anyway. And iirc Ukraine doesn't have any especially rare and precious minerals.
I guess there's a gamble of give the petulant child what he wants as no future us president would throw silly imperialist weight around in such a way. Also I hear everything dodgy for Ukraine has been removed.


Something curious I read the other day - supplies of new equipment for the Russians are being purposefully held back. They've built 300 new tanks that haven't gone anywhere near Ukraine. They're saving them for another war as they know they'll just get blown up by drones in Ukraine.
1: Though surely the same holds true in another war?
2: Worrying for Europe. They're also building military facilities along the Finnish border. Russia does have a small window to continue it's expanionism after Ukraine. I still think this would be dumb for them though.

Also apparently a situation going on with Australia wanting to donate more Abrams tanks to Ukraine.
The US is blocking Australia from doing this...
And Ukraine maybe doesn't want them anyway. They're rubbish for their needs.

[Zanza]

[...]

Ukraine and the U.S. on Wednesday signed a deal heavily promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump that will give the United States preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals and fund investment in Ukraine's reconstruction.

Svyrydenko said the accord allowed Ukraine to "determine what and where to extract" and that its subsoil remains owned by Ukraine.

[...]

Svyrydenko said Ukraine has no debt obligations to the United States under the agreement, a key point in the lengthy negotiations between the two countries.

The deal also, she said, complied with Ukraine's constitution and Ukraine's campaign to join the European Union, key elements in Ukraine's negotiating position.

[...]

A draft of the U.S.-Ukraine agreement seen by Reuters earlier on Wednesday showed Ukraine secured the removal of any requirement for it to pay back the U.S. for past military assistance, something Kyiv had staunchly opposed.

The draft did not provide any concrete U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, one of its initial goals.

[...]

https://www.reuters.com/world/kyiv-is-ready-sign-resources-deal-with-us-ukraine-government-source-says-2025-04-30/

Some stuff on what is not in the agreement, but very little to be found what is in there. Some kind of reconstruction fund financed by mining rights. Sounds like a piece of paper to appease Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

The agreement leaves almost all material terms open and to be defined in the follow up Fund Agreement.

It does require Ukraine to deposit 50% of all revenues from *future* natural resource projects into the fund, minus recoveries for costs incurred. But the parties' respective ownership stakes, what contribution the US will make, how profits are distributed out, etc. is all undefined.

[grumbler]

Also apparently a situation going on with Australia wanting to donate more Abrams tanks to Ukraine.
The US is blocking Australia from doing this...
And Ukraine maybe doesn't want them anyway. They're rubbish for their needs.

Ukraine wants them.  Tanks are not "rubbish for their needs," though drones have made tanks much less survivable and have made them essentially SP direct-fire shoot-and-scoot artillery.  That's still a valuable capability.

[Josquius]

Also apparently a situation going on with Australia wanting to donate more Abrams tanks to Ukraine.
The US is blocking Australia from doing this...
And Ukraine maybe doesn't want them anyway. They're rubbish for their needs.

Ukraine wants them.  Tanks are not "rubbish for their needs," though drones have made tanks much less survivable and have made them essentially SP direct-fire shoot-and-scoot artillery.  That's still a valuable capability.

Tanks can be made use of. Though not one which is really worth their cost.
Abrams in particular however are very unpopular with the Ukrainians. They are especially vulnerable to drones, use a lot of specialised fuel, and need a lot of maintainance.

I recall reading somewhere the Ukrainians favourite tank of the donated was oddly the Leopard I.

[Jacob]

Interesting article about an Estonian drone pilot fighting for Ukraine, and the speed with which the Estonian military (and, I expect by proxy - the West as a whole) is adapting drone warfare techniques.

https://balticsentinel.eu/8240910/estonian-soldier-in-ukraine-warns-what-would-happen-if-russian-drone-pilots-hit-baltic-troops

[Richard Hakluyt]

Very interesting. I hope the top brass listen and learn from the young fellow's experienced.

[grumbler]

Tanks can be made use of. Though not one which is really worth their cost.
Abrams in particular however are very unpopular with the Ukrainians. They are especially vulnerable to drones, use a lot of specialised fuel, and need a lot of maintainance.

I recall reading somewhere the Ukrainians favourite tank of the donated was oddly the Leopard I.

The Abrams, like other donated tanks, do not cost Ukraine anything to procure, so "worth their cost" isn't an issue.

I'd like to see authoritative evidence that "Abrams in particular however are very unpopular with the Ukrainians." If your source is the same one that told you that Abrams "use a lot of specialised fuel," you might want to re-think their credibility; one of the virtues of the Abrams is that they can use virtually any fuel.  No tank is less in need to "specialized fuel" than the Abrams.

That modern tanks require a lot of maintenance for their high-tech systems is an issue.  But it's not an especial issue for the Abrams.

It would make sense for the Leopard I to be the most popular tank with the Ukrainians, because it's fire control systems are much simpler, and the complexity of later tanks is driven by the need to maximize tank v tank capability, which isn't much of an issue in Ukraine anymore.

[grumbler]

Interesting article about an Estonian drone pilot fighting for Ukraine, and the speed with which the Estonian military (and, I expect by proxy - the West as a whole) is adapting drone warfare techniques.

https://balticsentinel.eu/8240910/estonian-soldier-in-ukraine-warns-what-would-happen-if-russian-drone-pilots-hit-baltic-troops

Anders Puck Nielsen has been sounding the alarm on this for several months now. He believes that the Western militaries are failing to realize that there is a revolution in military technology and that they need to quickly arm themselves properly.

[Valmy]

Interesting article about an Estonian drone pilot fighting for Ukraine, and the speed with which the Estonian military (and, I expect by proxy - the West as a whole) is adapting drone warfare techniques.

https://balticsentinel.eu/8240910/estonian-soldier-in-ukraine-warns-what-would-happen-if-russian-drone-pilots-hit-baltic-troops

Anders Puck Nielsen has been sounding the alarm on this for several months now. He believes that the Western militaries are failing to realize that there is a revolution in military technology and that they need to quickly arm themselves properly.

Is that true? I find that strange as the advances in drone tech have been known for several years now to be a big problem for conventional militaries. And the US has been big on drone strikes for a long time.

One would think the loss averse western armies would be all about building up huge drone forces. Talk about being able to wage war on the cheap.

[Zanza]

United States announced that they will no longer be intermediaries between Ukraine and Russia in peace talks. My outside impression was that they only parroted Putin's line anyway, so that would not be a big loss.

[Valmy]

United States announced that they will no longer be intermediaries between Ukraine and Russia in peace talks. My outside impression was that they only parroted Putin's line anyway, so that would not be a big loss.

Ukraine bribed us to go away.

[frunk]

Is that true? I find that strange as the advances in drone tech have been known for several years now to be a big problem for conventional militaries. And the US has been big on drone strikes for a long time.

One would think the loss averse western armies would be all about building up huge drone forces. Talk about being able to wage war on the cheap.

It's one of the reasons Ukraine is so important, not only do they have the knowledge of how to use drones but they've built up the production facilities for building combat drones and are continually improving and advancing their development.  If it is allowed to be destroyed or fall into Russian hands that will be much worse for Europe.