There is certainly more, much more, we could be doing to swing the balance of negotiations toward Ukraine and leave them with a less-bad deal. And, yes, we should be, which is probably your point.
I think it is possible as well but much more likely after Putin has passed from this life from natural causes or fallen from a window. That opens up a whole new range of options based on who follows him. So maybe a deal now may end up being an interim deal until Putin leaves us.
Sounds about right, Colby was pursuing his own agenda. https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/poli...white-house-ukraine-weapons-pause?cid=ios_app
Maybe our Russian supporters here are supporting the wrong side? Perhaps the Russians are actually involved in more than a bit of aggressive tourism?
Maybe. But that is also thinking similar to back in 1953: "Yeah, this deal sucks for the Republic of Korea. But chin up. It's more important to get the fighting stopped and our POWs back. This Kim Il Sung is an idiot. No way he holds on to power for much longer, and no way his replacement is as big of a goober as he is. Once that dum dum shuffles off, we will be able to negotiate a just peace." The problem with terminating a conflict along an established ceasefire line is that you have inadvertently created a border in fact. That is the risk we forced on South Korea, and that is the risk we are asking Ukraine to assume.
Russia supposedly using cluster munitions on Luhtsk, Ukraine. So much for not targeting citizens, right? https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/8ApkxhEH5t
Russia just hit civilian areas hard after Trumps comments. I think China’s comments about Russia can’t lose the war has given Putin more confidence. How long before Ukraine hits Russian civilian areas in response?
I don't know that Ukraine could afford to do that. They are fairly limited in munitions, and they need everything they have to beat back the Russian military. And besides, attacking civilians on purpose would justify what Russia has been doing, even if the scale was much smaller. Ukraine needs to maintain the sympathy of Europe to continue to receive their full support as the innocent party in this war.
Russia is losing their influence in the Caucasus (the area around the Caspian Sea), creating an opportunity for the West to gain influence there. The region includes Russian neighbors Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia can't afford to spend money to smooth over relations with these countries, as the Russian economy approaches collapse from the Ukraine War. Armenia and Azerbaijan distance themselves from Russia — and move toward peace
Russia, forced by sanctions to make their own planes, is paying twice as much for completed planes as it did at the outbreak of the war, with cost increasing exponentially. Last year, the cost for a completed plane increased by 60%. Russia's already primitive civil aviation system is going backwards, as their planes are inherently less reliable than western planes. Russian Passenger Planes Are Nearly Doubling In Price As Sanctions Take Their Toll - Jalopnik
Sanctions and proxy war on Russians an abject failure … US Patriot Missile Stockpile a Fraction of What Pentagon Needs | The Libertarian Institute
Yup, the Iran Nuclear program being destroyed and the world learning Russian military technology is terrible sure is an abject failure.
How many other countries has Russia invaded since their 7-day triumph in Ukraine back in ‘22? Oh wait …
Our hypersonic missile program just failed its 38th test (as Russian hypersonics rain down on a Kyiv which is defenseless because we are running out of Patriot systems renowned for failing to shoot down ancient Scuds).
By all accounts the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a huge win for the US - Russia military reserves decimated -Russia military weakness revealed - Sweden and Finland join NATO - decimation of Hezbollah - fall of Syria - severe weakening of Iran - NATO countries commit to more defense spending -boon for US natural gas
Not sure what information you're referencing, but the U.S. invests very little R&D into hypersonics and what it does has more to do with developing countermeasures than weapons. China and Russia need hypersonics as an answer to superior Western air defenses, the idea being that they are too fast for, say, a ship to detect, acquire, and engage in time. But the U.S. has no such need for hypersonics to penetrate Russian and Chinese defenses and strike with accuracy and lethality. In fact, if anything, the need for spending money on developing hypersonics just to have ordnance against which to practice has gone down dramatically as a result of Russia's invasion. We have gathered banks of operational data on Russian weapons, have determined that there is nothing magical about these things, and -- worst of all for Russia -- have determined that Russia cannot hit precision targets with them. Now are the Chinese weapons any better? Let's assume so, but the principle that anything that can fly can also be shot down still stands.
