In the case of Ukraine, my definition of victory would be to inflict such losses upon the Russian military that it is unable to continue effective fighting in the field, allowing Ukrainian forces to gradually regain status ante bellum.

I do not for a moment pretend that this will be something accomplished in months; it will take years. It will also take continued investment by NATO member nations, primarily in the form of munitions, until the job is done. Ukraine has been quite clear in not requesting NATO troops on the ground in this venture; they are willing to do this with Ukrainian blood alone, though they accept foreign volunteers.

Regarding the cost: it is worth remembering that the U.S. provided, in 2023 dollars, some $672 billion across the four and a half years of the Lend-Lease Act, and that doing so was a key factor in the survival of both the United Kingdom and Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Even if one is to accept the $350 billion figure reported by sources opposed to the U.S. providing assistance to Ukraine - a figure that is unsupported by anything beyond fiat claim, and a figure which is directly contradicted by the figures from the U.S. agency directly responsible for all such assistance - we are no where near approaching the cost of Lend-Lease.

Further, as both Steve and I have said here many times, the assistance we have provided Ukraine to date has done more damage to both the Russian military and Russian credibility as a military force over the past three years than some $13 trillion accomplished across the six decades of the Cold War. That, sir, is a bargain.

As a response to the "well the USSR is gone" comment made earlier in this thread, it has been clear for over twenty years that Russia under Putin has every intent of attempting to reforge the equivalent of the USSR in all but name. Russia has, since the end of the old Soviet Union, fought wars of aggression against Georgia (thrice), Moldova, Chechnya (twice), and Ukraine (twice). Putin's gov't has made very clear that they have every intention of annexing the Baltic states in the not-too-distant future. Putin's gov't has been none too coy about their eventual intentions against Poland as well.

On the whole "$100 billion of Ukraine aid is missing thing", I'll quote from the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

---

Quote:

Q3: So, what happened to the “missing” $100 billion?

A3: The short answer is that it is not missing. The funds went (mostly) to activities that arose because of the war, and all are accounted for. Some paid for sending equipment and funds directly to Ukraine. A large part went to activities that arose because of the war but were not spent in Ukraine. To see why this is the case, it is important to look at the funding as a whole.

Since 2022, Congress has appropriated $175.2 billion in aid as a result of the war in Ukraine, a slight difference from the $177 billion that Zelensky cites. This includes all funds in the five supplemental appropriations, $900 million in the regular budget but excludes $9 billion in loans. Most has been delivered, and most of the remainder has been obligated through contracts and binding commitments. However, it will take many years for all the contracts to be completed and the money disbursed.

In past analyses, CSIS has divided aid to Ukraine into categories to illustrate the different purposes. Figure 1 shows how the $175 billion is laid out in seven categories. It’s all there, the $75 billion Zelensky cites and the “missing” $100 billion.

Military equipment: Replacement of equipment sent to Ukraine from U.S. stockpiles (through Presidential Drawdown Authority) and foreign military financing of equipment for Ukraine.
U.S. industrial base and general Department of Defense (DOD) spending: Items that enhance U.S. military capabilities, particularly the defense industrial base, but are not directly related to the war in Ukraine.
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI): Mostly money for Ukraine to procure equipment directly from U.S. manufacturers, also supports maintenance of Ukrainian equipment, training of Ukrainian personnel and units, and Ukraine-related intelligence activities.
U.S. forces: Funds for the extra costs of U.S. forces that surged to Europe in response to Russian aggression. Some of these surge forces have returned to the United States, but others remain.
Humanitarian aid: Aid to relieve suffering because of the war. Mostly done through nongovernmental organizations in Europe for Ukrainian refugees, though some is spent in the United States and Ukraine. Some of the budget is also spent on global food relief. About $3 billion has gone to international development, unrelated to the war.
Economic: U.S. funds are provided to the Ukrainian government through the World Bank to make up for lost tax revenues and to keep governmental services operating.
Other U.S. agencies: Funds for activities in U.S. agencies other than the DOD, Department of State, and USAID, for example, for the Department of the Treasury to enforce sanctions and for the Department of Energy to safeguard nuclear materials.

---

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 11:35 am: Edit

I am unwilling to believe any news report that is long on scandal and so short on citations. Corruption? Sure, we have it here (Menendez to cite an example). 50%? Doubt it.

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Gentlebeings,

The only thing saving you is this series of posts is at least on topic. Remember to be polite to each other and to those not on the BBS. No name-calling.

Jean
WebMom

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Orsini:

Please be specific - how much MORE of US tax dollars should be spent on funding the Ukrainian War? For how long?

Ukraine has a GDP of $200B and a population of 38M
Russia has a GDP of $1.18T and a population of 144M

Tell us how attrition is not a factor?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 12:28 pm: Edit

With regard to Russia, it's worth noting that, for the first time in three years, they seem to actually be interested in some sort of a peace agreement (so long as it is at least 90% on their terms). And the reason is...money. Moscow is having increasing trouble financing the war.

Russia records a small budget deficit, and Russian public debt is low (at about 20 percent of GDP), but there's an important catch: with Western sanctions constraining Moscow’s ability to tap into international debt markets, the Kremlin has limited room for maneuver to finance its small - but nonetheless real - fiscal deficit.

With external debt out of the equation, Moscow’s initial plan B was to get Russian banks to buy sovereign debt. This strategy worked reasonably well in 2022 and 2023, but cracks started to emerge last year. Faced with competing pressures from the Kremlin to extend hundreds of billions in cheap loans to defense firms while also buying huge amounts of sovereign bonds, domestic banks have become so cash-strapped that they’re now reluctant to pile on more debt. Late last year, the Kremlin had to cancel several auctions for domestic debt issuance because there were no buyers.

So, with domestic borrowing increasingly out of the equation, Moscow has turned to plan C: tapping into the reserves of the Russian National Welfare Fund (NWF).

On paper, this looks like a reasonable strategy. Totaling nearly 10 trillion rubles (about $110 billion) in early 2022, the liquid portion of these reserves initially looked sufficient to cover the war-fueled budget deficit for several years. However, even the largest of savings eventually dries up, and three years into the conflict, the NWF’s liquid reserves have already shrunk by around 60 percent.

In January, the country’s monthly budget deficit was about 45 percent higher than the full-year target for 2025. If fiscal expenses remain at their January levels throughout the remainder of the year, the NWF reserves could vanish in just three months. And if Russia runs out of money to finance its budgetary shortfall, a sovereign default could well trigger a full-blown financial crisis. If that happened, the Kremlin would be hard pressed to support its banking sector. With the NWF reserves running low, there would be no pot of money available to proceed with recapitalizations. The house of cards that the Russian economy has become would quickly start collapsing.

Fiscally speaking, Russia is running out of time. The Kremlin has no plan D to finance its budget deficit, raising questions about its ability to fund the war. From this perspective, fiscal breathing room could well be what Putin is really looking for in his talks with the U.S., whether through sanctions relief (for instance, relaxing U.S. restrictions on Russia’s ability to place external debt) or a pause in the conflict (which would allow Moscow to replenish its coffers via a reduction in defense spending). In light of this, we should grant neither.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 12:33 pm: Edit

And no, Chuck, I'm not going to give you a specific number. This is a major war, which is by its very nature laden with all manner of uncertainties. Anyone who claims to have a specific number is either lying, trying to sell something, or both.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 12:41 pm: Edit

A super interesting article on the drone war in Ukraine. It so reminds me of SFB drone technology, how it evolved and adapted over the years.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/03/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-drones-deaths.html

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Actually, I'll make an estimate for $'s. I also agree with Jessica that Russia's economy is shaky, and that is why they are making such hard pushes on the Donbas front right now. I've seen reporting, not just Ukrainian, that their losses for the past few months are exceeding their ability to replace manpower.

The war has been going on for 3 years. The US has committed about $180 billion, $60 billion per year. Although they haven't actually spent that much yet as there are still unallocated $s that could be transferred. Note, $60 billion per year is about 0.2% of $28 trillion US GDP.

Europe seems this weekend like they will step up their donations. If the US kept up with high tech munitions that aren't easily replaceable, ie reload the patriot batteries as the Ukrainians shoot down inbound Russian missiles. While every bit helps, $20 to 40 billion, is probably a reasonable number that keeps Ukraine going.

Saw a poll today, 6 months ago about 80% of Americans supported US aid to Ukraine. Right now, it's about 50/50. That's a major swing, and the executive clearly isn't interested in continuing support. I expect that the US will drop most funding, maybe in a very narrow congress some Republican Senators or congressman will demand another partial tranche in exchange for moving forward on other tax/budget bills.

I won't be surprised if US support goes to 0. I would be very disappointed if they dropped Russia sanctions without a deal that Ukraine agrees to. I'd be disappointed if the administration refused to take sales for munition deliveries to Ukraine if another western country was willing to pay.

FYI, I'm a Canadian though, so take my opinion for what you will. Also, I have stated previously, I don't believe the Canadian government is doing enough to support Ukraine.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Orsini:

You were asked for your opinion.

How much more U.S. tax dollars should be spent on funding the Ukrainian War?

How long are you willing to pay off more money for corrupt politicians to steal?

In the Barbary wars (1805 c.e.) the answer was “ millions for defense. Not one cent for tribute.”

The issue here, is, why spend tax dollars that are being stolen? Bottom line, the U.S. and Other donors are paying too much for what is received .

It is paying corrupt parties for the privilege of supporting Ukraine.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Prior to this war even starting, I claimed to be willing to fight to the last Ukrainian against Russian aggression. I see no reason to change that stance.

For the USA and EU, beating a foe by outspending them is the CHEAP way to win a war. When we start spending our own soldiers is when it's expensive. And in Ukraine we aren't even neccessarily outspending Russia, AFAICT: In real terms, they're outspending us and still not winning.

Ukraine gets to define what a win for Ukraine is, but as long as Russia is violently expansionist and Ukraine is willing to spend soldiers to stop them while we only spend money. I think spending the money is a good deal for us.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Jswile: I refuse to reply to a false premise.

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Folks, be nice. This is the second warning.

No more "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions aimed at one person.

Jean
WebMom

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 02:57 pm: Edit

I don't think an infinite war supported by an infinite checkbook is sustainable. I like it as a concept, as bleeding Russia dry is a super idea (at least until a desperate Russian leader starts tossing nukes and which point someone can press the "back up one step" button).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 03:37 pm: Edit

I agree with you, Steve, that infinite isn't sustainable. But given the state of Russia's economy as detailed above, I think "another couple of years" is about as far as Russia could continue to go before economic collapse.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I don't think "another couple of years" is sustainable. I wish it were. Lots of people are dying and lots of taxpayers are getting tired of this. There is still the major point that a Russia in collapse is more dangerous than a Russian barely hanging on. There is also the point that Donetsk and Luhansk were always mostly Russian and were transferred to Ukraine by the Soviets to keep Ukraine under firm control. Few American high school history students even know what the Sudetenland was, but those who remember lightly skimming over it in 1938 think that Hitler was just stealing a slice of Czechoslovakia because it sounded fun. Actually, the Sudetenland was 90% German and was being brutally repressed by the Czechs. But then, we all know how that chain of events turned out.

Given how many press reports said that Covid came from a meat market and the Hunter laptop was a Russian plant, I think you can see why we don't all think that a news report that "there is no missing money" and "there never was any voter fraud" is convincing.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Some modern historians also believe that Chamberlain signed the agreement over the Sudetenland to buy time for Britain to rearm.

Now, I freely admit I don't know nuttin' for nuttin, BUT with the new face of warfare in the 21st century (with drones being such an important part), could there be parallels, with the US needing to modernize its military (the way France did NOT do prior to World War II)?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 04:59 pm: Edit

No one can predict the future, and Chamberlain was probably playing the odds. His choice was "war now" or sign the deal and hope that war is delayed or maybe never happens and anyway Britain would have time to build a stronger military if the odds didn't play out. I don't think he was an idiot or coward.

Zelensky might have done better if he showed up at the meeting and said: "I know you want a peace deal right now, but I want a peace deal that lasts a generation. I think any deal Putin would take right now just leads to a new war with the next US election. Could we discuss why I think your approach may not work the way you think it will?"

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Steve,

Zelenskyy had just had a meeting with democrat leaders of the house and senate.

It is possible (how ever unlikely) that Zelenskyy was primed for failure. Not having seen a report of what was said by both sides, it might be believable that Zelenskyy was told that Trump would crumble when confronted.

Zelenskyy might even have thought what he did in the oval office was a winning strategy.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 07:22 pm: Edit

If the democrat leadership did that I'm very disappointed.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Report that Trump "Paused" current funding to Ukraine....
Also, UK support is reported not to be delivered until 2027.....

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 08:29 pm: Edit

There is one question that I have not been able to resolve:

Where are the “Rare Earth” deposits located, that seem to be the basis of Trumps negotiations with Ukraine?

The only mentions that I have found indicate that those deposits are in the Dombas region, which is occupied by Russia, not to mention were originally majority ethnic Russian population .

Zelensky is negotiating the sale of mineral assets that Ukrainian lost control of three years ago? And Zelensky and Trump are publicly negotiating the extraction, sale and export of said ores that currently is in the possession of Russia?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Ukraine has Europe's largest reserves of lithium, titanium, graphite, and uranium. Ukraine has 23 of the 50 critical ores/minerals. Ukraine has an abundance of scandium, a rare earth element, according to experts. Ukraine also has other rare earth reserves, including cerium, dysprosium, erbium, gadolinium, holmium, lanthanum, lutetium, neodymium, praseodymium, samarium, terbium, thulium and yttrium. Ukraine rare earth and other critical minerals could be worth as much as $14.8 trillion. More than half of Ukraine’s coal reserves and mines are in occupied territory and about 20 percent of its natural gas fields and wells. About 20% of Ukraine was occupied by Russian forces, and about 40% of the country’s minerals and rare earths were in that area. Ukraine accounts for 7 percent of the global production of titanium. There are six major rare earth deposits in Ukraine. Russia controls two of them, one of those being the largest, twice the size of the other five.--various media reports

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Interesting in looking at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 In 1991 the USSr wa spending about 15% of its GNP on its military and could not survive, the US was spending about 4.6%. Today Russia is spending about 35% of its GNP vs the US 3.4 percent. Can Russia sustain this for much longer. We saw the fall of the Soviet Union are we looking at a repeat. Even if there is a peace agreement dont expect it to last Putin is only following the tradition Russian/Soviet policy in trying to control Central and Eastern Europe to defend mother Russia, that his been the policy for the last 300 years, NATO is only the most recent collection of countries to be organized to block that policy. Go back to the Congress of Vienna and Metternick attempt to block Russia in the Balkans and Central Europe. Spend it now or spend it later.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 10:30 pm: Edit

That area was lost in 2014 when Russia first went into Ukraine.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, March 03, 2025 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Eddie:

I am not disputing anything you posted. Near as I recall the figures, you are spot-on.

The only comment I have, is a closed society/government such as communist/ socialist states such as U.S.S.R, China, North Korea etc… have at least three sets of books.

One is the public record, which everyone knows is fiction.
Second, is the figures provided to the National leadership. (Politburo, Kremlin etc.) and (in theory) the real numbers that are probably only known to the actual managers of the banks, factories, power stations (coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower plants etc.)

The CIA tries every year to produce an accurate analysis of the true figures, but often have been proved spectacularly wrong time and again.

(Bomber gap, missile gap, tank gap, naval strength of navy assets, nuclear warheads, etc.)

The fall of the U.S.S.R proves the analysis.

There is still, years later, a dispute as to what the actual data was.