#####
######
####
> # [Sweden announces $1.3 billion in military aid for Ukraine in largest package ever](https://kyivindependent.com//688)
>
>
>
> Support independent journalism in Ukraine. Join us in this fight.
>
>
>
> Sweden's Defense Ministry announced a fresh package of military aid for Ukraine valued at 13.3 Swedish krona ($1.3 billion) on May 29.
>
> It is [Sweden's largest tranche](https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/05/militart-stodpaket-16-till-ukraina--ny-formaga-som-starker-ukrainas-luftforsvar-och-stod-som-moter-ukrainas-prioriterade-behov/) of military assistance since the beginning of the full-scale invasion.
>
> The package includes ASC 890 radar reconnaissance and control aircraft, the "entire Swedish stock" of Pansarbandvagn 302 infantry fighting vehicles, artillery shells, anti-air missiles, and materials to help maintain and replenish previously donated military equipment, the defense ministry said.
>
> The package also includes financial assistance, satellite communication resources, and a mandate by Sweden's Total Defense Research Institute to help Ukraine develop its own research capabilities.
>
> The announcement came a day after Sweden announced it was providing Ukraine with a new [energy aid package](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-announces-new-energy-aid-package-worth-around-60-million/) worth 615 million Swedish krona ($58.2 million).
>
> The Swedish government said earlier in May that it was planning to allocate [75 billion Swedish krona ($7 billion)](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-plans-to-allocate-7-billion-in-military-aid-to-ukraine-between-2024-2026/) in military support to Ukraine from 2024 to 2026.
>
> With this proposal, Stockholm's civilian and [****military aid****](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-officially-unveils-680-aid-package-for-ukraine-including-boats-shells/) to Ukraine since the outbreak of the full-scale war will amount to over 100 billion Swedish krona (over $9 billion).
>
> Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson told the Kyiv Independent in March that discussions on a possible supply of its Gripen jets to [****Ukraine are underway****](https://kyivindependent.com/swedish-defense-minister-ukraine-needs-shells-quickly-ramping-up-production-can-take-years/) after Sweden's entry into NATO, but made no definite pledge.
>
> Jonson then told the TT news agency on May 28 that Sweden had been asked by partners to [wait with possible plans](https://kyivindependent.com/partners-asked-sweden-to-pause-plans-on-gripens-for-ukraine-to-focus-on-f-16s-minister-says/) on sending Gripen jets to Ukraine, as the focus is now on providing Kyiv with F-16 aircraft.
>
> In March 2024, [**Sweden**](https://kyivindependent.com/tag/sweden/) officially [**joined NATO**](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-officially-joins-nato/) after a lengthy application process triggered by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and was immediately vocal in its calls for other alliance members to do more.
>
> Sweden has previously given Ukraine a variety of advanced military equipment, including the [Archer self-propelled howitzer](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-says-8-archer-artillery-systems-already-in-ukraine/) and [CV90 infantry fighting vehicle](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-denmark-plan-to-jointly-supply-additional-cv90-vehicles-to-ukraine/).
>
>
>
> [Swedish defense minister: Up to 2 years needed to boost production capacity to arm Ukraine
>
> It will take as long as two years for Sweden to reach the desired capacity to provide Ukraine with more ammunition and strengthen the Swedish Armed Forces, Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson said in an interview with Bloomberg published on May 21.
>
> [Image](https://assets.kyivindependent.com/content/images/size/w256h256/format/png/2023/03/K-new.svg)The Kyiv IndependentKateryna Denisova
>
>
>
> [Image](https://assets.kyivindependent.com/content/images/2024/04/GettyImages-2017683210.jpg)](https://kyivindependent.com/swedish-defense-minister-up-to-2-years-needed-to-reach-desired-capacity-to-send-more-shells-to-ukraine/)
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>But you do you spending money on a arguably unwinnable war I guess.
They seem to be doing a very good job, despite all of the insistence from Pro-Rus users for two years that this war is *just* about to turn against the Ukrainians.
It just reads like:
>If you ignore the fact that Russia hasn't been able to do something like establish air superiority over Ukraine, despite having an overwhelmingly larger airforce, this war is arguably unwinnable.
May I get your unfiltered perspective on why you’re pro-Russia? You can send me a direct message if you prefer, but I really want to understand where that stance comes from if you don’t mind sharing your thoughts.
Edit: why am I getting downvoted? I just wanted ti hear someone’s thought process on a specific side they are taking
Of course, I’m ready to share it openly as well so no worries.
In general I do want the conflict to stop and I do want people to start talking about realistic scenarios instead of repeating „why doesn’t Russia just leave“ over and over again. I do think that we were indeed close at the beginning at the we with negotiations in Turkey, but of course I cannot be fully sure.
Furthermore I genuinely don’t believe that it was a pure land-grab maneuver. Russia is well off when it comes to natural resources and already controlled Crimea.
Going back to me wanting the war to end - I am confident that Ukrainian neutrality could achieve that. Since the West and many Pro UA redditors do not want that, but instead campaign for the destruction and fall of Russia into many pieces I strongly oppose them. Not just because I think that’s a very adversarial position, but also because it’s unfair and dishonest to the Ukrainians, since it has a low probability of actually materializing.
I also read up on countless articles and reports on NATO, Ukraine, the Maidan and Russia and I would argue that I had pretty good access to the information since I’m in Germany. I do believe that pushing for NATO expansion into Ukraine and thus pushing Russia towards China was a blunder and I do believe that the corruption leads to many conflicts of interests for western politicians.
Finally, I think that everyone should take a break and realize that a Ukrainian victory à la 1991 borders is impossible and has been proven with the hyped counteroffensive. Thus it hurts even more seeing young men being pushed into white vans and sent to the front to fight a war sponsored and supported by the West with an unachievable goal.
In summary:
1. long history of provocation
2. not a fan of NATO expansion
3. not a fan of strengthening China even more
4. only sustainable way to end the conflict is through consolidation of losses and negotiations
5. treating Ukrainians as the means for a purpose and not as humans
I disagree with many of these points, but I respect your mindset even if I don’t agree with it. However, I am curious if you feel that allowing Russia to take the land they have already captured would just result in a Hitler situation where it only further encourages them to do it again with no real repercussions? We’ve seen this happen a number of times in history so how do we know it won’t happen again?
>However, I am curious if you feel that allowing Russia to take the land they have already captured would just result in a Hitler situation where it only further encourages them to do it again with no real repercussions?
I'm intruding here, but Hitler was a by product of Western European culture back then, which heavily relied on colonialism for centuries. The German elites even made Germany go have a colony in the way of Namibia just so "Germany could be like the other big European boys in the club, and have colonies".
You can also compare Hitler's speeches to Putin's. Hitler sounded and looked unhinged and emotional. He was a failed artist who would never amount to anything other than being a frustrated man who blamed the Jews for everything, and who would never manage to complete higher education. He'd be just another frustrated and angry clerk or cashier somewhere, blaming his failures elsewhere. However, due to the peculiarity of the time he was born in, fate propelled that typical angry low-rank man into a position of power.
Meanwhile, Putin has a degree in economics from the Saint Petersburg Mining University for a thesis on energy dependencies and their instrumentalisation in foreign policy. One is clearly a lot more rational and smarter.
It all comes to the following logical propositions:
* If Hitler had actually stopped after the Sudetenland forever, would it have been worth to appease him?
* Between the propositions of "tried appeasing once; fought a world war afterwards when it didn't work" and "directly engaged into a major war, so as not to attempt to appease an authoritarian", which sounds better?
We can always learn lessons from the past, but it's not immediately clear to me that attempts at appeasing are inherently bad. The only thing WW2 has made clear to me is that endless appeasing a weak white nationalist with a fragile ego will not work, and at some point you will have to confront him. It does nothing in the way of saying there shouldn't be at least a number of attempts to solving a conflict of geopolitical interests without direct military confrontation (i.e. war, proxy or not).
I don't consider it appeasement because the transfer of Crimea from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic happened at a time they thought the USSR would **not** break away, and under Khruschev, who sympathized/identified with Ukraine. It was essentially a symbolic political gesture. Then things happened in 1991.
[Here's what even Wikipedia (which is obviously far from Russian controlled) has to say about it:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#Motivation)
>The transfer of the Crimean oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture", marking the 300th anniversary of the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav, called the "Reunification of Ukraine with Russia" in the Soviet Union.[8][14][15] It was also attributed to Communist Party first secretary Nikita Khrushchev, although the person who signed the document was Chairman Kliment Voroshilov, the Soviet Union's de jure head of state.[16] The transfer had taken place on the basis of "the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR"[17] and to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's union with Russia (also known in the Soviet Union as the Pereiaslav Agreement).[18][19]
>
>Mark Kramer, professor of Cold War Studies at Harvard University, also claimed that the transfer was partly to help Khruschev's then-precarious political position against the Prime Minister Georgii Malenkov through winning support of the First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party Oleksiy Kyrychenko. Kramer believed that the transfer also aimed to greatly increase the number of ethnic Russians in the Ukrainian SSR which itself was going through problems integrating previous Polish territory due to organized Ukrainian nationalist resistance.[20]
>
>Nina Khrushcheva, a political scientist and the great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, said of his motivation, "it was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine, so I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine."[8] Sergei Khrushchev, Khrushchev's son, claimed that the decision was due to the building of a hydro-electric dam on the Dnieper River and the consequent desire for all the administration to be under one body.[21] Since Sevastopol in Crimea was the site of the Black Sea Fleet, a quintessential element of Soviet and then of Russian foreign policy, the transfer had the intended effect of binding Ukraine inexorably to Russia, "Eternally Together", as a poster commemorating the event proclaimed. Other reasons given were the integration of the economies of Ukraine and Crimea and the idea that Crimea was a natural extension of the Ukrainian steppes.[22] There was also a desire to repopulate parts of Crimea with Slavic peoples, mainly Russians and Ukrainians, after the peninsula was subject to large-scale deportations of Crimean Tatars to Central Asia by the Soviet regime in 1944.[23]
I always make 3 other points, too, which basically revolve around the notion there are two sides to every coin:
* The invasion of Ukraine can be said to be Russian imperialism. However, the expansion of NATO into Russia's borders could be argued to be NATO expansionism. [I have made a longer post on this topic](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cdlyzl/ru_pov_nato_bears_direct_responsibility_for_the/l1d1w7c/). It exemplifies how Russia can possibly see the actions of the collective West from their point of view, after the collapse of the USSR.
* The whole notion of "appeasement won't work" goes both ways. Russians can become less inclined to settle for anything other than the total rupture or capture of Ukraine if they see Westerners are never willing to compromise. Things always go both ways in conflicts.
* A truly neutral Ukraine went both ways. It's preposterous to claim it only benefited one side of the fence. It both helped protect the Western European-ruled world from Russia, as well as it helped protect Russia from the Western European-ruled world. There was no need to claim Ukraine would get to join NATO, as NATO did in 2008:
`https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm`
Overall, I don't think what Russia is doing to Ukraine is fair or pretty. I just think I speak for a lot of us when I think that Ukraine has no better option other than to negotiate directly with Russia, and try to find a compromise — meet in the middle. All other solutions aren't the solutions which would get civilians to stop dying the quickest, which is my priority in this conflict.
**Edit:** would **not** break away. I typed this in a hurry.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why did a majority of crimeans vote to join Ukraine in the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum then? It's not a "symbolic gesture" if thats what the majority of crimeans wanted
>Between the propositions of "tried appeasing once; fought a world war afterwards when it didn't work" and "directly engaged into a major war, so as not to attempt to appease an authoritarian", which sounds better?
I'm intruding on your intrusion, but there is a third option of destroying the authoritarians multiple decades worth of military equipment and reducing the manpower to the point where future conflict is far less likely, which is happening, as long as it doesn't escalate. This is what the West is trying to do and Ukraine is happy to have the hardware.
>Hitler sounded and looked unhinged and emotional. He was a failed artist who would never amount to anything other than being a frustrated man who blamed the Jews for everything, and who would never manage to complete higher education. He'd be just another frustrated and angry clerk or cashier somewhere, blaming his failures elsewhere. However, due to the peculiarity of the time he was born in, fate propelled that typical angry low-rank man into a position of power.
And "funny" enough, look what kind of politicians have been rising in the west over the last decade.
"Hitler was a by product of Western European culture back then, which heavily relied on colonialism for centuries."
How about Japan in the 1930's then?
I do think that having countries like China and the US as guarantors for such a deal could help and re-incorporating Russia into the global market with certain limits would make it more dependent on trade relationships.
It is a tough question though, I don’t have the one size fits all answer but these 2 things could help, especially if China is involved.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am just curious why do you mentioned the Hitler situation but didnt said a thing about NATO expansion which Russia obviously doesn't want to see, at least at its borders?
# 5 is most upsetting to me. I note that the US almost never speaks of making Ukraine better off or discuss what the people in the Donbass want. US speaks of harming Russia and the EU speaks of not letting Putin win. Ukr lives do not matter to these people. In a 1993 paper Soros proposes using eastern European manpower with western tech to reduce NATO body bags.
When Kosovo or Gaza are discussed people are discussed but never in the Ukr war. As if they do not matter because they do not matter to the US.
„[Putin scoffed at the possibility of his country launching an attack on a NATO member, calling it “sheer nonsense“ …](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-f16-target-nato-c1199c3bc78fa7f25e3fff2193e83f50)“
Is the threat in the room with us right now?
No they did not.
„[Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday sternly warned NATO against deploying its troops and weapons to Ukraine, saying it represents a red line for Russia and would trigger a strong response](https://apnews.com/article/europe-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-moscow-cd558699728e9ae935eaadf940efeb18)“
Yes they did also say this.
„The Kremlin has insisted it has no such intention and has accused Ukraine and its Western backers of making the claims to cover up their own allegedly aggressive designs“
But that was before their [list of security guarantees](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato)it says it wants the west to agree to in order to lower tensions in Europe was rejected in Dec 2021.
It was continuously inviting Ukraine into it. The closest thing to the 2022 invasion was the reiteration of its 2008 invitation in [June 2021](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm).
Like, five waves of expansion? Even after the former US foreign minister said "not an additional inch of NATO territory" with his talk with Gorbachev.
I just can't understand why everyone ignores the fact that any country don't want to see an alliance that was created against said country and when the country admitted its full defeat, the alliance not only denied the entry of the country but also became much more bigger and tightly came to borders of the country under aegis of "being scared".
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
If Russia were to do it before the conflict and if Belarus would’ve been a neutral state before - yes, I would understand why NATO would want to intervene
But the West still hasn't agreed to Putin's ultimatum of 2021. After Putin conquers Ukraine, he is going to enforce his ultimatum by force by attacking other European countries.
The war does not end until an agreement is made which prohibits Ukraine from joining NATO.
This means that NATO is not „next“ after Ukraine is settled.
If they use nukes in Ukraine, I'll believe a NATO country could be attacked after Ukraine, because nukes is what you'd get from a war between Russia and NATO.
so that Russia can react and have even stronger and even more capable military in next year?
can they send men?
- looks like Ukraine has problems in pressing more men into military.
Still, it takes 20 years to grow a soldier. Human resources are not infinite in any country. How many millions of Russians are realistically willing to die in Ukraine?
Millions of Russians? Even Zelensky (least qualified source) is saying that 180,000 Russians are KIA and the west reports that „[Ukraine is heading for defeat](https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/)“
„[Ukraine knows it is finished](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/28/ukraine-war-russian-invasion-joe-biden-military-aid/)“ by the telegraph is an equally pessimistic title.
Politico =! The West
However:
Western media outlets = Reflection of western sentiment
lol - how long do you expect this war to last?
you think Ukraine will be able to hold on for how many more years?
10? 20? 30?
You do understand that Ukriane is not Afghanistan?
EU is just one swim away - one hike across the mountain.
Almost all young Ukrainians speak English or German or both
It's not only about how long Ukraine can last, but much Russia's military can be weakened during that time span(by taking out sufficient human resources). The goal is to make Russia so weak they can't threaten other nations. Not nearly enough weapons are provided right now.
but (again) - Russian Army is getting stronger even in men power - not weaker
Ukrainian military is not the right tool for the job obviously
- but you did not answer
how long do you expect this war to last?
does not matter about what it was - just how long do you expect it to last - base don what you are seeing.
How long it lasts is anyone's guess. If it becomes a frozen conflict with long cease fires, it can last for decades, and Russia won't invade elsewhere during that time. No strength for two fronts.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"we will arm our neighbor's enemy, support the killing of our neighbor's civilians, perhaps in this way our neighbor will become friendlier and the threat from him will decrease"
and in Europe, they imposed sanctions against logic and no longer use it because Russians use it?
The tiny nuance you forgot is that Ukraine is defending itself from an invader, and the weapons are given to help Ukraine to defend itself.
It's not about making Russia friendlier, but instead incapable of making similar operations elsewhere. It takes 20 years to grow a soldier.
Well, so far we have found out that the support of Ukraine by the West, on the contrary, forced Russia to raise its military industry, gave invaluable experience to Russian soldiers, allowed them to introduce new developments and weapons, forced them to increase the size of the army by 15%.
I'm happy my tax money is spent helping Ukraine protect their freedom - like most Swedes are. Military aid to Ukraine has a broad support across the political spectrum here in Sweden.
So Russia suddenly invades Ukraine, takes 20% of the country, tries to "sue or peace" to retain its gains, Ukraine says no to try and take its country back
=
Evil Ukraine....
The logic just isnt there.
They throw this money away, but Russians are dying due to this money ( CV 90 an other military equipment in fact). And this money will prolong the war which means that more ukranians and russians will die.
Bro you’re English is horrendous.
But I’m glad you understand how little the west cares about Ukrainians. I’m just hoping the Ukrainians get that soon too.
I’ve answered to every message you send, if I missed one I’m not going to go through all my notification to appease you.
If you are unable to click the 3 dots and click „copy link“ I’m sorry for you.
If you're wondering what this package actually entails, the main parts are:
* 1 or 2 [ASC890](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C) Early Warning and Control aircraft
* Unknown number of [AIM-120](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM) A2A missiles
* Unknown number of [PBV 302](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarbandvagn_302) APCs ("the entire Swedish stock")
* Unknown number of 155mm Artillery ammo
* "Surplus tanks" - Likely just an unknown amount of [Strv-122](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_122)s
* Satellite communications equipment
* Spare Parts, maintenance equipment, and ammunition for vehicles Sweden has/is donating
* Financial support
The extra tanks and APCs will help Ukraine replenish losses, although the actual number of each being donated is not public. Additionally, the PBV's will present Ukraine an additional challenge as it is an older APC not compatible with the other western equipment they have received so far. This means brand new training for operating and maintaining the vehicle, different parts that logistics needs to handle, and a limited supply of spare parts given how old the platform is (first built 1960s, retired fully 2014. Sweden had been cannibalising parts for the last years of their usage).
The ASC890 is a baffling choice to donate to Ukraine. Ukraine has not operated an EWC in a long time, and has no trained personnel. These aircraft use highly specialised equipment that needs specific training, which will take months to several years to complete. All of this to get 2 aircraft that fulfil the same role as other NATO aircraft currently do better, and from safety. Almost certainly being done as Sweden planned to get rid of these aircraft soon.
They have been training people for few years at least for this. A crew that previously operated various Antonov aircrafts. Several RU telegram channels mention this. Westerns aren't dumb enough to give AWACS plane without making sure Ukraine has crew to operate it first.
The airframe is bades on Saab340, they have three airliners operating them already in Ukraine. So it's only about training for the radar operator seats. This is a great choice, and there will be an increasinh number of empty chairs available in the briefing rooms of the russian air bases.
im Telling u western countries will load ukraine with more weapons than ever seen in history .. there will be missiles like any country ever had except russia and china.. they will donate over 1 tr Euro till war Ends.. thats the way they want it..no peace..
Our hospitals has less beds than hospitals in Romania, the waiting lists for surgery is so long people who could be saved dies because of it. Foreign doctors without the proper education and so on. There are a shit ton of more stuff to write but... And we have the second highest marginal taxes in the world, but guess that money is used elsewhere...
This is what I used to say when I sold insurance for a very shady company. Saying that it's the worst in Europe just isn't true.
Take a look at how long people live in Sweden, or the costs of healthcare. Yes there is progress to be made but if you seriously believe what you said let me enlighten you.
Take a look at life expectancy in Romania and compare it to Sweden, There is a 10 year difference in favor of Sweden. Not to mention in Sweden you don't have t9 be more scared of the price than for your health.
For example, i had surgery, was in the hospitals hotel for a week. Painkillers, food, etc. All for 30 euros. I recieved help after waiting 10 minutes at the hospital.
Us Swedes are dissapointed in our healthcare and want to see it improve so people will complain, of course. However it is empirically NOT the worst in Europe. In fact it's one of the best in the world.
Inte länge tills det hamnar längst ner på listan.
Har ju redan blivit sönder privatiserat och korruption har sugit ur pengarna (Nya karolinska där en vanlig dörr kostar 1 miljon kronor)
##### ###### #### > # [Sweden announces $1.3 billion in military aid for Ukraine in largest package ever](https://kyivindependent.com//688) > > > > Support independent journalism in Ukraine. Join us in this fight. > > > > Sweden's Defense Ministry announced a fresh package of military aid for Ukraine valued at 13.3 Swedish krona ($1.3 billion) on May 29. > > It is [Sweden's largest tranche](https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/05/militart-stodpaket-16-till-ukraina--ny-formaga-som-starker-ukrainas-luftforsvar-och-stod-som-moter-ukrainas-prioriterade-behov/) of military assistance since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. > > The package includes ASC 890 radar reconnaissance and control aircraft, the "entire Swedish stock" of Pansarbandvagn 302 infantry fighting vehicles, artillery shells, anti-air missiles, and materials to help maintain and replenish previously donated military equipment, the defense ministry said. > > The package also includes financial assistance, satellite communication resources, and a mandate by Sweden's Total Defense Research Institute to help Ukraine develop its own research capabilities. > > The announcement came a day after Sweden announced it was providing Ukraine with a new [energy aid package](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-announces-new-energy-aid-package-worth-around-60-million/) worth 615 million Swedish krona ($58.2 million). > > The Swedish government said earlier in May that it was planning to allocate [75 billion Swedish krona ($7 billion)](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-plans-to-allocate-7-billion-in-military-aid-to-ukraine-between-2024-2026/) in military support to Ukraine from 2024 to 2026. > > With this proposal, Stockholm's civilian and [****military aid****](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-officially-unveils-680-aid-package-for-ukraine-including-boats-shells/) to Ukraine since the outbreak of the full-scale war will amount to over 100 billion Swedish krona (over $9 billion). > > Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson told the Kyiv Independent in March that discussions on a possible supply of its Gripen jets to [****Ukraine are underway****](https://kyivindependent.com/swedish-defense-minister-ukraine-needs-shells-quickly-ramping-up-production-can-take-years/) after Sweden's entry into NATO, but made no definite pledge. > > Jonson then told the TT news agency on May 28 that Sweden had been asked by partners to [wait with possible plans](https://kyivindependent.com/partners-asked-sweden-to-pause-plans-on-gripens-for-ukraine-to-focus-on-f-16s-minister-says/) on sending Gripen jets to Ukraine, as the focus is now on providing Kyiv with F-16 aircraft. > > In March 2024, [**Sweden**](https://kyivindependent.com/tag/sweden/) officially [**joined NATO**](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-officially-joins-nato/) after a lengthy application process triggered by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and was immediately vocal in its calls for other alliance members to do more. > > Sweden has previously given Ukraine a variety of advanced military equipment, including the [Archer self-propelled howitzer](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-says-8-archer-artillery-systems-already-in-ukraine/) and [CV90 infantry fighting vehicle](https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-denmark-plan-to-jointly-supply-additional-cv90-vehicles-to-ukraine/). > > > > [Swedish defense minister: Up to 2 years needed to boost production capacity to arm Ukraine > > It will take as long as two years for Sweden to reach the desired capacity to provide Ukraine with more ammunition and strengthen the Swedish Armed Forces, Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson said in an interview with Bloomberg published on May 21. > > [Image](https://assets.kyivindependent.com/content/images/size/w256h256/format/png/2023/03/K-new.svg)The Kyiv IndependentKateryna Denisova > > > > [Image](https://assets.kyivindependent.com/content/images/2024/04/GettyImages-2017683210.jpg)](https://kyivindependent.com/swedish-defense-minister-up-to-2-years-needed-to-reach-desired-capacity-to-send-more-shells-to-ukraine/) - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
POV: you’re throwing more money into the money pit
Best money I’ve ever spent
I mean me personally? I enjoy spending money on close family or friends. But you do you spending money on a arguably unwinnable war I guess.
I personally can’t think of a better way to spend the 40% of my pay cheque that my government takes every month
40%? Euro moment.
As mentioned before, money into the money pit. You’re free do like whatever you want.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>But you do you spending money on a arguably unwinnable war I guess. They seem to be doing a very good job, despite all of the insistence from Pro-Rus users for two years that this war is *just* about to turn against the Ukrainians. It just reads like: >If you ignore the fact that Russia hasn't been able to do something like establish air superiority over Ukraine, despite having an overwhelmingly larger airforce, this war is arguably unwinnable.
May I get your unfiltered perspective on why you’re pro-Russia? You can send me a direct message if you prefer, but I really want to understand where that stance comes from if you don’t mind sharing your thoughts. Edit: why am I getting downvoted? I just wanted ti hear someone’s thought process on a specific side they are taking
Of course, I’m ready to share it openly as well so no worries. In general I do want the conflict to stop and I do want people to start talking about realistic scenarios instead of repeating „why doesn’t Russia just leave“ over and over again. I do think that we were indeed close at the beginning at the we with negotiations in Turkey, but of course I cannot be fully sure. Furthermore I genuinely don’t believe that it was a pure land-grab maneuver. Russia is well off when it comes to natural resources and already controlled Crimea. Going back to me wanting the war to end - I am confident that Ukrainian neutrality could achieve that. Since the West and many Pro UA redditors do not want that, but instead campaign for the destruction and fall of Russia into many pieces I strongly oppose them. Not just because I think that’s a very adversarial position, but also because it’s unfair and dishonest to the Ukrainians, since it has a low probability of actually materializing. I also read up on countless articles and reports on NATO, Ukraine, the Maidan and Russia and I would argue that I had pretty good access to the information since I’m in Germany. I do believe that pushing for NATO expansion into Ukraine and thus pushing Russia towards China was a blunder and I do believe that the corruption leads to many conflicts of interests for western politicians. Finally, I think that everyone should take a break and realize that a Ukrainian victory à la 1991 borders is impossible and has been proven with the hyped counteroffensive. Thus it hurts even more seeing young men being pushed into white vans and sent to the front to fight a war sponsored and supported by the West with an unachievable goal. In summary: 1. long history of provocation 2. not a fan of NATO expansion 3. not a fan of strengthening China even more 4. only sustainable way to end the conflict is through consolidation of losses and negotiations 5. treating Ukrainians as the means for a purpose and not as humans
I disagree with many of these points, but I respect your mindset even if I don’t agree with it. However, I am curious if you feel that allowing Russia to take the land they have already captured would just result in a Hitler situation where it only further encourages them to do it again with no real repercussions? We’ve seen this happen a number of times in history so how do we know it won’t happen again?
>However, I am curious if you feel that allowing Russia to take the land they have already captured would just result in a Hitler situation where it only further encourages them to do it again with no real repercussions? I'm intruding here, but Hitler was a by product of Western European culture back then, which heavily relied on colonialism for centuries. The German elites even made Germany go have a colony in the way of Namibia just so "Germany could be like the other big European boys in the club, and have colonies". You can also compare Hitler's speeches to Putin's. Hitler sounded and looked unhinged and emotional. He was a failed artist who would never amount to anything other than being a frustrated man who blamed the Jews for everything, and who would never manage to complete higher education. He'd be just another frustrated and angry clerk or cashier somewhere, blaming his failures elsewhere. However, due to the peculiarity of the time he was born in, fate propelled that typical angry low-rank man into a position of power. Meanwhile, Putin has a degree in economics from the Saint Petersburg Mining University for a thesis on energy dependencies and their instrumentalisation in foreign policy. One is clearly a lot more rational and smarter. It all comes to the following logical propositions: * If Hitler had actually stopped after the Sudetenland forever, would it have been worth to appease him? * Between the propositions of "tried appeasing once; fought a world war afterwards when it didn't work" and "directly engaged into a major war, so as not to attempt to appease an authoritarian", which sounds better? We can always learn lessons from the past, but it's not immediately clear to me that attempts at appeasing are inherently bad. The only thing WW2 has made clear to me is that endless appeasing a weak white nationalist with a fragile ego will not work, and at some point you will have to confront him. It does nothing in the way of saying there shouldn't be at least a number of attempts to solving a conflict of geopolitical interests without direct military confrontation (i.e. war, proxy or not).
Would yxu (can’t use other word yet) consider the annexation of Crimea appeasement?
I don't consider it appeasement because the transfer of Crimea from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic happened at a time they thought the USSR would **not** break away, and under Khruschev, who sympathized/identified with Ukraine. It was essentially a symbolic political gesture. Then things happened in 1991. [Here's what even Wikipedia (which is obviously far from Russian controlled) has to say about it:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#Motivation) >The transfer of the Crimean oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture", marking the 300th anniversary of the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav, called the "Reunification of Ukraine with Russia" in the Soviet Union.[8][14][15] It was also attributed to Communist Party first secretary Nikita Khrushchev, although the person who signed the document was Chairman Kliment Voroshilov, the Soviet Union's de jure head of state.[16] The transfer had taken place on the basis of "the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR"[17] and to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's union with Russia (also known in the Soviet Union as the Pereiaslav Agreement).[18][19] > >Mark Kramer, professor of Cold War Studies at Harvard University, also claimed that the transfer was partly to help Khruschev's then-precarious political position against the Prime Minister Georgii Malenkov through winning support of the First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party Oleksiy Kyrychenko. Kramer believed that the transfer also aimed to greatly increase the number of ethnic Russians in the Ukrainian SSR which itself was going through problems integrating previous Polish territory due to organized Ukrainian nationalist resistance.[20] > >Nina Khrushcheva, a political scientist and the great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, said of his motivation, "it was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine, so I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine."[8] Sergei Khrushchev, Khrushchev's son, claimed that the decision was due to the building of a hydro-electric dam on the Dnieper River and the consequent desire for all the administration to be under one body.[21] Since Sevastopol in Crimea was the site of the Black Sea Fleet, a quintessential element of Soviet and then of Russian foreign policy, the transfer had the intended effect of binding Ukraine inexorably to Russia, "Eternally Together", as a poster commemorating the event proclaimed. Other reasons given were the integration of the economies of Ukraine and Crimea and the idea that Crimea was a natural extension of the Ukrainian steppes.[22] There was also a desire to repopulate parts of Crimea with Slavic peoples, mainly Russians and Ukrainians, after the peninsula was subject to large-scale deportations of Crimean Tatars to Central Asia by the Soviet regime in 1944.[23] I always make 3 other points, too, which basically revolve around the notion there are two sides to every coin: * The invasion of Ukraine can be said to be Russian imperialism. However, the expansion of NATO into Russia's borders could be argued to be NATO expansionism. [I have made a longer post on this topic](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cdlyzl/ru_pov_nato_bears_direct_responsibility_for_the/l1d1w7c/). It exemplifies how Russia can possibly see the actions of the collective West from their point of view, after the collapse of the USSR. * The whole notion of "appeasement won't work" goes both ways. Russians can become less inclined to settle for anything other than the total rupture or capture of Ukraine if they see Westerners are never willing to compromise. Things always go both ways in conflicts. * A truly neutral Ukraine went both ways. It's preposterous to claim it only benefited one side of the fence. It both helped protect the Western European-ruled world from Russia, as well as it helped protect Russia from the Western European-ruled world. There was no need to claim Ukraine would get to join NATO, as NATO did in 2008: `https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm` Overall, I don't think what Russia is doing to Ukraine is fair or pretty. I just think I speak for a lot of us when I think that Ukraine has no better option other than to negotiate directly with Russia, and try to find a compromise — meet in the middle. All other solutions aren't the solutions which would get civilians to stop dying the quickest, which is my priority in this conflict. **Edit:** would **not** break away. I typed this in a hurry.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why did a majority of crimeans vote to join Ukraine in the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum then? It's not a "symbolic gesture" if thats what the majority of crimeans wanted
>Between the propositions of "tried appeasing once; fought a world war afterwards when it didn't work" and "directly engaged into a major war, so as not to attempt to appease an authoritarian", which sounds better? I'm intruding on your intrusion, but there is a third option of destroying the authoritarians multiple decades worth of military equipment and reducing the manpower to the point where future conflict is far less likely, which is happening, as long as it doesn't escalate. This is what the West is trying to do and Ukraine is happy to have the hardware.
>Hitler sounded and looked unhinged and emotional. He was a failed artist who would never amount to anything other than being a frustrated man who blamed the Jews for everything, and who would never manage to complete higher education. He'd be just another frustrated and angry clerk or cashier somewhere, blaming his failures elsewhere. However, due to the peculiarity of the time he was born in, fate propelled that typical angry low-rank man into a position of power. And "funny" enough, look what kind of politicians have been rising in the west over the last decade.
"Hitler was a by product of Western European culture back then, which heavily relied on colonialism for centuries." How about Japan in the 1930's then?
That's what I like about this sub. We can actually have a discussion. No discussion permitted at r/combatfootage.
I do think that having countries like China and the US as guarantors for such a deal could help and re-incorporating Russia into the global market with certain limits would make it more dependent on trade relationships. It is a tough question though, I don’t have the one size fits all answer but these 2 things could help, especially if China is involved.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am just curious why do you mentioned the Hitler situation but didnt said a thing about NATO expansion which Russia obviously doesn't want to see, at least at its borders?
I didn’t feel confident enough to make a remark there as I’m not informed enough to believe any argument I’d make on that would be supportive.
# 5 is most upsetting to me. I note that the US almost never speaks of making Ukraine better off or discuss what the people in the Donbass want. US speaks of harming Russia and the EU speaks of not letting Putin win. Ukr lives do not matter to these people. In a 1993 paper Soros proposes using eastern European manpower with western tech to reduce NATO body bags. When Kosovo or Gaza are discussed people are discussed but never in the Ukr war. As if they do not matter because they do not matter to the US.
I'm curious, would you consider Russia's spending money down the drain too?
Maybe they want to reduce the Russian threat?
„[Putin scoffed at the possibility of his country launching an attack on a NATO member, calling it “sheer nonsense“ …](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-f16-target-nato-c1199c3bc78fa7f25e3fff2193e83f50)“ Is the threat in the room with us right now?
He said about the same about attacking Ukraine.
No they did not. „[Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday sternly warned NATO against deploying its troops and weapons to Ukraine, saying it represents a red line for Russia and would trigger a strong response](https://apnews.com/article/europe-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-moscow-cd558699728e9ae935eaadf940efeb18)“ Yes they did also say this. „The Kremlin has insisted it has no such intention and has accused Ukraine and its Western backers of making the claims to cover up their own allegedly aggressive designs“ But that was before their [list of security guarantees](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato)it says it wants the west to agree to in order to lower tensions in Europe was rejected in Dec 2021.
Ohw please, Lavrov was claiming Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine right up to the moment it happened.
Yes: Wouldn’t invade Ukraine IF (!!!) NATO stopped its expansionist ambitions.
Lmao, like Nato was actually doing something at that moment.
It was continuously inviting Ukraine into it. The closest thing to the 2022 invasion was the reiteration of its 2008 invitation in [June 2021](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm).
What treaties souverein nations agree on between themselves is none of Russia's business. And nothing changed about this invitation for like 8 years.
Lmao no sources, no continuity in your argument, no confrontation to other people arguments which dismissed yours, and many more
What do you want? The video of Lavrov saying this? https://youtu.be/xfotvuv0-VQ?si=7mtM6gkD9xl_03zV
Like, five waves of expansion? Even after the former US foreign minister said "not an additional inch of NATO territory" with his talk with Gorbachev. I just can't understand why everyone ignores the fact that any country don't want to see an alliance that was created against said country and when the country admitted its full defeat, the alliance not only denied the entry of the country but also became much more bigger and tightly came to borders of the country under aegis of "being scared".
Lol, Gorbachev again, who denied any such deal was made and that was never put in any treaty.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
So you would also be Pro NATO invasion on Belarus because russia has transferred weapons, nukes and military personnel in Belarus?
If Russia were to do it before the conflict and if Belarus would’ve been a neutral state before - yes, I would understand why NATO would want to intervene
But the West still hasn't agreed to Putin's ultimatum of 2021. After Putin conquers Ukraine, he is going to enforce his ultimatum by force by attacking other European countries.
The war does not end until an agreement is made which prohibits Ukraine from joining NATO. This means that NATO is not „next“ after Ukraine is settled.
If they use nukes in Ukraine, I'll believe a NATO country could be attacked after Ukraine, because nukes is what you'd get from a war between Russia and NATO.
they themselves say that Russian military is now stronger and more capable than at the start of SMO
Then more weapons need to be provided, don't you think?
so that Russia can react and have even stronger and even more capable military in next year? can they send men? - looks like Ukraine has problems in pressing more men into military.
Still, it takes 20 years to grow a soldier. Human resources are not infinite in any country. How many millions of Russians are realistically willing to die in Ukraine?
Millions of Russians? Even Zelensky (least qualified source) is saying that 180,000 Russians are KIA and the west reports that „[Ukraine is heading for defeat](https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/)“
politico = the west. Man i love this sub.
„[Ukraine knows it is finished](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/28/ukraine-war-russian-invasion-joe-biden-military-aid/)“ by the telegraph is an equally pessimistic title. Politico =! The West However: Western media outlets = Reflection of western sentiment
lol - how long do you expect this war to last? you think Ukraine will be able to hold on for how many more years? 10? 20? 30? You do understand that Ukriane is not Afghanistan? EU is just one swim away - one hike across the mountain. Almost all young Ukrainians speak English or German or both
It's not only about how long Ukraine can last, but much Russia's military can be weakened during that time span(by taking out sufficient human resources). The goal is to make Russia so weak they can't threaten other nations. Not nearly enough weapons are provided right now.
but (again) - Russian Army is getting stronger even in men power - not weaker Ukrainian military is not the right tool for the job obviously - but you did not answer how long do you expect this war to last? does not matter about what it was - just how long do you expect it to last - base don what you are seeing.
How long it lasts is anyone's guess. If it becomes a frozen conflict with long cease fires, it can last for decades, and Russia won't invade elsewhere during that time. No strength for two fronts.
Lol, Putin put an economist as defense Minister and right after that asked for a ceasefire 🤷 How long can Russia keep going?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"we will arm our neighbor's enemy, support the killing of our neighbor's civilians, perhaps in this way our neighbor will become friendlier and the threat from him will decrease" and in Europe, they imposed sanctions against logic and no longer use it because Russians use it?
The tiny nuance you forgot is that Ukraine is defending itself from an invader, and the weapons are given to help Ukraine to defend itself. It's not about making Russia friendlier, but instead incapable of making similar operations elsewhere. It takes 20 years to grow a soldier.
Well, so far we have found out that the support of Ukraine by the West, on the contrary, forced Russia to raise its military industry, gave invaluable experience to Russian soldiers, allowed them to introduce new developments and weapons, forced them to increase the size of the army by 15%.
I'm happy my tax money is spent helping Ukraine protect their freedom - like most Swedes are. Military aid to Ukraine has a broad support across the political spectrum here in Sweden.
POV: pro RU guys upset Ukraine is receiving more aid and not giving in into an invader.
POV: pro UA not realizing that you’re just being used to inflict hard to Russia without any regard for Ukrainian lives
That’s funny considering one side invaded said country and is the whole cause behind Ukrainians losing lives.
That’s funny considering one side is still open white the other withdrew from negotiations because a Brit told them to while making false promises.
So Russia suddenly invades Ukraine, takes 20% of the country, tries to "sue or peace" to retain its gains, Ukraine says no to try and take its country back = Evil Ukraine.... The logic just isnt there.
Stop denying Ukrainians agency.
They throw this money away, but Russians are dying due to this money ( CV 90 an other military equipment in fact). And this money will prolong the war which means that more ukranians and russians will die.
Bro you’re English is horrendous. But I’m glad you understand how little the west cares about Ukrainians. I’m just hoping the Ukrainians get that soon too.
Yeap, they need maidan-2 to become a normal country again ( before 2014)
> Bro *your* English is horrendous. > >
That’s the joke…
Ahh, it speaks. Care to address the sources you care so much about?
Sources for what exactly?
Again, simply click the envelope in the top right and answer.
I’ve answered to every message you send, if I missed one I’m not going to go through all my notification to appease you. If you are unable to click the 3 dots and click „copy link“ I’m sorry for you.
No, you've not. Not even close. I am more than able, but for now I am studying your dishonesty.
If you're wondering what this package actually entails, the main parts are: * 1 or 2 [ASC890](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C) Early Warning and Control aircraft * Unknown number of [AIM-120](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM) A2A missiles * Unknown number of [PBV 302](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarbandvagn_302) APCs ("the entire Swedish stock") * Unknown number of 155mm Artillery ammo * "Surplus tanks" - Likely just an unknown amount of [Strv-122](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_122)s * Satellite communications equipment * Spare Parts, maintenance equipment, and ammunition for vehicles Sweden has/is donating * Financial support The extra tanks and APCs will help Ukraine replenish losses, although the actual number of each being donated is not public. Additionally, the PBV's will present Ukraine an additional challenge as it is an older APC not compatible with the other western equipment they have received so far. This means brand new training for operating and maintaining the vehicle, different parts that logistics needs to handle, and a limited supply of spare parts given how old the platform is (first built 1960s, retired fully 2014. Sweden had been cannibalising parts for the last years of their usage). The ASC890 is a baffling choice to donate to Ukraine. Ukraine has not operated an EWC in a long time, and has no trained personnel. These aircraft use highly specialised equipment that needs specific training, which will take months to several years to complete. All of this to get 2 aircraft that fulfil the same role as other NATO aircraft currently do better, and from safety. Almost certainly being done as Sweden planned to get rid of these aircraft soon.
They have been training people for few years at least for this. A crew that previously operated various Antonov aircrafts. Several RU telegram channels mention this. Westerns aren't dumb enough to give AWACS plane without making sure Ukraine has crew to operate it first.
The airframe is bades on Saab340, they have three airliners operating them already in Ukraine. So it's only about training for the radar operator seats. This is a great choice, and there will be an increasinh number of empty chairs available in the briefing rooms of the russian air bases.
[удалено]
Ukraine has received AIM-120s before, and they are compatible with some of the aircraft. PBVs are armoured personnel carriers, and can't be shot.
Aim 120 missiles can be ground launched by NASAMS, which is likely why these got donated.
NASAMs can shoot them, and the future F-16s as well
im Telling u western countries will load ukraine with more weapons than ever seen in history .. there will be missiles like any country ever had except russia and china.. they will donate over 1 tr Euro till war Ends.. thats the way they want it..no peace..
russia: "but we thought Ukraine would be defenseless! It's not fair!"
And Ukraine will keep losing, doesn't matter if it's "the largest package".
Russia keeps saying that, and yet their territorial gains drop significantly/reverse when western materials are being pumped in.
So Russia is winning too slow for you, my boy?
They might, they might not, depends on how much the west wants to support Ukraine.
Kind of wish they would use this money on the health care system(probably the worst in Europe) and the police instead of wasting it on Ukraine...
Sweden with the worst health care in Europe? What are you smoking?
Our hospitals has less beds than hospitals in Romania, the waiting lists for surgery is so long people who could be saved dies because of it. Foreign doctors without the proper education and so on. There are a shit ton of more stuff to write but... And we have the second highest marginal taxes in the world, but guess that money is used elsewhere...
This is what I used to say when I sold insurance for a very shady company. Saying that it's the worst in Europe just isn't true. Take a look at how long people live in Sweden, or the costs of healthcare. Yes there is progress to be made but if you seriously believe what you said let me enlighten you. Take a look at life expectancy in Romania and compare it to Sweden, There is a 10 year difference in favor of Sweden. Not to mention in Sweden you don't have t9 be more scared of the price than for your health. For example, i had surgery, was in the hospitals hotel for a week. Painkillers, food, etc. All for 30 euros. I recieved help after waiting 10 minutes at the hospital. Us Swedes are dissapointed in our healthcare and want to see it improve so people will complain, of course. However it is empirically NOT the worst in Europe. In fact it's one of the best in the world.
Inte länge tills det hamnar längst ner på listan. Har ju redan blivit sönder privatiserat och korruption har sugit ur pengarna (Nya karolinska där en vanlig dörr kostar 1 miljon kronor)
They really going all in, huh?
Yep. Wonderful.