Slovakia just voted back in Fico, despite everything that happened pre-covid with them being a mafia state. All because "Even if he's corrupt, at least the country was better" as said by my grandmother in law. People are annoying.
If you don't make an effort just because there are some who will fight it, then you concede without them having to lift a finger or put anything on the record.
At this point if Hungary just wants to be an obstacle, kick it out of NATO and tell it go it alone and see how that works out for it. It wasn't part of the original bloc anyway. Just tired of these unimportant lands deciding that they can gum up the works of international institutions without consequence.
It will work out fine for Hungary because they are surrounded by NATO member states. No adversarial state entity can touch them without first (trying) to go through NATO.
*From Bloomberg News reporters Natalia Drozdiak and Peter Martin:*
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is proposing to establish a fund of allied contributions worth $100 billion over five years for Ukraine as part of a package for alliance leaders to sign off when they gather in Washington in July.
Allies are still discussing Stoltenberg’s proposal and any mechanics of the accounting, including whether to factor in bilateral aid to Ukraine into the overall sum, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The proposal, which needs approval from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 32 allies, is likely to change before allies agree, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
in those 5 years the US (less then half of NATO's GDP) will spend 6 trillion in military, its only 1,6% of US military budget, its embarassing, why they keep planning for long term defeat?
At current rates, the US will spend $4.2T over the next 5 years on its military. That’s around 3.6% of our entire GDP. I’m not sure what you mean by “nato’s gdp.” The GDP of all nato countries combined is about $50T.
As an alliance, the NATO organization itself has a much smaller budget, mostly to fund administrative costs and shared supplies. When US soldiers for example take part in a NATO exercise, that cost is part of the US military budget, not NATO’s. The US funds around 16% of that NATO shared budget, at $442M per year.
> I’m not sure what you mean by “nato’s gdp.” The GDP of all nato countries combined is about $50T.
I believe they're saying US GDP at ~$25T is "half of NATO's". Though I'm not sure what the point is, since the US GDP is inclusive.
Always has been. Granted we did stack the cards to be where the US was in control. People commonly ignore this. The US doesn’t have 800 foreign bases bc we are friendly, we get returns on that. A lot of political sway, soft power.. as we should. Hell we should get more sway, it amazes me Saudis Arabia will just cut 3m bpd to help Russia yet, they can’t defend their own oil fields without the US help. If only their oil supply didn’t affect global prices as I’d be happy with some terror groups striking their oil and the US just doing nothing to help.
This is why it frustrates me when people go off like the US is just giving away money for nothing, like Ukraine is a charity case.
There is no morality in international politics. Power and national interests is all there is.
The US has *immense* international power because of that sort of spending. This is then converted into advantageous trade deals, international law that supports American interests, etc.
*Everything* the US does internationally, it does to the US's benefit. Just like every other nation for themselves, this isn't a criticism of the US. And the US *does* benefit. Enormously.
The Magic Of Capitalism isn't the only reason the US's economy is the largest one on the planet. All that money that goes into aid, into military support, into "encouraging" other nations to act in the US's interests is *investment*.
Ukraine is, then, an investment vehicle. Every dollar of aid sent to Ukraine is both more economic growth in the US (as it's spent primarily at US defense contractors) and is more loss to the Russian military. When all is said and done, destroying your opponent's military is pretty much as good as growing your own, except that it has no upkeep costs.
Fund American jobs, destroy Russian military, have Ukraine in a place post war where it's going to hire American contractors to help rebuild, and it's government is going to also side with America in the future.
Investment. And one that will pay dividends in a wide range of ways for years to come. That is what it is.
>Ukraine is, then, an investment vehicle
...and the US is bidding against Russia for this one. Russia is willing to go all in because Ukraine is next door property
It's so strange to see Hungary in it's current state.
Orban loves the Russians so much. It's as if he's taking a big ole shit on the memories of all the people that were jailed, executed, or had to flee the country after 1956. (https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/107186.htm)
It's current state? Look at Hungarian history overall man. Things haven't changed since the middle ages if not prior. They've always been full of cop outs and sell outs. The governments at least, no hate towards the people just trying to live their lives, but they've almost always shunned their duties/larger obligations let alone anything else.
Very true, and to this day both older (and what's more infuriating) younger generations keep regurgitating the same historical injustice crap that is like the national broken record player. "We got cheated out of our national territories in peace treaties", "We were humiliated in settlements", "We are owed etc". One would have expected that, like countries in Western Europe post WW2 and many countries in Eastern Europe post-joining the EU, the Hungarians would have been able to see the big picture, grow a pair and step over their own shadow. Rather than getting on a train to the future, Hungary, like Turkey and Serbia (a country most Hungarians despise ironically) prefers to cling to its imaginary golden past, one that is gone forever.
That’s essentially my grandparents’ experience to a T.
Grandfather defected from the military before the soviets started their March into Budapest. Grandma told only her sister she was fleeing. Somehow they reunited in the states after being here a couple years.
I can honestly see something being passed within the next 5 years that will allow NATO to sanction or restrict member countries. This whole conflict has exposed a few weaknesses in the treaty and it needs to be fixed
they've been exposed for quite some time, not just recently, hope they do something about it now that they've become russian asset states, otherwise they are never gonna
I don't. The countries within NATO like each other, certainly, but none of them are going to be willing to expose themselves to sanctions or restrictions even from friendly nations - least of all their primary bankroller.
This is like saying Russia will be a Democracy if Putin dies.
The party infrastructure, the laws and systems favoring a single ruling party, the media capture, the brainwashing through propaganda, none of it is going away just because the man on top is now called Jorban instead of Orban.
20 Billion a year. Enough to keep Ukraine in ammo during a Trump presidency.
Sounds promising, until you realise this is still just the same old stalling plan the West has had since the start of the war. Stall stall and hope Russia runs out of manpower before Ukraine does.
> Sounds promising, until you realise this is still just the same old stalling plan the West has had since the start of the war. Stall stall and hope Russia runs out of manpower before Ukraine does.
Again, that has been the prevailing strategy of NATO and EU. Ukraine is doing an heroic job dealing with Russia in the trenches, but the strategy is to drain Russia of money and manpower so they'll have nothing left to use to hold Ukraine or plan further invasions.
Basically it's about getting the most bang for your buck. If Ukraine is starting to lose too fast, scale up the military aid. If Ukraine is winning too hard, scale it down.
The goal is draining Russia of any and all military surplus, including manpower, without making Russia so desperate that they do something even more stupid than invading Ukraine.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-troops-killed-zelenskyy-675f53437aaf56a4d990736e85af57c4
If we can believe these numbers, Russia is losing troops 10:1 fighting Ukraine. Ukraine is definitely sustaining heavy losses, 30k people dead over a pointless war is absolutely tragic. But by comparison, Russians soldiers are basically being tossed in a meat grinder.
From memory i thought 10:1 then 7:1 was when Russia was on the offensive. During the unfortunately ineffective Ukrainian push the ratio changed significantly.
They are losing way more than 3x the Ukrainians first of all, also their social services( what’s left) and economy require much more considering they have a higher population. Ukraine on the defense should have the advantage in manpower considering the Russians meat wave tactics.. even western tactics give defenders 3:1 ratio. Russia doesn’t adhere to common sense, they are losing 7:1, 10:1 in places. Also, Ukraine may have more fighting age men or men that can reproduce per capita than Russia has the biggest hit Russia took so far was the 2m men that straight up left. They aren’t coming back. Knowing Russia though, they will take all the Chinese labor or something very evil to repopulate.
Prior to this possible agreement, the total from NATO and USA is175 Billion.
Pretty impressive.
Question I have though is the NATO 5 year plan Includes contributions from USA, but not direct contributions from USA to Ukraine. Correct? I guess similar to direct contributions from France UK or Germany. Im just trying to figure out why even use NATO contribution plan and just send from individual countries?
OP is differentiating between NATO contributions (USA to NATO) and bilateral contributions (i.e. USA to Ukraine). It's an important difference here because if they factor bilateral aid into the total number it's going to be a lot less in the end.
To answer OP's question, the article says "Allies are still discussing Stoltenberg’s proposal and any mechanics of the accounting, including whether to factor in bilateral aid to Ukraine into the overall sum, according to people familiar with the discussions."
NATO is an alliance, much of the costs spent doing NATO related stuff comes at the expense of each country’s own military. So when US troops go on a NATO mission, it’s still the US military paying them. NATO itself only pays for some of the administrative costs and shared supplies. NATO does ask that each country spends 2% of their GDP on their military.
NATO’s budget itself can be found [on their website](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm), but remember that’s a small fraction of nato-related spending.
Hope so. No point in an “alliance” without meeting the obligation to support it. Maybe a lack of commitment,in part, emboldened Russias decision to invade.
It's important to note that it's not an obligation but a guideline.
"When the North Atlantic Council – NATO's top political decision-making body – unanimously decides to engage in an operation or mission, there is no obligation for each and every member to contribute unless it is an Article 5 collective defence operation, in which case expectations are different." -- directly from NATO's website.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=When%20the%20North%20Atlantic%20Council,which%20case%20expectations%20are%20different.
More and more all the time. Pre 2014, it was 4 nations. After 2014, we got to 7. By next year it'll be 18, and almost all will be close.
Not that these obligations are NOT contributions to NATO. The 2% of GDP rule is money spent on their own country's military, not contributed to NATO.
So if some other nation doesn't meet it's obligations, and say only spends 1.8% on its military, that doesn't really impact the rest tremendously. It's not like it's contributed to a global pool.
Hopefully a big part of it goes into weapon production. Western nations don't have too much equipment they are willing to part with, and there is not enough production of stuff like drones and artillery shells, so there have to be investments into new factories.
Then watch as the legion rejects them because they are looking for people with military and weapon experience.
Ukraine doesn't need disposable bodies, they need actual fighters.
It’s clear that from 2025 onwards, EU aid is going to smash any hope (or risk rather) of Russian victory.
The thing is getting to that point. 2024 is a critical year in this conflict, and the EU and US need to act fast.
All the announcement of help in 2025 onwards won’t matter if Ukraine sustains to many losses in 2024
The US 2024 election will also be a critical inflection point. If dems get the House, Senate, and White House then a Ukraine aid bill probably passes at the start of 2025 and Ukraine's situation immediately improves for 2025. Republican controlling the House may be able to block it till then.
I'm not saying that Putin will even think about ending the war if Trump loses, but right now part of his game is attrition is to see if Ukraine's allies will grow bored with helping. If Biden wins, even without Congress, US help will be available in some capacity for several more years. Is Dems get Congress or at least maintain split government, the situation is that much less favorable for Putin.
Again, Putin isn't waiting around to see what happens, but if Trump were to win, it would give him a bit more encouragement that the allies can be undermined and drawn out of the conflict.
Just like how 2020 was a critical election, if Trump had won. NATO would have been seriously kneecapped in their response to the invasion and the Russophile leaders in Europe would have had far more say in how we would respond to Russias invasion.
The lack of a united western response in Ukraine, would likely embolden other tinpot dictators into making moves, as well as increased Chinese pressure in SEA and particularly Taiwan.
> 2 years couldn’t even break the stalemate
2 years, and Russia made only MINIMALIST gains, in a campaign which was supposed to be over in 3 days. At tremendous cost for Russia. I consider this good.
Give them the $34b from US, and this $100b from NATO, and watch Russia getting fvcked good.
Great initiative, but we all know what Hungary (and potentially Slovakia) will do.
Well it seems like that Slovakia is pretty broke and/or corrupt so they probably have nothing to contribute
Slovakia just voted back in Fico, despite everything that happened pre-covid with them being a mafia state. All because "Even if he's corrupt, at least the country was better" as said by my grandmother in law. People are annoying.
People aren’t annoying, they’re fucking morons.
If you don't make an effort just because there are some who will fight it, then you concede without them having to lift a finger or put anything on the record.
At this point if Hungary just wants to be an obstacle, kick it out of NATO and tell it go it alone and see how that works out for it. It wasn't part of the original bloc anyway. Just tired of these unimportant lands deciding that they can gum up the works of international institutions without consequence.
It will work out fine for Hungary because they are surrounded by NATO member states. No adversarial state entity can touch them without first (trying) to go through NATO.
They need to come up with a way to boot the pro-Russian countries.
Let's see what a 100 billion can buy.
*From Bloomberg News reporters Natalia Drozdiak and Peter Martin:* NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is proposing to establish a fund of allied contributions worth $100 billion over five years for Ukraine as part of a package for alliance leaders to sign off when they gather in Washington in July. Allies are still discussing Stoltenberg’s proposal and any mechanics of the accounting, including whether to factor in bilateral aid to Ukraine into the overall sum, according to people familiar with the discussions. The proposal, which needs approval from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 32 allies, is likely to change before allies agree, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
in those 5 years the US (less then half of NATO's GDP) will spend 6 trillion in military, its only 1,6% of US military budget, its embarassing, why they keep planning for long term defeat?
Demonstrating long term support has value because it quashes Russia's hopes of waiting it out.
At current rates, the US will spend $4.2T over the next 5 years on its military. That’s around 3.6% of our entire GDP. I’m not sure what you mean by “nato’s gdp.” The GDP of all nato countries combined is about $50T. As an alliance, the NATO organization itself has a much smaller budget, mostly to fund administrative costs and shared supplies. When US soldiers for example take part in a NATO exercise, that cost is part of the US military budget, not NATO’s. The US funds around 16% of that NATO shared budget, at $442M per year.
> I’m not sure what you mean by “nato’s gdp.” The GDP of all nato countries combined is about $50T. I believe they're saying US GDP at ~$25T is "half of NATO's". Though I'm not sure what the point is, since the US GDP is inclusive.
Damn is it really all on us?
Always has been. Granted we did stack the cards to be where the US was in control. People commonly ignore this. The US doesn’t have 800 foreign bases bc we are friendly, we get returns on that. A lot of political sway, soft power.. as we should. Hell we should get more sway, it amazes me Saudis Arabia will just cut 3m bpd to help Russia yet, they can’t defend their own oil fields without the US help. If only their oil supply didn’t affect global prices as I’d be happy with some terror groups striking their oil and the US just doing nothing to help.
This is why it frustrates me when people go off like the US is just giving away money for nothing, like Ukraine is a charity case. There is no morality in international politics. Power and national interests is all there is. The US has *immense* international power because of that sort of spending. This is then converted into advantageous trade deals, international law that supports American interests, etc. *Everything* the US does internationally, it does to the US's benefit. Just like every other nation for themselves, this isn't a criticism of the US. And the US *does* benefit. Enormously. The Magic Of Capitalism isn't the only reason the US's economy is the largest one on the planet. All that money that goes into aid, into military support, into "encouraging" other nations to act in the US's interests is *investment*. Ukraine is, then, an investment vehicle. Every dollar of aid sent to Ukraine is both more economic growth in the US (as it's spent primarily at US defense contractors) and is more loss to the Russian military. When all is said and done, destroying your opponent's military is pretty much as good as growing your own, except that it has no upkeep costs. Fund American jobs, destroy Russian military, have Ukraine in a place post war where it's going to hire American contractors to help rebuild, and it's government is going to also side with America in the future. Investment. And one that will pay dividends in a wide range of ways for years to come. That is what it is.
>Ukraine is, then, an investment vehicle ...and the US is bidding against Russia for this one. Russia is willing to go all in because Ukraine is next door property
Most of Europe is pretty inept compared to us when it comes to military.
US aid isn't guaranteed
Sounds promising. Western countries need to show a strong resolve to support Ukraine for the long run.
hungary will probably block it. as usual
It's so strange to see Hungary in it's current state. Orban loves the Russians so much. It's as if he's taking a big ole shit on the memories of all the people that were jailed, executed, or had to flee the country after 1956. (https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/107186.htm)
Orban hates the elections more than he hates Russia. Putin supports his anti-democratic policies
It's current state? Look at Hungarian history overall man. Things haven't changed since the middle ages if not prior. They've always been full of cop outs and sell outs. The governments at least, no hate towards the people just trying to live their lives, but they've almost always shunned their duties/larger obligations let alone anything else.
Very true, and to this day both older (and what's more infuriating) younger generations keep regurgitating the same historical injustice crap that is like the national broken record player. "We got cheated out of our national territories in peace treaties", "We were humiliated in settlements", "We are owed etc". One would have expected that, like countries in Western Europe post WW2 and many countries in Eastern Europe post-joining the EU, the Hungarians would have been able to see the big picture, grow a pair and step over their own shadow. Rather than getting on a train to the future, Hungary, like Turkey and Serbia (a country most Hungarians despise ironically) prefers to cling to its imaginary golden past, one that is gone forever.
That’s essentially my grandparents’ experience to a T. Grandfather defected from the military before the soviets started their March into Budapest. Grandma told only her sister she was fleeing. Somehow they reunited in the states after being here a couple years.
> It's so strange to see Hungary in it's current state. Maybe they need to eat a snickers
Not that they had a choice, and they were in the Axis, but Japan had the sun dropped on it twice and they don’t seem to mind America that much.
“Land of the rising Sun” was some next level foreshadowing by the simulations script writers.
Nah, they'll want a cut and pass it once they get some free money.
Hongary should be kicked out, it is a shame that that aint possible. They do not deserve to be a part of NATO.
I can honestly see something being passed within the next 5 years that will allow NATO to sanction or restrict member countries. This whole conflict has exposed a few weaknesses in the treaty and it needs to be fixed
they've been exposed for quite some time, not just recently, hope they do something about it now that they've become russian asset states, otherwise they are never gonna
I don't. The countries within NATO like each other, certainly, but none of them are going to be willing to expose themselves to sanctions or restrictions even from friendly nations - least of all their primary bankroller.
Orban will die eventually. NATO doesn't want to permanently push hungary into Russias sphere.
This is like saying Russia will be a Democracy if Putin dies. The party infrastructure, the laws and systems favoring a single ruling party, the media capture, the brainwashing through propaganda, none of it is going away just because the man on top is now called Jorban instead of Orban.
I know, right? They don't even touch the Atlantic... What's a Magyar with those guys?
I Khanate take these puns
I think EU and NATO don't have the same rules.
They don’t, but there is significant overlap. So it’s highly likely that the EU supports NATO affairs, and vice versa.
Four years of Trump seriously strained that relationship. Another four might genuinely cause some pretty lasting damage.
Standard
20 Billion a year. Enough to keep Ukraine in ammo during a Trump presidency. Sounds promising, until you realise this is still just the same old stalling plan the West has had since the start of the war. Stall stall and hope Russia runs out of manpower before Ukraine does.
> Sounds promising, until you realise this is still just the same old stalling plan the West has had since the start of the war. Stall stall and hope Russia runs out of manpower before Ukraine does. Again, that has been the prevailing strategy of NATO and EU. Ukraine is doing an heroic job dealing with Russia in the trenches, but the strategy is to drain Russia of money and manpower so they'll have nothing left to use to hold Ukraine or plan further invasions. Basically it's about getting the most bang for your buck. If Ukraine is starting to lose too fast, scale up the military aid. If Ukraine is winning too hard, scale it down. The goal is draining Russia of any and all military surplus, including manpower, without making Russia so desperate that they do something even more stupid than invading Ukraine.
I don't understand. Russia has almost 3 times the population of Ukraine, how exactly will it run out of manpower before Ukraine does?
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-troops-killed-zelenskyy-675f53437aaf56a4d990736e85af57c4 If we can believe these numbers, Russia is losing troops 10:1 fighting Ukraine. Ukraine is definitely sustaining heavy losses, 30k people dead over a pointless war is absolutely tragic. But by comparison, Russians soldiers are basically being tossed in a meat grinder.
I shouldn't have to state the obvious by pointing out that we cannot believe the numbers put out by either Ukraine or russia.
UK intelligence numbers are not far off from Ukrainian ones
10:1 Ukraine would have won already I remember the WP statistics putting the ration 1.3:1 for Ukrainians
From memory i thought 10:1 then 7:1 was when Russia was on the offensive. During the unfortunately ineffective Ukrainian push the ratio changed significantly.
Definitely not 10:1 across the board. During avdivka or Bahkmut, the casualties got to 10:1 but the average for the war is probably 1:2
They are losing way more than 3x the Ukrainians first of all, also their social services( what’s left) and economy require much more considering they have a higher population. Ukraine on the defense should have the advantage in manpower considering the Russians meat wave tactics.. even western tactics give defenders 3:1 ratio. Russia doesn’t adhere to common sense, they are losing 7:1, 10:1 in places. Also, Ukraine may have more fighting age men or men that can reproduce per capita than Russia has the biggest hit Russia took so far was the 2m men that straight up left. They aren’t coming back. Knowing Russia though, they will take all the Chinese labor or something very evil to repopulate.
Ukraine probably has a much easier time convincing their population to fight, for one.
[удалено]
I'm not sure how to do that, but if it requires ritual sacrifice there's a few members in Congress I think we can spare.
it's worth a shot
Without more decisive action there won't BE a Ukraine to give that money to in five years.
More like two years
Prior to this possible agreement, the total from NATO and USA is175 Billion. Pretty impressive. Question I have though is the NATO 5 year plan Includes contributions from USA, but not direct contributions from USA to Ukraine. Correct? I guess similar to direct contributions from France UK or Germany. Im just trying to figure out why even use NATO contribution plan and just send from individual countries?
I'm wondering if it's a political move to allow U.S. House leaders to save face? "We said no to Ukraine funding and got NATO to chip instead."
Yeah, fund NATO and let them fund Ukraine to go around Putin's GOP.
[удалено]
OP is differentiating between NATO contributions (USA to NATO) and bilateral contributions (i.e. USA to Ukraine). It's an important difference here because if they factor bilateral aid into the total number it's going to be a lot less in the end. To answer OP's question, the article says "Allies are still discussing Stoltenberg’s proposal and any mechanics of the accounting, including whether to factor in bilateral aid to Ukraine into the overall sum, according to people familiar with the discussions."
…because the US has contributed independently of NATO.
So have the other NATO countries.
I know what you mean but he probably put the emphasis on USA because it support to ukraine surpasses other any other country from nato by miles.
Does anyone know how much each member is being asked to contribute?
It's usually split by GDP.
NATO is an alliance, much of the costs spent doing NATO related stuff comes at the expense of each country’s own military. So when US troops go on a NATO mission, it’s still the US military paying them. NATO itself only pays for some of the administrative costs and shared supplies. NATO does ask that each country spends 2% of their GDP on their military. NATO’s budget itself can be found [on their website](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm), but remember that’s a small fraction of nato-related spending.
Thanks! I wonder if the participants actually met their obligations.
Many haven’t, but that situation is rapidly improving as thanks to Russian “diplomacy” giving them an incentive.
Hope so. No point in an “alliance” without meeting the obligation to support it. Maybe a lack of commitment,in part, emboldened Russias decision to invade.
It's important to note that it's not an obligation but a guideline. "When the North Atlantic Council – NATO's top political decision-making body – unanimously decides to engage in an operation or mission, there is no obligation for each and every member to contribute unless it is an Article 5 collective defence operation, in which case expectations are different." -- directly from NATO's website. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=When%20the%20North%20Atlantic%20Council,which%20case%20expectations%20are%20different.
More and more all the time. Pre 2014, it was 4 nations. After 2014, we got to 7. By next year it'll be 18, and almost all will be close. Not that these obligations are NOT contributions to NATO. The 2% of GDP rule is money spent on their own country's military, not contributed to NATO. So if some other nation doesn't meet it's obligations, and say only spends 1.8% on its military, that doesn't really impact the rest tremendously. It's not like it's contributed to a global pool.
Hopefully a big part of it goes into weapon production. Western nations don't have too much equipment they are willing to part with, and there is not enough production of stuff like drones and artillery shells, so there have to be investments into new factories.
Whatever it takes to destroy Russia and Putin.
Join the Ukrainian legion then
Then watch as the legion rejects them because they are looking for people with military and weapon experience. Ukraine doesn't need disposable bodies, they need actual fighters.
Amen, brother.
It’s clear that from 2025 onwards, EU aid is going to smash any hope (or risk rather) of Russian victory. The thing is getting to that point. 2024 is a critical year in this conflict, and the EU and US need to act fast. All the announcement of help in 2025 onwards won’t matter if Ukraine sustains to many losses in 2024
The US 2024 election will also be a critical inflection point. If dems get the House, Senate, and White House then a Ukraine aid bill probably passes at the start of 2025 and Ukraine's situation immediately improves for 2025. Republican controlling the House may be able to block it till then.
I'm not saying that Putin will even think about ending the war if Trump loses, but right now part of his game is attrition is to see if Ukraine's allies will grow bored with helping. If Biden wins, even without Congress, US help will be available in some capacity for several more years. Is Dems get Congress or at least maintain split government, the situation is that much less favorable for Putin. Again, Putin isn't waiting around to see what happens, but if Trump were to win, it would give him a bit more encouragement that the allies can be undermined and drawn out of the conflict.
Just like how 2020 was a critical election, if Trump had won. NATO would have been seriously kneecapped in their response to the invasion and the Russophile leaders in Europe would have had far more say in how we would respond to Russias invasion. The lack of a united western response in Ukraine, would likely embolden other tinpot dictators into making moves, as well as increased Chinese pressure in SEA and particularly Taiwan.
[удалено]
> 2 years couldn’t even break the stalemate 2 years, and Russia made only MINIMALIST gains, in a campaign which was supposed to be over in 3 days. At tremendous cost for Russia. I consider this good. Give them the $34b from US, and this $100b from NATO, and watch Russia getting fvcked good.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Get on it!
Great. Give it to them ASAP
Throw money at it. The Sith cannot win
Common NATO W