Russian invasion of Ukraine

meeesh said:
Here’s a serious question or two that maybe someone could answer in simplistic terms unless I’m over thinking things a little

Why has this happened (this meeting) in our country of all places today? Was this something that was planned so it’s just a coincidence that Zelensky was on his way back over from that debacle in America Friday?

I mean (and I say this tongue in cheek ish) I thought we weren’t involved in Europe (as such) no more, so I’m saying why is it Starmer being chief negotiator than say France or Germany , as they are far bigger countries than us - why does it have to be the UK inviting everyone to the party type of thing?

I’m being genuine as well here, because starmer will lick Trumps arse all day no?
Click to expand...
You realise we have a higher population than France, right? Only Russia and Germany have higher populations in Europe. NATO and Canada were also there, so it wasn't just a European meeting.
 
Blue Maverick said:
Had Hitler not attacked Russia and out his full force against us he would’ve crushed us, his mistake was fighting on two fronts. Deal with us then go for Russia, if Japan don’t attack Pearl Harbour the USA stay out if it, it would only be a matter of time before Germany developed a bomb whilst the USA sat on their hands in neutrality.

NOVA | Hitler's Sunken Secret | Nazis and the Bomb | PBS

Find out just how close the Nazis came to building atomic weapons during World War II, and view the only known diagram of a German nuclear bomb.
www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
But the US was never going to stay neutral. Pearl Harbor might have moved the timeline up a few months, but Roosevelt knew by the time France fell that the US was going to have to intervene. The US draft started in summer 1940. Lend-Lease, which was outright aid to the other Allies despite its name, started by early 1941. The US Navy was also enforcing a "neutrality zone" against the Axis out to Iceland before entering the war.
 
Mensa Saskatchewan has posted this:

In the Constitution of Mensa, it says that Mensa is not allowed to take any political action and cannot hold political affiliations (though Members or groups of members may express opinions as members of Mensa, provided their opinions or actions are not expressed as being those of Mensa as an organization). So while I do have personal opinions on what happened between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky (Володимир Зеленський) during the session with the press at the White House today, I am keeping those to myself. I wanted to provide some fact checking on the numbers being thrown around though, as these numbers are not politics but verifiable numbers.

The USA has not spent $350 billion in Ukraine, nor even $300 billion. I have seen figures ranging anywhere from $119.7 billion (Kiel Institute for the World Economy) to $182.8 billion (U.S. Department of Defense), but the most consistent figure that I have seen is around $175 billion, and only $105.1 billion of that is to the Ukrainian government directly:
- $2 billion in humanitarian aid
- $33.3 billion in budget support
- $69.8 billion in weapons, equipment, and other military support
(Council on Foreign Relations, BBC News, Euronews, US Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve)

Most of the remainder is funding various U.S. activities associated with the war in Ukraine, and a small portion supports other affected countries in the region (the $182.8 billion figure includes US military training and replenishing US defence stocks, so it includes all spending on the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine). (Council on Foreign Relations, BBC News)

Of the $182.8 billion from the USA, only $83.4 billion has been sent, with the remaining $99.4 billion either not yet committed or not yet approved for payment. This is why Ukraine has received only $76 billion from the USA, and the $100 billion that people claim is missing is actually money that has not been sent. (Euronews, Українська правда)

By comparison, the Kiel Institute calculates that, including military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, the EU has spent $138.7 billion (compared to their calculation of $119.7 billion from the USA). Their calculations include only support directly given to Ukraine and exclude things like money used to replenish U.S. weapon stocks following donations to Kyiv, funds spent to help neighbouring countries welcome Ukrainian refugees, etc. However, using a broader definition, the European Union has committed $198 billion so far. (BBC News, Washington Post, Fox News)

Of all the funding Ukraine as received, NATO estimates that nearly 60% of the funding for Ukraine has come from across Europe and Canada. (ABC News and BBC News)

Canada has given $19.7 billion in aid to Ukraine:
- $12.4 billion in financial aid
- $4.5 billion in military assistance

The remaining funds are spread between humanitarian, development, stabilization, etc. aid funding. (THX News and Government of Canada)
Canada has also provided $5 billion to Ukraine from seized Russian assets, and the money will be repaid from interest earned on the held Russian assets (i.e., Russia will be bearing the burden of repayment). (Global News, National Post, CTV News, and Anadolu Agency)

In total, Ukraine has spent $120 billion of its own money, and Ukraine estimates that that total they have spent on the war is about $320 billion. (Voice of America)

If you're wondering, 35% of the funds going to Ukraine from Europe have been loans, and some of the repayment of those loans are coming from revenues from frozen and seized Russian assets and Ukraine isn't having to pay those portions of the loans, and the rest are really generous terms where Ukraine will be repaying less interest over lengthy repayment periods. The remaining 65% is grants an in-kind support. (Washington Post and BBC News)

***ETA: The actual value of the weapons and equipment sent to Ukraine by the USA is about 60% lower than they were priced because the price was for new stock. Much of the military equipment and ammunition sent to Ukraine is old and of limited combat effectiveness because it came from aging US stockpiles, some of the ammunition is expired, and a majority of the equipment isn't even used by the US military anymore (and therefore has an effective value of $0 to the USA). Normally, this stock would have to be disposed of, but giving it to Ukraine means there are effectively no disposal expenses. Furthermore, much of the funding for Ukraine is being spent in the USA, such as employing US workers to manufacture the replacement equipment and supplies for refilling US stockpiles. (Kyiv Post and AL24news - قناة الجزائر الدولية)

***ETA2: I am unable to share the links to the articles that I am using as sources, as there is an ongoing dispute between the Government of Canada and Facebook that prevents Canadian Facebook users from being able to share or even see news articles from any news agency. Someone shared with me a way to post the links, so I will try to do that later today.
 
meeesh said:
I’d have thought as little as possible in regards to throwing dough around in a war when things are like they are in our own backyard -this is why I mentioned the bigger European countries - but he said some countries want to be on board but might not be able to offer much, in other words don’t worry we will make up the shortfall lads

I just don’t understand that’s all I’m getting at, need it explaining in a term I may understand to make me think ahh right yea I see now
Click to expand...
Without the US, Ukraine will have to go it alone and the European countries have to put up a strong, united front while the UK, with its special relations, put our arm across the pond to try and get the US onside.

We’ve known this has been coming for a while and that’s why we are getting all the talk about Defence spending. It’s long overdue and if done properly, will not only give us our hard power back, but will also support the economy if done right.
 
Irwell said:
You realise we have a higher population than France, right? Only Russia and Germany have higher populations in Europe. NATO and Canada were also there, so it wasn't just a European meeting.
Click to expand...

Yea coz they dump them on our shores that’s why France doesn’t have as much a population as ours
 
meeesh said:
I’d have thought as little as possible in regards to throwing dough around in a war when things are like they are in our own backyard -this is why I mentioned the bigger European countries - but he said some countries want to be on board but might not be able to offer much, in other words don’t worry we will make up the shortfall lads

I just don’t understand that’s all I’m getting at, need it explaining in a term I may understand to make me think ahh right yea I see now
Click to expand...
I hope in doing this and leading the negotiations I hope for a trade deal with both America and the EU> Or if that is impossible, at least more favourable terms.

I don't particularly like Starmer but if he positions us right, we might get growth.

Or it may be an ego trip
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Mensa Saskatchewan has posted this:

In the Constitution of Mensa, it says that Mensa is not allowed to take any political action and cannot hold political affiliations (though Members or groups of members may express opinions as members of Mensa, provided their opinions or actions are not expressed as being those of Mensa as an organization). So while I do have personal opinions on what happened between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky (Володимир Зеленський) during the session with the press at the White House today, I am keeping those to myself. I wanted to provide some fact checking on the numbers being thrown around though, as these numbers are not politics but verifiable numbers.

The USA has not spent $350 billion in Ukraine, nor even $300 billion. I have seen figures ranging anywhere from $119.7 billion (Kiel Institute for the World Economy) to $182.8 billion (U.S. Department of Defense), but the most consistent figure that I have seen is around $175 billion, and only $105.1 billion of that is to the Ukrainian government directly:
- $2 billion in humanitarian aid
- $33.3 billion in budget support
- $69.8 billion in weapons, equipment, and other military support
(Council on Foreign Relations, BBC News, Euronews, US Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve)

Most of the remainder is funding various U.S. activities associated with the war in Ukraine, and a small portion supports other affected countries in the region (the $182.8 billion figure includes US military training and replenishing US defence stocks, so it includes all spending on the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine). (Council on Foreign Relations, BBC News)

Of the $182.8 billion from the USA, only $83.4 billion has been sent, with the remaining $99.4 billion either not yet committed or not yet approved for payment. This is why Ukraine has received only $76 billion from the USA, and the $100 billion that people claim is missing is actually money that has not been sent. (Euronews, Українська правда)

By comparison, the Kiel Institute calculates that, including military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, the EU has spent $138.7 billion (compared to their calculation of $119.7 billion from the USA). Their calculations include only support directly given to Ukraine and exclude things like money used to replenish U.S. weapon stocks following donations to Kyiv, funds spent to help neighbouring countries welcome Ukrainian refugees, etc. However, using a broader definition, the European Union has committed $198 billion so far. (BBC News, Washington Post, Fox News)

Of all the funding Ukraine as received, NATO estimates that nearly 60% of the funding for Ukraine has come from across Europe and Canada. (ABC News and BBC News)

Canada has given $19.7 billion in aid to Ukraine:
- $12.4 billion in financial aid
- $4.5 billion in military assistance

The remaining funds are spread between humanitarian, development, stabilization, etc. aid funding. (THX News and Government of Canada)
Canada has also provided $5 billion to Ukraine from seized Russian assets, and the money will be repaid from interest earned on the held Russian assets (i.e., Russia will be bearing the burden of repayment). (Global News, National Post, CTV News, and Anadolu Agency)

In total, Ukraine has spent $120 billion of its own money, and Ukraine estimates that that total they have spent on the war is about $320 billion. (Voice of America)

If you're wondering, 35% of the funds going to Ukraine from Europe have been loans, and some of the repayment of those loans are coming from revenues from frozen and seized Russian assets and Ukraine isn't having to pay those portions of the loans, and the rest are really generous terms where Ukraine will be repaying less interest over lengthy repayment periods. The remaining 65% is grants an in-kind support. (Washington Post and BBC News)

***ETA: The actual value of the weapons and equipment sent to Ukraine by the USA is about 60% lower than they were priced because the price was for new stock. Much of the military equipment and ammunition sent to Ukraine is old and of limited combat effectiveness because it came from aging US stockpiles, some of the ammunition is expired, and a majority of the equipment isn't even used by the US military anymore (and therefore has an effective value of $0 to the USA). Normally, this stock would have to be disposed of, but giving it to Ukraine means there are effectively no disposal expenses. Furthermore, much of the funding for Ukraine is being spent in the USA, such as employing US workers to manufacture the replacement equipment and supplies for refilling US stockpiles. (Kyiv Post and AL24news - قناة الجزائر الدولية)

***ETA2: I am unable to share the links to the articles that I am using as sources, as there is an ongoing dispute between the Government of Canada and Facebook that prevents Canadian Facebook users from being able to share or even see news articles from any news agency. Someone shared with me a way to post the links, so I will try to do that later today.
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. Aside from the noise around the numbers my main concern is around the US being able to stop other allies sending weapons of US origin or US tech. Now the long term effects might be damaging to the US defence industry if we become more self reliant.
 
mosssideblue said:
It’s called democracy and standing with others who share the same values. I’m delighted we are taking a lead on this and helping another democratic country under attack, even moreso since Trump has shown his true colours
Click to expand...
Agreed. Starmer (and Macron) are doing a great job so far. Somebody has got to stand up and get the ball rolling and I like Starmer’s comment that they will go at the pace of the fastest, not the slowest because no doubt Hungary and Slovakia would be putting spanners in the works.

Plus Starmer and Macron both have a good relationship with Trump, and despite what happened on Friday, this could still be crucial in the long-term.
 
The pace of the russian army's offensive on Ukrainian territory has fallen to the lowest values in the last nine months. According to the schedule created by OSINT researcher, the average advance of the russians fell to two square kilometers per week.

The researcher connects this fact with the decrease in the total number of attacks by the russians and will shift the main focus to the Kursk direction, where the russians, despite colossal efforts and direct foreign aid, have not been able to knock out the Ukrainians for more than half a year.

@yigal_levin
 
meeesh said:
Yea coz they dump them on our shores that’s why France doesn’t have as much a population as ours
Click to expand...
Yes, the only reason we have a higher population is them dumping people on our shores...

UK Population:
1975 - 56.3m
2025 - 68.1m

France Population:
1975 - 52.4m
2025 - 65.0m

Wait, the population gap is similar to what it was 50 years ago. That can't be right can it.
 
meeesh said:
Yea like concentrate on sending British soldiers to get killed in a war that had fuck all to do with us is how I see it

Then the distraction of the shit in this country can go on the back burner I suppose
Click to expand...

From what I’ve read the “boots on the ground” comments are all post peace deal. One of the key parts of Trumps peace deal is a buffer zone with European troops manning it. Not as part of an active war.

Russia has already said they won’t accept it tho. But having been named by Trump as a country that could do it, Starmer is saying we will be part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top