Head of Ukraine’s national foreign intelligence service – “We have studied…the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. We are aware of Russia’s long-term plans…at least until 2030.”
Which is probably why they're trying to bid up Ukraine with the US using their own minerals.
Edit: Although some are suggesting this article is just propaganda, Russia's main challenge is that their economy is on the brink of failing and domestic support becomes a question if that happens. From a skim that appears to be the main thrust of it.
Their economy has allegedly been on the brink of failing for the past three years according to US state department talking points. Surely any day now the Ruskies will surrender…
He doesn't update frequently but all his analysis are sober, detailed, and realistic. He states his pro-Western, pro-NATO, pro-Ukrainian bias clearly.
If I could sum up the general trend of his presentation it's, "The status quo favors Russia. If we don't get our heads out of our asses and step up Russia will win."
He has a lot of videos like that. One of them is him in a room full of cadets. He goes through all the drone innovations that the Russian and Ukrainians have made in the past year and passes around a (disarmed) working €321 drone.
Then he points out that Austria still has the same expensive drone they had years ago and tells the cadets they should be a bit stressed about that.
IDK when, but they're basically feeding their population into a meat grinder trying to take Ukraine.
That's not too say the Ukraine isn't taking losses.... I've just, seen some numbers that indicate that Russia is going to run out of people to send to their deaths before Ukraine will.
Putin needs to give this up before he doesn't have a military anymore.
It's not that they will run out of people. They have people, but to keep recruitment levels so high and equipment manufacturing so high they are overcharging their economy. Right now in Russia there are three types of jobs if you want to make money afaik, work in the military complex (arms manufacturing), in the gas extraction industry or directly in the military.
It's Dutch disease x100, if the state at some point stops being able to fund the war machine, their economy collapses.
To add to this, Putin can recruit from the poorest regions for a while, but at some point he needs to get men from the larger cities. The last thing he wants is protests from Moskou etc. The average person from Moskou hadn't had that much negative effects from the war yet. But if you, your son or father is forced to the battlefield it's a different story.
Russia is running out of troops but their recruitment numbers are way higher than Ukraine’s. I support the Ukrainian armed forces unconditionally and have donated to them multiple times so believe me that it brings me no pleasure to say this, but there is no way Russia runs out of soldiers before Ukraine does.
To be clear: The Russia's losses are increasing month after month, but their recruitment capacity is not. They are recruiting about 1000 soldiers every day, maybe a bit less. And the number seems to be going down, not growing. They are losing 1300 to 1800 each day now meaning a net loss of something like 400 to 900 soldiers per day!
They won't run out of population anytime soon, but they will run out of soldiers.
We Europeans should have never hesitated to supply Ukraine. Let's make up for the fuck-up and give them everything we have and the AmeriKan Nazis can piss and moan on the sidelines.
What if the US stepping back is exactly what Europe needs to become a true superpower?"
It hit me recently that Europe has largely relied on the US to take the lead on global issues, often playing it safe and deferring to American influence. But what if the US pulling back its support is actually a blessing in disguise?
Without the US as the default leader, NATO and the EU could finally step up, stand on their own, and evolve into a unified superpower. This shift could bring much-needed stability to the region—and potentially the world—especially as the US faces its own internal challenges.
Sure, it’s not guaranteed to play out this way, but isn’t this a more appealing vision than the current status quo or the rise of authoritarian powers dominating the global stage?
USA has also quite sternly asked Europe to not become a superpower. And this is something that was openly spoken aloud in 1980's and 1990's. Their offer has been "we'll handle this superpower stuff on your behalf, you guys keep to yourself." That has kept USA the clear leading superpower, which has been extremely useful for the American economy, and we have been able to concentrate on other stuff, which has been good for our economy.
It's been an agreement between USA and Europe that Europe will not start competing of power with USA. We have more population and a bigger economy than USA, so I'd guess that now that the agreement has ended, we'll have to become what we would already have been for decades if we hadn't been asked not to.
You’ve had many opportunities to feel shame like this, starting with the unconditional support & complicity of the U.S. government in the genocide in Gaza…
I honestly don't know how to read the situation. Ukraine's fought terrifically, but their status seems far less sustainable even if you discount the Trump stuff. I don't put a lot of stock in these claims that Russia is on the verge of imploding due to the stress of the war, any day now. It is possible, but mostly seems like wishful thinking.
External aid changes the situation a bit, but not ultimately that much because no Western power seems willing to directly intervene with troops. Barring that, the overall situation between the two countries feels a bit like what Shelby Foote said about the US Civil War: "the North fought that war with one hand behind its back... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back."
This is true to an extent. But in 1862 the US didn't have to worry about an invasion from Canada. If the Russians remove too much from the Far East though, China is going to rename Vladivostok to Haishenwai. Also ISIS is going to start infiltrating from Central Asia, again. Russia has real security concerns on it's borders that require a real military presence. They could not easily strip their border guard (a national paramilitary police that's commonly included in their military headcount) or border military units. They also cannot strip the major metro areas of their paramilitary units, such as the elite units guarding Moscow. Otherwise the next Prigozhin could succeed.
Russia already stripped what they could from the Far East at the start of the war so now they're largely left with units on NATO borders that haven't been called in yet. As much as it sucks, we all know NATO isn't going to attack Russia. And in fact this is where most of the reinforcing units are coming from for things like the Kursk Salient.
The next issue is battlefield saturation. In the American Civil War how many troops you could field was largely limited by control of water ways and rail lines. With modern vehicles and supply chains the limit is reached differently these days. Basically there's a point at which if you add another division to a line it starts to be detrimental instead of helpful. They will actually get into each other's way. This has remained largely unchanged since World War 2. And in fact the number of troops Russia has in Ukraine is reminiscent of World War 2, In June they reported they have 700,000 troops in Ukraine. This is likely the maximum amount of pressure they can put in the area.
So as long as Ukraine can deal with that number of troops efficiently, they could theoretically fight forever.
If the Russians remove too much from the Far East though, China is going to rename Vladivostok to Haishenwai.
Are there any real pretensions on the territory on China's part? It sounds like it would just cause more problems than it's worth (though it's not like that fact prevented Putin from attacking Ukraine), and possibly kill off BRICS.
This is hopium, they kind of have to say this otherwise why would European countries keep supporting them?
Remember when Putin was sick and dying? Or when the Russians would revolt and oust the government? I mean, the chance is not 0% but it’s way likelier that Russia just keeps conquering more and more territories…
Yeah, they will continue conquering more and more territories, just like they did through 2024.
During 2024 they advanced faster than expected. And managed to conquer a whopping 0.7 % of Ukraine's total territory. Less than kne percent. Or even less, if you take into account what they lost in the Kursk province.
(Also, what is weird about a person having cancer and surviving?)
No exaggeration, Russia is issuing donkeys and mules (yes actual pack animals) to soldiers for transporting supplies because vehicles are in short supply.
We had a convesation about this in the Ukraine Lemmy Community. Our suggestion was to arm a drone with a carrot, and lead the donkey (carrying all the supplies) out of the orc camp after all the orcs have been liquidated. Ukraine gets supplies, Donkey gets safety, orcs are pink mist. Everyone wins! There's zero downside.
To be honest, with the massive gains they're showing, it would literally just be a continuation of what European allies are already providing. The only thing the EU, Germany and the UK need to do is continue the support already in place. Slava Ukraini
Firstly, that's not certain at all, yet. Secondly "spoiler alert" goes first, you don't write the spoiler then the alert, your inability to understand that says no one should trust anything you say.
Ukraine is their neignbor. Being that most of Europe are also NATO members, It makes more sense to me that they be the ones to spearhead this proxy war if anyone should.
Russia is all of our problem. Being that the US is part of the world and Russia is a rogue state with a nuclear arsenal and the flagrant aggressor, it makes plenty of sense for us to invest in reducing their ability to cause these kinds of shockwaves every 7-10 years on the world stage.
Have you forgotten the social and political unrest Russia has caused in our country? Are you unaware of the money and personnel they invest into destabilizing our country? Should that just go completely unanswered?
Do you seriously think we should only concern ourselves with Mexico and Canada or something?
Nazi Germany was also Europe's neighbour. I'm sure America would have fared well just completely ignoring it until all of Europe and Russia was under nazi control. Sometimes you need to involve yourself before a problem becomes too big.
The US fucking around geopolitically is what got us this mess. The US was eager to walk over Russian security interests, despite warnings this could escalate to a war. And now Trump has spoken the quiet part out loud, that for the US this war is mainly a business opportunity, no matter who wins it in the end.
The US dropping out of supporting Ukraine should be met with sanctions and a ban of any US investment into Ukraine for thr next 100 years. Also all US owned assets needs to be seized like the Russian ones.
Neither country should be allowed to make a single Penny from rebuilding in Ukraine.
Defense Minister Ruslan Umerov said 96% of all drones fielded by the Ukrainian military are domestically manufactured. Syrsky said during 2024, Ukrainian drone producers delivered more than 1.3 million robot aircraft to the armed forces. About 85% of all Russian casualties and vehicle kills on the battlefield are scored by Ukrainian drones, Malyuk said.
Very interesting to see the statistics. I always assumed drones were doing the most damage but it’s nice to have a number confirm this.
This war is a sample of what all major conflicts between industrialized nations are going to look like from now on. Even more utterly horrific for the average soldier. Death from above at any moment without warning, fuzzy front lines, the whole thing.
Equipment, too. The US DoD was looking at a new tank, but axed it. They don't exactly give out their reasons why, but a good guess is they saw what drones were doing in Ukraine and decided the design would have been obsolete before the first one came off the assembly line.
It's also a sample of what asymmetric warfare will look like. Militia groups can now buy or make their own loitering and guided munitions on the cheap. They won't have anywhere near the range or capacity of the military grade stuff, but a remote-controlled flying pressure cooker still blows up well enough.
Probably not. It only worked so well against Russians because of how shitty their military is. A modern army with properly running vehicles and operating bases (instead of scrap heaps and open trenches) isn't nearly as susceptible to short range civillian drones.
They would prefer to have more artillery, though. In case-by-case evaluations (e.g. enemy tank formation spotted maneuvering at comparable distance), it often takes a much longer time (e.g. over an hour vs. some minutes) to neutralize the same kind of an opponent with drones, compared to smart artillery shells (e.g. BONUS).
The flip side of that flips side is that stationary artillery is now obsolete. Drones force the issue where you need to be able to take your shot and GTFO.
If their losses climb back to 1800 per day, meaning 700-ish dead per day, and their population is about 140 000 000, that makes a nice round number of 200 000 days. Or 547 years. However, because the Russia's population was already decreasing fast for other reasons anyway, the real number is more like 100-ish years.
BTW, Ukraine has lost on average 64 soldiers per day as dead during these three years. Counting with 40 000 000 inhabitants, that means the last Ukrainian will die on the front in 625 000 days from now. Or 1712 years.
Reading these numbers, keep in mind that they are about dead soldiers, not about losses in manpower. Most of manpower losses come in the form of severe inrecoverable wounds. For Ukraine it's 1:4 or 1:5, so per one dead you have four to five crippled, and for the Russia it's 1:2,5. The Russia has less wounded because so many of their wounded become dead some hours after being wounded. So, the manpower losses are higher in Ukraine, but most of the lost Ukrainian soldiers return to their families, while a huge share of the lost Russian soldiers turn into soil.
The main, possibly only, glimmer of hope in the article was "assets in and outside Russia had strong evidence that Russian arms production during 2025 has flatlined and is likely to contract, because of parts and labor shortages," and Russia is drafting 100,000 fewer men than last year. That seems well short of "starting to win," unfortunately. Ukraine also appears to be losing 1/3 of their military support if what Zelensky said in the article is true. Did I miss something?
It's still a biased source and promotes false narratives. Nothing I said is incorrect. You seem to be a very aggressive Ukrainian supporter and not aware of facts. They were hardly independent if dependent on USAid. 🤦🏽♂️
Also for someone who's "served in the Canadian military" I'm surprised you don't know enough to look at the territorial maps that are updated constantly via drone footage and geo location data.
Trump is ditching them because he's Putin's bitch, no other reason. Regardless of Ukraine's actual chances, Trump is not any sort of serious gauge of the situation. He has the approximate strategic understanding of a particularly inbred aristocrat's particularly inbred toy dog.
You're completely delusional if you think Trump is ditching them for that reason. They could be winning completely and he'd still ditch them. He's in bed with putin. That's why he's ditching them.
I mean if you're going to do the whole "bro I'm just telling it like is" play, then actually do it.
If he drops support it's simply because he's not getting anything out it.
Dude is simple as fuck - transactional.
They can't win? Why not? Russia does not have much left. We are already at the point of buggies, motorcycles and straight up walking to the front line. Oh and donkeys, that's where they are.