Kind of STUPID to give Ukraine money, since the war ends the same way regardless.
Trump meeting with Orban already had the left in a tizzy now this.
There’s going to be much rage today, just wait for it.
Oh, and Trump is Putin is Orban is Hitler.
Yes please.
Trump wants Russia to win?
What’s next, he hands Taiwan over to the ChiComms?
Trump is the opposite of Ronald Reagan
With Trump in power, he will negotiate so that Ukraine will still have most of it’s country intact. The nation will exist as a sovereign, mostly European friendly state, but remain outside the EU NATO orbit. The USA will help them rebuild and so will Russia.
Otherwise, if the Deep State globohomos allow Quisling Puppet Biden another term, Ukraine will lose ALL of its territory and be annexed in it’s entirety into Greater Russia. It WILL become a vassal state, obedient to Mother Russia.
These are the ONLY two choices.
Saying he has a plan and saying what the plan is are not the same. This is not a TV show, this is not about ratings or generating buzz. Trump has not given out any details of his plan. As much as people want to hear this, Trump needs to spell out what his plan is for himself.
Meanwhile back at home...
Europe, as a whole, is about 700 million people. The EU portion of Europe is more than 450 million people. The US is about 340 million people, and, since Canada raised its little head in these comments, Canada is about 36 million people.
The two official participants in an officially non-NATO war? Ukraine with something between 30-40 million. Russia is about 145 million.
700 million - 450 million - however one sees Europe. Europe is the largest bloc in terms of manpower and about 8 times the size of Russia's GDP.
So, which group is larger? Has more men currently willing to fight and die? More industry to grind out more war materiel?
It seems Russia does, in the moment. ( For any jackasses who want to say this proves me a Russophile, go pound sand.)
It turns out the Clinton era "peace dividend" and the ensuing decades since Bush II, our national debt has climbed by about 34 trillion USD. Our GDP is estimated at about 24 trillions USD. The EU stands about about 17 trillion USD in GDP. So in the larger picture of EU + US, ostensibly (chuckling now) 40 trillion USD in GDP is having a hard time "supporting" the non-NATO war with a geopolitical rival and its measly 2.5 trillion USD equivalent.
Let that sink in. Russia's official GDP is about the size of -- wait for it -- Canada.
And yet somehow Russia is both 1) winning and losing the war, depending on Freeper comments pro and con, 2) unable to conquer Ukraine but ready to easily conquer Europe, and 3) is doing all this mayhem with a comparatively empty wallet.
US GDP - 24 trillion USD > [ is greater than ] EU GDP - 17 trillion USD > Russia GDP - 2.5 trillion USD estimate.
EU population - 450 million > US population - 340 million > Russia population 145 million.
What's wrong with these numbers and this picture? Something assuredly.
Probably, with China standing in the "war" futures offing for the Biden administration, looks as if the REALLY BIG AND POWERFUL nations -- NATO members, as NATO wants to expand into the Indo-Pacific -- are showing something rather embarrassing, as the drums of war are pounded and pounded on these threads, as in DC.
Because the "war" is all about money. Lots of money. And it's all being financed on rapidly increasing debt. Against Russia, with the smallest population between the supposed rivals, the EU and US. And against Russia with it TINY -- officially tiny -- GDP, about 16 times smaller than the Biden-von der Leyen "protectors" of corrupt Ukraine attacked by corrupt Russia.
Money. Lots of money. Flowing to a relatively few people in the West. Financed by lots of debt. And on these threads, cheered on by non-Americans who want this nation even deeper debt.
All to defeat Russia, and its 2.5 trillion USD equivalent GDP. Standing against 40 trillion.
Something is VERY wrong with the meaning of the above generally factual numbers. It is the tale they tell.
Let's all further bankrupt ourselves, eh? Seems sensible?
After all, since 2000, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, the Sudan and more have all worked out so well. For a very few, very wealthy individuals. Just as the SARS CoV hysteria worked out so well for a very few. And the climate change games are working out for a select few whose wealth expands in a time of this nation bankrupting itself. As someone used to say, 'know what's going on.'
I hope not. The members of the church of worship Joe Biden and the Biden Brigade won’t ne happy.
.
America’s leadership on the world stage should not consist of giving out money to solve other country’s problems.
It’s like the parable: rather than giving them the fish, teach them how to fish.
Oh yes! “Peace in our time” just like between Chamberlain and Hitler.
Trump’s right its obvious that Ukraine cannot stand on its own feet.
We gave the billions in cash weapons manpower and what did they end up doing giving Putin land from Russian border the the black sea got to know when to cut your losses.
That is why the war will end Putin has got what he wanted in the first place.
Trump’s strategy to end Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
1. Drill baby drill.
2. No money to Ukraine.
3. Immediate enforcement of Iranian Sanctions (no movement of oil, etc)
This is also why Ukraine will send a hit team after him...
Excerpts:
28:09
If we look at production estimates in one of the most important categories, that is artillery ammunition, then the best estimates we have for Russian output figures are significant although still probably short of where they want them to be. Per RUSI report, Russia internally assesses that they need about 4 million 152mm and 1.6 million 122mm rounds in 2024. That's not counting MLRS ammunition, mortar ammunition, or even other artillery calibres like 130 or 100mm.
28:36
And it brings home just how fires intensive the Russian way of war is. Against those requirements, Russia expects to produce about a third of the 152mm it needs, and about half of the 122. These figures I'd argue present really a mixed bag for Moscow.
28:51
On one hand it means that Russia is producing more 152mm rounds than Europe is producing 155. It means that when you factor in the fact that Russia is still estimated to have a stockpile of about 3 million main calibre artillery rounds, and to be able to source somewhere between 1 and 3 million rounds from North Korea, that even if North Korean deliveries can't continue at the same rate in 2024,provided Moscow is willing to run its artillery storages well below the red line there's probably enough ammo there to give the Russian army what it says it needs for the course of 2024.
29:21
Beyond that however, again barring any foreign deliveries, things get a little more dicey. The deeper you go into storage, the worse quality the rounds are likely to be in,and as a result the harder and more dangerous the restoration process is likely to be. Further, so far a lot of the ammunition production ramp up has been based on using excess capacity. You take understaffed ammunition plants that are running 8 hour shifts 5 days a week, you convert them over to running 24 hours a day 6 days per week and quite quickly you have a lot more output.
29:50
If you want to go beyond that however, you arguably end up where the Europeans and Americans were. Where you actually need to set up new infrastructure and production lines almost from scratch in order to enable further scaling. To quote from the RUSI report, "The Russian MoD does not believe it can significantly raise production in subsequent years unless new factories are set up and raw material extraction is invested in, with a lead time beyond 5 years".
30:13
35:18
… Pivoting to US and allied production, we have seen significant increases in output for key munition natures. There are already bright spots, the Estonian MoD suggests that the goal should be to provide Ukraine 8,760 GMLRS rockets per annum. Well, Lockheed Martin is already at an annual rate of 10,000, with a plan to increase to 14,000 this year. But with regards to unguided 155mm shells, given the low starting point there is still a long way to go. Last October the US was producing about 28,000 155mm rounds per month.
35:52
By April that's due to be 37,000 and by October 60,000. At which point, after some of the new Texas facilities come on-line, the US will be producing about half as much 155 as the Russians do 152(mm). 2025 is then expected to see even further increases, reaching 75,000 shells per month in April and 100,000 in that October. Meaning we are about 18 months from US 155 production being where Russian 152 is right now…
36:26
Meanwhile in the Eurozone, 2 years into the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it does appear people have finally decided that now might be a good time to sink a bunch of money into new ammunition production. Norwegian production facilities have gone over to extended shifts. Germany is planning a new facility with a 200,000 round per annum capacity. The UK is building up its capacity.
36:45
And the overall estimate for the European Union (so sorry UK) is that there'll be an annual capacity for about 1.4 million 155mm rounds by the end of 2024. Now on one hand, those are some serious numbers. It means that combined, the US and European Union should be producing significantly more 155 than Russia can produce 152. And on paper that should be a massively winning combination for Ukraine, because 155 is on average a more dangerous round with a longer range. And the artillery systems Ukraine is using to fire themare on average more modern, longer ranged and more accurate. Provided of course that Ukraine receives the 1,500 to 2,000 replacement artillery barrels that it's estimated to need every year. And those figures probably give you some understanding of just how many Russia might need.
37:30
Back to shells however, the problems are probably threefold. Firstly, funding and investments need to continue to flow to make sure that capacity comes on-line in time. Which may also require regulatory changes. Secondly, a lot of European ammunition production continues to be exported to countries that are not named Ukraine. That may be good for business and very profitable, but there might be a policy question there as to whether or not companies should be required to prioritise Ukrainian orders.
37:55
And then finally there's the problem that all those lovely figures are for the end of 2024, not the start.
