And this is chart is missing EU strongest military - France, they do not announce all the support they give for strategic reasons.

I’m not sure how the calculations work in other countries, but the US was/is heavily depreciating its donations, and funding/facilitating a much of European donations.

Um, so the UK has rejoined the EU?

I'm mean it's a nitpick, but you're kinda nitpicking.

You’re counting UK but not Canada in the EU?

France is up there with UK, but they are not on the chart because they do not disclose all the transfers they do.

It is quite hard to think about things knowing that countries can hold multiple contradicting ideas simultaneously. Nothing is entirely correct or incorrect.

for example, true or false: The US started a war against Europe and Russia by blowing up the pipeline. If we look at it like that it is a great success?

Why would that perspective be entirely wrong?

But what does "win" mean here? Ukraine clearly is not going to displace Russia, but they can presumably make Russia's occupation expensive and net-negative for several more years at a fraction of their current attrition rate, unless they're forced to the table.

And this seems like a functional loss for Russia. The Eastern provinces Russia holds aren't that valuable in any objective sense. Crimea provides an extremely valuable Black Sea port, but only if Russia can safely keep warships there -- which Russia currently is not able to do. Russia has certainly proven that if they rebuild their entire economy around the goal of holding these assets they can, indeed defend them indefinitely. But they haven't demonstrated that this is worthwhile or sustainable without a very generous peace deal from Ukraine.

People down-voting this, care to explain how this is wrong?? I've thought about this a lot and as far as I can tell, this is the only reasonable expectation I can come up with as well... it seems quite possible to me that the reason Europe and the USA are turning up the "Russia will soon attack us" rhetoric is to justify higher military spending in the short term, and sending boots to Ukraine in the medium term, given that if you look at the reality of the situation, the Russian military has been stopped by a weak (compared to NATO) Ukrainian military, hence you would have to conclude that the possibility of Russia actually even thinking of attacking NATO in the next few decades should be very much zero under any circumstances. It's like thinking in the 60's that if we don't stop North Vietnam, they will come for the rest of Asia :D it just doesn't add up to any reasonable, rather than passion/hate-filled analysis (which is what we mostly see in the media, unfortunately).

NATO already won; it has expanded and defence commitments are up, and that is besides the renewed raison d’être Russia has leased it.

The US defence industry has seen a minor win, too. It will reap the long-term win of new NATO accessions.

The EU got a wakeup call (not so much a win, but hey) to seek energy independence from belligerent petrostates, so that could be seen as a future win.

"some relief to the job markets."

I agree and have done the same with Syrian refugees.

How do you do that? I've hosted refugees for free, as opposed to locals who've had to pay for hotel stays, but I'm not discriminating against locals when hiring.

How do you "actively support refugees by giving them some work" in a way that's legal, without hiring bias?

And Europe doesn't order there due to french veto.

If you can not deliver personal, delivery is fine as long as no cannon go hungry.

Also Archer, Pzh2000 and FH155/FH70.

> Artillery shells are but one tool though, which for some reason has become the main tool (? citation needed) in the Ukraine war

The reason is that neither side has air supremacy. Ukrainian AA defense is good enough to keep the Russians at bay, but Russian AA defense is also good enough to prevent Ukrainians from taking out their frontline defenses.

So with classic air forces being all but taken out, the only way either side can make progress is by using tanks and artillery.

> [artillery shells] which for some reason has become the main tool

Because Soviet (and ex-Soviet) armies were heavily built around massive numbers of lower-trained conscripts.

It's difficult to conduct maneuver warfare without highly trained troops.

It's a lot easier to throw a lot of artillery at the problem.

Because Ukraine lacks military aircraft, but got reasonable AA. We're partially back to WW1 there.

Stalin called artillery the god of war. Ranged surface-to-surface weapons are the antithesis of close combat, and whoever has the systems with the highest range and military effectiveness can clear the way ahead of physical occupation until political or economic forces compel suing for a negotiated cessation of hostilities.

While Ukraine is training F-16 pilots, this will take a lot of time and money to achieve and sustain, and is vulnerable to parts supply chain issues, maintenance program sophistication gaps, and puts expensive-to-train pilots at risk of loss by being shot down. Vipers will barely move the needle on the course of the current conflict, but will enable Ukraine to defend its territory and airspace without direct NATO intervention.

The domestic Ukraine drone and missile industry is another leg of the table on which Ukraine will advance and sustain self-defense by striking strategic Russian military logistics, naval, army, and air force targets.

> Even though Russia has got the bigger air force

Russia's military is barely functional due to corruption and complacent reliance on being a nuclear superpower. The % of operational jets is barely enough to sustain territorial defense much less a sustained "special military operation". Russia's air assets total 3000 pieces of equipment but with only 7 regular air bases close enough to launch strikes and could only muster around 250 operational strike aircraft given the limitations on maintenance, storage, and the few pilots.

185 fighters

264 attack aircraft

415 multirole

119 bombers

1000+ helicopters

1000 transport

177 others (EW, a few tankers, c3)

https://youtu.be/geSvbR9io3c

Yep. And the so-called "aid to Ukraine", 80% of it would be spent within the US on current stockpiles and new equipment. It's curious that the US military-industrial complex isn't falling all over itself attempting to send Ukraine lots of expensive gear and supplies it didn't even ask for. I guess there are too many Putin sympathizers in US political circles able to buy, engineer, and install influence.

But does it change the more significant point of the US being Ukraine's most important partner in terms of military support? I was countering the narrative that the US is not a good partner. As internet forums do, everyone globbed onto the specific number, not the point being made.

Oh man, the EU plus the rest of the world are eking it out before the US passes another spending bill. . .

This also includes long-term commitments that have not yet been delivered. EU promising to provide 1 million artillery shells two years from now doesn't help Ukraine at this time.

Huh? A Bradley is more survivable than a modern T-72? It's a light IFV, it's only advantage is to be more versatile and maneuverable. It is not going to be more survivable.

If you're talking about the autoloader - the kind of munition that would detonate the munitions on a modern T-72 would completely eviscerate any IFV.

If it really was more survivable than a modern tank, why would anyone even bother making tanks, when IFVs have about as much firepower when using ATGMs?

Without crew trained on that particular vehicle the value drops steeply.

No. Apples vs. oranges. While UA lacks IFVs, they first need main battle tanks. IFVs without MBTs doesn't comprise a survivable mixed combat element. Main battle tanks with troops with AGTMs is a starting point, IFVs would enhance their mobility but cannot replace the priority of having MBTs before IFVs.