Updates and events in the War in Ukraine 2025

[CatCage]

'Putin cannot be trusted' — Nordic, Baltic countries issue joint statement supporting Ukraine's sovereignty

 

The Nordic-Baltic Eight nations on Aug. 16 issued a joint statement in support of Ukraine's sovereignty and a just end to Russia's full-scale war.

 

The statement followed U.S. President Donald Trump's and Russian President Vladimir Putin's summit in Alaska, where the two leaders failed to agree to a ceasefire but reportedly discussed a plan to trade unoccupied Ukrainian lands for a peace deal.

 

"We remain steadfast in our support to Ukraine and to efforts, including by President Trump, to end the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine," the joint statement reads.

 

"To achieve a just and lasting peace the next step must be together with Ukraine. Only Ukraine can make decisions concerning its future."

 

More:

https://kyivindependent.com/putin-cannot-be-trusted-nordic-baltic-countries-issue-joint-statement-supporting-ukraines-sovereignty/

[bannork]

BUDAPEST (Reuters) -Russian crude oil flows to Hungary and Slovakia via the Druzhba pipeline were halted on Monday, officials in Hungary and Slovakia said, with Budapest blaming a Ukrainian attack on a transformer station.

 

Unlike most other EU countries, Hungary has kept up its reliance on Russian energy since Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. It imports most of its crude via the Druzhba pipeline, which runs through Belarus and Ukraine to Hungary and also Slovakia.

 

Szijjarto wrote on Facebook that he had talked to Russian Deputy Energy Minister Pavel Sorokin who told him that experts were working to restore the transformer station, but it was unclear when deliveries would resume.

 

Russian oil flows to Hungary and Slovakia halted after Ukrainian attack

[beautifulthailand99]

19 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

 

A weak article by Neil, reduced to a mere columnist for the Daily Fail. 

 

I realise you are constantly fond of talking up Putin and the Russian, and so seek any article that supports your own conceit, rather than parroting your own view in anything like a cogent manner. 

 

Andrew Neil declares that Europe has been reduced to the role of spectator in a world being “remade.” But let’s pause. Was it mere spectators who rallied billions to Ukraine when Washington wavered? Was it passive observers who doubled defence budgets, forged new security pacts, and began the most serious rearmament since the Cold War?

 

To claim Europe is condemned to silence because Trump and Putin staged theatre in Alaska is to confuse venue with influence. The summit may have taken place on American soil, but the consequences play out on European battlefields and in European treasuries. And in those arenas, Europe is not watching—it is underwriting, it is arming, it is deciding.

 

Neil suggests the continent has lost agency. Yet it is Europe that has written the cheques, supplied the tanks, trained the soldiers, sheltered the refugees, and set the red lines.  You know how many Ukrainian troops the UK alone has trained? 5 divisions worth, through Operation Interflax. The EU, through EUMAM, has put together almost 7 divisions. The US; about 1 division.

 

 

The U.S. may thunder in headlines, but it is Europe that sustains the war effort day after grinding day. Observers do not mobilise entire industries for war production; architects do.

 

Indeed, the very reason Trump rushed to meet Putin in Alaska is because Europe’s stance has boxed Russia in. Putin knows he cannot fracture European unity, so he looks westward for concessions. That is not Europe’s irrelevance—that is its leverage.

 

The truth is simple: Europe is not condemned to watch history being made. Europe is making it. What Neil mistakes for sidelining is in fact a redistribution of weight—one in which Europe is no longer content to play junior partner to America, but is learning, painfully and necessarily, to stand on its own.

 

So no; Europe is not an observer at someone else’s play. It is authoring the next act.

I find myself siding more with Neil than with those Western commentators who continue to speak as if Ukraine’s victory is only a matter of time - the writing's on the wall for those who wish to see it.. Such confidence is often asserted without a sober reckoning of what “victory” would demand industrially, financially, and in lives lost on both sides. To talk of winning without mapping out the economic and logistical pathways is less strategy than sentiment. I asked where the money , arnamants and manpower would come from that could "win" this war - but I'm getting fine words but no parsnips. 

 

Europe has indeed played a major role aid, training, rearmament but contribution is not authorship. Europe reacts, sometimes decisively, but it does not set the pace and under Trump the game has changed, utterly.. It remains bound by American guarantees and by its own limitations in industrial scale. In that sense, Neil is right to warn of a continent at risk of spectator status - he's no fool , even an old fool 

 

And we must also acknowledge what is happening within Ukraine itself. Many Ukrainians are voting with their feet, seeking ways to avoid conscription. Who can blame them? Few people want to be cannon fodder for a conflict waged by a government they see as corrupt, particularly when the frontline has become a grinding stalemate where the line on the map matters little compared to the human toll exacted each day.

 

Meanwhile, Western leaders have invested vast amounts of high-sounding moral authority in this war, declaring it vital to their credibility and survival. That may well be true but if so, the harder lesson is that the war they framed as winnable may in fact not be. And in that misjudgment, Ukraine pays the highest price. It has already lost the most in people, in land, in future prospects.

 

Putin is not Hitler, and this is not an inevitable prelude to a Third World War. For that, I am grateful. But gratitude should not blind us to the realities: this is a contained, grinding, attritional conflict, not a civilisation-defining struggle between good and evil.Beyond the battlefield lies the broader reality: history is not unfolding in Europe’s favour. While the West expends itself in this war, the world’s economic centre of gravity continues to shift. China and India are rising with vast populations, expanding markets, and growing political leverage. The West, meanwhile, carries the burden of debt, demographic decline, and political division - don't pick fights you can't win in which everyone loses and don't troll your psychotic neihgjbout. If you find an inflated bill at at a Thai bar at closing time and start fighting the bouncer expect to get smashed up - it's irrelevant about the justcuie of your case - them's the rules. 

 

From where I stand , the war becomes less about who “wins” in the Donbas, and more about whether Europe and the West are prepared for a future in which their relative influence inexorably diminishes - permanenly and epochally. I may not agree with every one of Neil’s conclusions, but my opinion is beside the point. The march of history does not pause for our preferences. And it is moving, inexorably, into darker and more unstable terrain whether we like it or not and the less peoople who die needlessy in this end of empire power shifts the better. 

[beautifulthailand99]

Mark Galeotti gets it's and he's one of Ukraine's biggest supporters. 

 

https://archive.ph/0emMe

 

Nonetheless, Putin does seem to have reshaped the debate. By making it about whether or not this surrender is acceptable, he has in effect made the West acknowledge that the existing occupied territories are lost. Perhaps some day, whether through military or political means, they may be regained, but there is no credible theory of victory that sees Kyiv regaining them in the foreseeable future that does not rest on some unlikely deus ex machina like a Russian economic collapse or Putin’s imminent demise.

 

The question is how far Ukraine’s allies are willing to offer those serious and credible guarantees and to force Putin to swallow them. They may be tempted to stick to their hollow mantras that ‘Putin cannot be allowed to win’. Ukrainians, fighting at the front and hiding from Russian drones in air-raid shelters, have every right to choose to hold out and resist any such ugly deal. Given that Ukraine’s European allies are clearly (and rightly) unwilling to put their own soldiers directly into harm’s way, though, one could question the morality of their seeking to encourage Zelensky to stand firm simply to avoid confronting the grubby moral compromises peace would demand.

[problemfarang]

My friend told me that russians started to put american and russian flags to captured usa vehicles which are in use of russia.. 

[beautifulthailand99]

36 minutes ago, problemfarang said:

My friend told me that russians started to put american and russian flags to captured usa vehicles which are in use of russia.. 

Over on the British Army forum where they know how to spot a fake - they are calling it out - as a fake. 

 

 

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/war-in-ukraine-contd.319524/page-680

[MicroB]

4 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I find myself siding more with Neil than with those Western commentators who continue to speak as if Ukraine’s victory is only a matter of time - the writing's on the wall for those who wish to see it.. Such confidence is often asserted without a sober reckoning of what “victory” would demand industrially, financially, and in lives lost on both sides. To talk of winning without mapping out the economic and logistical pathways is less strategy than sentiment. I asked where the money , arnamants and manpower would come from that could "win" this war - but I'm getting fine words but no parsnips. 

 

Europe has indeed played a major role aid, training, rearmament but contribution is not authorship. Europe reacts, sometimes decisively, but it does not set the pace and under Trump the game has changed, utterly.. It remains bound by American guarantees and by its own limitations in industrial scale. In that sense, Neil is right to warn of a continent at risk of spectator status - he's no fool , even an old fool 

 

And we must also acknowledge what is happening within Ukraine itself. Many Ukrainians are voting with their feet, seeking ways to avoid conscription. Who can blame them? Few people want to be cannon fodder for a conflict waged by a government they see as corrupt, particularly when the frontline has become a grinding stalemate where the line on the map matters little compared to the human toll exacted each day.

 

Meanwhile, Western leaders have invested vast amounts of high-sounding moral authority in this war, declaring it vital to their credibility and survival. That may well be true but if so, the harder lesson is that the war they framed as winnable may in fact not be. And in that misjudgment, Ukraine pays the highest price. It has already lost the most in people, in land, in future prospects.

 

Putin is not Hitler, and this is not an inevitable prelude to a Third World War. For that, I am grateful. But gratitude should not blind us to the realities: this is a contained, grinding, attritional conflict, not a civilisation-defining struggle between good and evil.Beyond the battlefield lies the broader reality: history is not unfolding in Europe’s favour. While the West expends itself in this war, the world’s economic centre of gravity continues to shift. China and India are rising with vast populations, expanding markets, and growing political leverage. The West, meanwhile, carries the burden of debt, demographic decline, and political division - don't pick fights you can't win in which everyone loses and don't troll your psychotic neihgjbout. If you find an inflated bill at at a Thai bar at closing time and start fighting the bouncer expect to get smashed up - it's irrelevant about the justcuie of your case - them's the rules. 

 

From where I stand , the war becomes less about who “wins” in the Donbas, and more about whether Europe and the West are prepared for a future in which their relative influence inexorably diminishes - permanenly and epochally. I may not agree with every one of Neil’s conclusions, but my opinion is beside the point. The march of history does not pause for our preferences. And it is moving, inexorably, into darker and more unstable terrain whether we like it or not and the less peoople who die needlessy in this end of empire power shifts the better. 

 

To call Ukraine’s struggle unwinnable is to confuse weariness with inevitability. Russia was meant to take Kyiv in three days — it failed. It was meant to crush Europe’s unity — it failed. It was meant to outlast Western arms — it is failing still.

 

Yes, victory demands industry, money, and sacrifice. But decline is not destiny unless we choose it. Europe is not a spectator; it is a combatant through its weapons, sanctions, and resolve.

 

History is not a bar fight where the weaker man must bow. It is a contest of will and coalition strength. And on those terms, Putin is already smaller than he pretends.

 

The real delusion is not Western confidence — it is Russian inevitability.

 

The cause of the war lies not in the West, but in the East, and one inadequate man who has not accepted teh tide of history. The Russian Empire is still unravelling; all the other great Empires have gone. Putin is acutely aware that Slavs are literally dying out, to be over taken in the modern Russian Empire by non-slavic peoples. The Russian Federation is not a federation of equals. He doesn't accept the sovereignty of any of the former Soviet Republics.

 

You highlight, without any statistics, Ukrainian desertion rates, and use the mere fact that there are deserters in a time of war as a way to delegitimise Ukraine. You pointedly don't mention the even worse desertion rates in the Russian Army, revealing your inherant Pro-Putin, Communist bias. We heard the same nonsense during the Cold War, usually from people who spent their sunday evenings tuned into Radio Moscow. They too considered Soviet domination of Europe to be inevitable, and there was no point resisting, and were generally shocked when the Poles, East Germans, Romanians and others showed otherwise.

 

You adopt a typically pro-Russian viewpoint who argues that it is the West and NATO that is obsolete, rather than their own institutions. Either you are a champion of the Russian cause, or you are a useful idiot, who laps up their propaganda.

 

You might want to consider desertion and turncoat numbers among the British Army in WW2. One of the reasons for the British collapse in Malaya, for instance, was the actions of an RAF officer who was passed over for promotion; he promptly passed onto the Japanese the locations of every RAF base. He was caught, subject to a drumhead court martial on Singapore Docks in the final hours, despatched with a shot to the head and dumped in the harbour. In Germany, several hundred British and Empire troops joined the German Army.

 

 

The fact that there were British deserters doesn't mean the British cause was wrong, nor hopeless.

 

Your opinion obviously matters to you, given your posts on the topic.

[MicroB]

4 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Over on the British Army forum where they know how to spot a fake - they are calling it out - as a fake. 

 

 

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/war-in-ukraine-contd.319524/page-680

 

That footage originated from "Russia Today", the Russian state funded news channel. Arrse isn't a "British Army" forum; its a forum for fans of the British Army, which includes a fair few ex-members, but also fan bois, gamers, even a few Russians pretending to be Britis (famously, one account purporting to be a veteran from the wars in Iraq, living in Australia, raging constantly about the problems of Western policy, until he forgot his own back story and was caught posting on St Petersberg time. I wouldn't consider members fo "ARRSE" to be OSINT experts. Your disengenuous reportage fails to note that only a single forum member suggested it was a fake.

[kwonitoy]

 

[sharot724]

World Leadership is alive and willing.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/french-president-emmanuel-macron-responds-to-trump-s-comments-about-a-ukraine-deal-from-putin/vi-AA1KL60A?ocid=socialshare

[beautifulthailand99]

7 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

To call Ukraine’s struggle unwinnable is to confuse weariness with inevitability. Russia was meant to take Kyiv in three days — it failed. It was meant to crush Europe’s unity — it failed. It was meant to outlast Western arms — it is failing still.

 

Yes, victory demands industry, money, and sacrifice. But decline is not destiny unless we choose it. Europe is not a spectator; it is a combatant through its weapons, sanctions, and resolve.

 

History is not a bar fight where the weaker man must bow. It is a contest of will and coalition strength. And on those terms, Putin is already smaller than he pretends.

 

The real delusion is not Western confidence — it is Russian inevitability.

 

The cause of the war lies not in the West, but in the East, and one inadequate man who has not accepted teh tide of history. The Russian Empire is still unravelling; all the other great Empires have gone. Putin is acutely aware that Slavs are literally dying out, to be over taken in the modern Russian Empire by non-slavic peoples. The Russian Federation is not a federation of equals. He doesn't accept the sovereignty of any of the former Soviet Republics.

 

You highlight, without any statistics, Ukrainian desertion rates, and use the mere fact that there are deserters in a time of war as a way to delegitimise Ukraine. You pointedly don't mention the even worse desertion rates in the Russian Army, revealing your inherant Pro-Putin, Communist bias. We heard the same nonsense during the Cold War, usually from people who spent their sunday evenings tuned into Radio Moscow. They too considered Soviet domination of Europe to be inevitable, and there was no point resisting, and were generally shocked when the Poles, East Germans, Romanians and others showed otherwise.

 

You adopt a typically pro-Russian viewpoint who argues that it is the West and NATO that is obsolete, rather than their own institutions. Either you are a champion of the Russian cause, or you are a useful idiot, who laps up their propaganda.

 

You might want to consider desertion and turncoat numbers among the British Army in WW2. One of the reasons for the British collapse in Malaya, for instance, was the actions of an RAF officer who was passed over for promotion; he promptly passed onto the Japanese the locations of every RAF base. He was caught, subject to a drumhead court martial on Singapore Docks in the final hours, despatched with a shot to the head and dumped in the harbour. In Germany, several hundred British and Empire troops joined the German Army.

 

 

The fact that there were British deserters doesn't mean the British cause was wrong, nor hopeless.

 

Your opinion obviously matters to you, given your posts on the topic.

 

I quickly fact-checked your desertion claims with ChatGPT. It’s not just a few bad apples it’s happening in huge numbers. Still, carry on with your fine words. ARSS is very heavily moderated, but it provides spirited debate and solid soldier insights, so I make a point of spending some time there each day reading the posts.

 

Here are the most up-to-date insights on the state of Ukraine’s armed forces—focusing on the manpower situation without any reliance on Russian state sources:

---

Ukrainian Army Strength & Deployment

• Total Troop Strength: Ukraine officially maintains over 1 million active personnel, but the Warsaw-based Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW) notes that only 300,000 or fewer may actually be deployed on the front line (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty).

• Future Structure: Ukraine is expanding its military through the formation of new units—like the 17th Army Corps (40,000–80,000 troops formed around Zaporizhzhia in 2025) (Wikipedia)—and the 3rd Army Corps (~20,000 troops, focused on Kyiv front operations) (Wikipedia).

• Unmanned Systems Forces: As of early 2025, the dedicated drone warfare branch includes 5,000 personnel structured into one regiment and six battalions (with more being formed) (Wikipedia).

---

Casualties & Manpower Strain

• Casualty Estimates (Ukrainian losses combined with wounded):

  • President Zelensky estimated 43,000 killed and 370,000 wounded as of late December 2024 (Russia Matters).

  • The CSIS (June 2025) projects between 60,000–100,000 killed and 300,000–340,000 wounded (Russia Matters).

  • The U.K. Ministry of Defence estimates over 250,000 killed within the broader casualty count by mid-2025 (Russia Matters).

• These figures reflect significant attrition, reinforcing the manpower pressures Ukraine continues to face.

---

Recruitment Issues & Public Sentiment

• Conscription Challenges: With public resistance rising, multiple forced-draft incidents have surfaced—including men being taken into vans. As a result, Ukraine introduced a provision for voluntary service for ages 18–24 and over 60, though only 10% of recruits are volunteering, meaning forced mobilization remains the primary method (Financial Times).

• Desertion and Morale: The Ukrainian military continues to grapple with a desertion crisis—driven by exhaustion, morale issues, and harsh combat conditions. The government has responded with measures like decriminalizing voluntary return, easing transfers via an app, and increasing transparency in recruitment—but structural challenges persist (The Guardian).

---

Summary Table

Category	Key Insights
Total Troop Strength	Over 1 million, but only ~300,000 on front line (OSW estimate)
New Formations	17th Army Corps (~40–80k), 3rd Army Corps (~20k), and drone unit expansion
Casualties	Estimated 60k–250k+ killed; up to ~340k wounded (various sources)
Recruitment	Growing resistance to draft; only 10% volunteer; forced conscription continues
Desertion & Morale	Ongoing desertion crisis; reforms underway but problems remain

---

Overall Assessment (August 2025)

• Manpower is critically strained. Casualties and battlefield attrition continue to outpace replacement through recruitment.

• Structural expansion efforts, like new Army Corps and drone forces, reflect Ukraine’s adaptation to limited manpower, but these units face pressure to fill ranks.

• Public dissent over conscription and desertion trends signal ongoing morale issues, despite reform efforts.

---

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/31/tired-mood-changed-ukrainian-army-desertion-crisis?

 

In May that same year, Viktor left his position to seek further medical treatment. He did not come back. His commander marked him down as awol. Viktor is one of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who have abandoned their units. The exact figure is a military secret, but officials concede the number is large. They say it is understandable, when tired troops have served for months without a proper break.

The issue of desertion has made headlines in Ukraine. Last week the government launched an investigation into the 155th Mechanised Brigade. Fifty-six soldiers disappeared while training in France. Hundreds of others are said to be missing. The unit’s commander, Dmytro Riumshyn, was arrested. He faces 10 years in jail for failing to carry out his official duties and to report unauthorised absences.

 

https://archive.ph/402OX

 

Shoved into vans, slashing tyres: Ukrainians balk at conscription
Kyiv’s top brass under fire over violent recruitment practices - FINANCIAL TIMES 

 

Zelenskyy has said that his armed forces are able to draft up to 27,000 conscripts a month. While Ukrainian authorities decline to quantify the country’s frontline manpower gap for security reasons, commanders and soldiers routinely warn about defensive positions being undermanned and further exhausting the remaining troops.
By contrast, independent analysts say Russia is probably recruiting more than 30,000 soldiers every month — mostly volunteers attracted by significant sign-on bonuses.
But Ukraine still has to rely mostly on conscription, with only about 10 per cent of the fresh recruits being volunteers, according to Fedir Venislavsky, a member of the parliamentary committee on intelligence and national security.

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

 

On one level, Trump either knows or is being heavily briefed that the point of these ‘negotiations’ is cold, hard cash and a win for the base.On one level, Trump either knows or is being heavily briefed that the point of these ‘negotiations’ is cold, hard cash and a win for the base.Oh and the fcat that he is a useful idiot /  compromised individual . Just parse the fact that Putin got his man in the White House - what the eff do our so called intelligence agencies agencies do with their time and assets ?

 

MARK ALMOND: Positive noises, but we know who will have the last word in Trump's ear Mail+

 

https://archive.ph/6Lf1Q#selection-531.0-531.84

 

More significant still, peace means the sanctions on Russia can be lifted. This means gas and oil can start to flow again into the West, as dollars and euros flow East.
Trump is eager to re-establish the energy trade with Russia because this will push down energy prices in the US. American voters rarely take much interest in foreign affairs, even wars – but they do notice when the cost of electricity and gasoline falls.
And cheap Russian gas has knock-on effects for the US economy, boosting its industrial output and giving Trump an advantage when striking trade deals with other rivals such as China and India.
With peace paying so many dividends for Trump, it’s hard to see what leverage Sir Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron and the other European leaders have. Their unscheduled dash across the Atlantic to attend the talks may actually have shown how weak Ukraine’s position is.

[bannork]

Ukraine has pledged to purchase $100 billion worth of US weapons, financed by Europe, as part of a proposed deal to secure American security guarantees, according to the Financial Times.

 

According to the document, Ukraine pledged to purchase $100 billion worth of US weapons, financed by Europe, as part of a deal to obtain American security guarantees. In addition, Ukraine and the United States could sign a $50 billion agreement on drone production involving Ukrainian companies.

 

The document does not specify which types of weapons are covered, but it notes Ukraine’s interest in acquiring at least 10 Patriot air-defense systems, as well as other missiles and equipment. It remains unclear how much of the drone agreement would involve direct procurement versus investment.

 

No land swaps, $100 billion for US security guarantees - FT reveals Ukraine's terms for talks

[scorecard]

55 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

 

On one level, Trump either knows or is being heavily briefed that the point of these ‘negotiations’ is cold, hard cash and a win for the base.On one level, Trump either knows or is being heavily briefed that the point of these ‘negotiations’ is cold, hard cash and a win for the base.Oh and the fcat that he is a useful idiot /  compromised individual . Just parse the fact that Putin got his man in the White House - what the eff do our so called intelligence agencies agencies do with their time and assets ?

 

MARK ALMOND: Positive noises, but we know who will have the last word in Trump's ear Mail+

 

https://archive.ph/6Lf1Q#selection-531.0-531.84

 

More significant still, peace means the sanctions on Russia can be lifted. This means gas and oil can start to flow again into the West, as dollars and euros flow East.
Trump is eager to re-establish the energy trade with Russia because this will push down energy prices in the US. American voters rarely take much interest in foreign affairs, even wars – but they do notice when the cost of electricity and gasoline falls.
And cheap Russian gas has knock-on effects for the US economy, boosting its industrial output and giving Trump an advantage when striking trade deals with other rivals such as China and India.
With peace paying so many dividends for Trump, it’s hard to see what leverage Sir Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron and the other European leaders have. Their unscheduled dash across the Atlantic to attend the talks may actually have shown how weak Ukraine’s position is.

 

... or the opposite: 

 

'shows how big the support for Ukraine & Salensky is from the not small mob of attending EU leaders'.

 

 

[sharot724]

1 hour ago, bannork said:

Ukraine has pledged to purchase $100 billion worth of US weapons, financed by Europe, as part of a proposed deal to secure American security guarantees, according to the Financial Times.

 

According to the document, Ukraine pledged to purchase $100 billion worth of US weapons, financed by Europe, as part of a deal to obtain American security guarantees. In addition, Ukraine and the United States could sign a $50 billion agreement on drone production involving Ukrainian companies.

 

The document does not specify which types of weapons are covered, but it notes Ukraine’s interest in acquiring at least 10 Patriot air-defense systems, as well as other missiles and equipment. It remains unclear how much of the drone agreement would involve direct procurement versus investment.

 

No land swaps, $100 billion for US security guarantees - FT reveals Ukraine's terms for talks

I just posted this same artical in response forum:

‘Putin clearly won’: Pundits say meeting was ‘bad for Americans’

[zmisha]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

... or the opposite: 

 

'shows how big the support for Ukraine & Salensky is from the not small mob of attending EU leaders'.

 

 

In any case, if European leaders behave badly, Vlad can always complain to Friend Donald. To what extent will this ensure Vlad's safety? It is difficult to say. However, talk about Europe entering the war has been going on for a long time. This talk has not been followed by any action - so Russia is very pleased with Comrade Donald's peacekeeping efforts.

[sharot724]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

... or the opposite: 

 

'shows how big the support for Ukraine & Salensky is from the not small mob of attending EU leaders'.

 

 

First time I feel that something significantly has moved in the last four years.

Z man it pulled off with out a hitch...

[sharot724]

3 minutes ago, zmisha said:

In any case, if European leaders behave badly, Vlad can always complain to Friend Donald. To what extent will this ensure Vlad's safety? It is difficult to say. However, talk about Europe entering the war has been going on for a long time. This talk has not been followed by any action - so Russia is very pleased with Comrade Donald's peacekeeping efforts.

Add to that the 100 billion you must now be in heaven reading and weeping.

 

Putin can not last at the War of attrition no longer as a possible ending.

Outsmarted thanks to the slick Z

[sharot724]

14 minutes ago, zmisha said:

In any case, if European leaders behave badly, Vlad can always complain to Friend Donald. To what extent will this ensure Vlad's safety? It is difficult to say. However, talk about Europe entering the war has been going on for a long time. This talk has not been followed by any action - so Russia is very pleased with Comrade Donald's peacekeeping efforts.

They can come up with much more cash then Putin. Gas in America is so cheap lol

 

[beautifulthailand99]

If anyone wants informed and unbiased commentary on the war, my go-to guy has been WillyOAM the Aussie ex-infantryman. I first came across him when he nailed the right take on Bakhmut, back when the perceived wisdom was that Russia was losing and fighting with shovels, etc. He also points out that ISW (the Institute for the Study of War) reports are more or less propaganda, and always have been mainly because they’re a U.S.-based think tank with close ties to Washington defense circles, which shapes their narratives. He’s also well-informed on how the Russians have learned and adapted, and he always stresses that avoiding bloodshed and war should be the utmost priority for governments. Of course, the pro-Ukrainians have done the usual smearing, calling him a Putin shill, useful idiot, and all that stuff.

 

I served in the Australian Infantry from 2014 to 2021, with specialist qualifications in Heavy Weapons and Anti-Armour, as well as Combat First Aid. I deployed to Afghanistan as a crew commander of an Armoured Mobility Vehicle.
Upon my return, I was unexpectedly diagnosed with an incurable and inoperable brain tumour that is slowly killing me. I was also awarded the Queen’s Order of Australia Medal (OAM), hence the post-nominals after my name.
After being medically separated from the Army, I flew to Ukraine in 2022 for six and a half months. I now make content full-time.

 

 

[bannork]

 A Russian train was reportedly blown up and derailed by Ukrainian saboteurs in a major attack which saw flames tear through the vehicle and thick black smoke billowing into the sky.

 

Forces are said to have hit an area between Tokmak and Urozhaine in the occupied Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Ukraine, following a Ukrainian military operation.

 

Petro Andryushchenko, former adviser to the mayor of Mariupol, claimed "nothing alive was left" as he announced the attack on Telegram. "Yes. It's burning down. The train. There is no more Russian rail service through occupied Zaporizhzhia," Andryushchenko wrote.

 

Ukraine 'destroys key Russian train' in massive blow to Putin as 'nothing left alive'

[bannork]

A Ukrainian Air Force fighter jet destroyed a Russian bridge and pontoon crossing in the Krusk region using powerful American-supplied bombs, according to a report from Ukrainian military news website Militarnyi. 

 

According to Militarnyi, footage of the air operation was published online by the 'Soniashnyk' Telegram channel. The video captured the destruction of a key bridge and pontoon crossing point near the village of Zvanoye. 

 

Ukrainian tactical aviation reportedly used American-supplied Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (GBU-62) and Small Diameter Bombs (GBU-39) high-precision glide bombs to destroy the crossing points.

 

Russian assets in ruins: Ukrainian air strike destroys key crossings

[bannork]

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that all Ukrainian children abducted by Russia must be returned to their families, according to her post on social media platform X.

 

"That means every single Ukrainian child abducted by Russia must be returned to their families. I thank POTUS for his clear commitment today to ensuring these children are reunited with their loved ones," von der Leyen wrote.

 

In this way, the head of the European Commission responded to a post by US President Donald Trump on Truth Social, in which he spoke about their conversation and called the return of the children the top priority. In this post, he mentioned his discussion with the European Commission president, noting that:

"This is, likewise, a big subject with my wife, Melania. It is a subject at the top of all lists, and the World will work together to solve it, hopefully bringing them home to their families," the US President stressed.

 

EU chief calls for Russia to return every Ukrainian child it abducted

[bannork]

Well worth a read, if sobering.

https://markurban.substack.com/p/hard-truths-about-the-ukraine-war?triedRedirect=true

[beautifulthailand99]

19 minutes ago, bannork said:

Well worth a read, if sobering.

https://markurban.substack.com/p/hard-truths-about-the-ukraine-war?triedRedirect=true

 

I agree with every word he says, and there are even rumors that he's a spook. Essentially, he argues that the war in Ukraine is likely to drag on for months or even years because Russia holds significant advantages and Zelensky faces serious domestic constraints, making a decisive Ukrainian victory or a reliable peace unlikely. Fighting Russia on its own borders is inherently difficult and likely to end in defeat, given the scale of Russian resources and territorial depth. Moreover, Ukraine’s survival is heavily dependent on external financial and military support andif that funding stops, the state risks collapse. In hindsight, much of this was probably inevitable from the start. What the West has done is prolong the conflict and the suffering, but not fundamentally change the outcome. Z should have taken the ride and don't beleive in your own script. The Russian ability to take and inflict pain beyond anything which we can imagine or tolerate is etched into their cold dark hearts - it was ever thus. 

[kwonitoy]

 

[kwonitoy]

 

[beautifulthailand99]

The truth is that the British government hasn’t been honest about what the Ukraine war has really cost us. Prices have risen year after year, and the Exchequer is straining under the pressure. As a result, we are worse off, facing greater stress on housing and public services, while living in an increasingly febrile world where we’ve chosen to poke the Russian bear. And then there’s the fact that Ukraine could probably have muddled along under some pro-Russian oligarch, carrying on with business as usual and sparing a million or more lives. Instead, the United States chose to meddle after the Soviet collapse, pushing NATO to Russia’s borders and stoking the confrontation that has now exploded into all-out war.

 

I've no time for Reform or the “stop the boats” mob on the right, but if they really wanted to examine the bills and understand the true threat to our living standards, they’d see it’s not some hapless refugee fleeing a country we ourselves helped to break decades ago. I’m no Putin shill or “useful idiot,” but a British citizen who still lives here and can see the fabric of society beginning to fray, while we’re told to fight battles on behalf of people we barely know in a country far away.A few years back, my brother’s family holidayed in Ukraine. They got chatting with their tour guide in Kyiv and, in passing, mentioned that I was married to a Thai woman. In typically blunt Slavic fashion, he expressed surprise that anyone would do such a thing. In fact, he quipped, “In our country we wouldn’t want a horse marrying a cow.”

 

What’s clearly on the UK’s books

• Direct UK support to Ukraine (committed):
  Latest HMG factsheet: up to £21.8bn committed (about £13bn military, up to £5.3bn non-military, plus £3.5bn in export finance cover limits that are contingent). Note: commitments ≠ cash outturns, but this is the best top-line. (GOV.UK)

• What Parliament’s Library said slightly earlier (for context):
  By Jan 2025 the UK had pledged £12.8bn, of which £7.8bn was military (before later uplifts). (House of Commons Library)

• Replacing/drawing down UK stockpiles:
  NAO says kit given to Ukraine would cost about £2.7bn to replace (separate from how it was valued on MoD books). NAO also records £2.59bn of equipment supplied by Mar 2024 (procured/donated). (The Guardian, National Audit Office (NAO))

• Refugees & resettlement (Homes for Ukraine and related):
  Central gov’t set council tariffs at £10,500 per person (arrivals before Jan 2023) then £5,900 (after), plus £350–£500 per month “thank-you” payments to hosts (now moving to £350 flat from Apr 2025). NAO said by Sept 2023 the gov’t had already provided £2.1bn for the scheme; that figure will be higher now, and there’s evidence of >£300m still unspent by councils in England. Order-of-magnitude today: ~£2–3bn. (GOV.UK, National Audit Office (NAO), The Guardian)

The big swing factor: the UK’s energy-crisis response

• Total energy-support schemes (EPG, EBRS/EBSS, etc.):
  OBR’s March 2023 estimate: £78bn across 2022–23 and 2023–24. Subsequent outturn updates revised some components down (e.g., EBRS to £6.7bn in 2022–23 as prices fell), but the package remains enormous. The spike had multiple causes (post-COVID tightness and the invasion); ONS explicitly links the later surge to Russia’s war. (Office for Budget Responsibility, Office for National Statistics)

  Attribution caveat: There’s no official split of “what share was because of the Ukraine war versus other factors.” So the clean way to show the UK’s war-related cost is to present scenarios that attribute 0–100% of the energy-support bill to the war.

Trade & economic frictions (counterfactual “normal relations”)

• UK goods imports from Russia were £10.3bn in 2021 (2.2% of total) and have since collapsed under sanctions (near-zero). That created substitution costs (especially for oil and some commodities), even if volumes were replaced from elsewhere. Hard to price precisely, so treat this as an opportunity-cost channel rather than a firm cash line. (Office for National Statistics)

Putting it together (round-number scenarios)

Below, I add: (A) direct Ukraine support actually on the books (use the £18.3bn that excludes purely contingent export-finance cover), (B) £2.7bn stockpile replacement, (C) £2–3bn for refugees so far, and (D) a share of the £78bn energy package. This yields orders of magnitude, not a single precise “bill.”

• Low attribution (25% of energy support due to the war):
  Energy £19.5bn + Direct support £18.3bn + Replacement £2.7bn + Refugees ~£2–3bn ⇒ ~£42–44bn.

• Mid attribution (50%):
  Energy £39bn + £18.3bn + £2.7bn + £2–3bn ⇒ ~£62–63bn.

• High attribution (100%):
  Energy £78bn + £18.3bn + £2.7bn + £2–3bn ⇒ ~£101–102bn.

Notes:
• Using the full £21.8bn commitment figure instead of £18.3bn (to include all commitments) would add ~£3.5bn to each scenario. (GOV.UK)
• These totals exclude second-order macro effects (e.g., higher gilt interest costs from inflation/BoE hikes) and private-sector costs. They also exclude any future defence-spending uplifts to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 that are policy choices rather than past costs. (Institute for Government)

Why this is the honest way to do it

• Energy is the dominant cost, but attribution is inherently uncertain; the OBR/ONS don’t publish a precise “% due to Ukraine.” So scenario analysis is more rigorous than pretending there’s one exact number. (Office for Budget Responsibility, Office for National Statistics)

• Direct fiscal lines (aid, stockpile replacement, refugee schemes) are documented and can be updated as new outturns appear. (GOV.UK, National Audit Office (NAO), The Guardian)

 

[rice555]

18 hours ago, MicroB said:

Do you know where the "3 Day" B-S statement came from????

Gen.Mark Millie in a US House Comity meeting.

 

 

"To call Ukraine’s struggle unwinnable is to confuse weariness with inevitability. Russia was meant to take Kyiv in three days — it failed. It was meant to crush Europe’s unity — it failed. It was meant to outlast Western arms — it is failing still."

 

[MicroB]

 

WTF, Learn to use the quotes properly.