Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[GoatsMilk]

The minerals deal is completely fine. It has become significantly more favorable for Ukraine. Below is an outline summarizing the agreement, as well as associated risks:

Summary:

1. Creation of the American-Ukrainian Investment Fund
• Form: The Fund is created as a joint partnership of the two parties:
• The USA is represented by the International Development Finance Corporation.
• Ukraine is represented by the state organization "Agency for the Support of Public-Private Partnerships".
• Purpose: Investments in the reconstruction of Ukraine, which suffered significant destruction as a result of the Russian invasion. The main areas of investment: natural resources (mining, energy) and infrastructure.
• Strategic importance: The Fund is the central mechanism for cooperation between the USA and Ukraine for post-war recovery and integration of Ukraine into the global economic framework.

2. Fund Financing
• Ukraine's Contribution:
• Ukraine undertakes to direct half (50%) of royalties and other license fees from new licenses for natural resources (oil, gas, metals, etc.) to the fund.
• For this purpose, a special fund is created in the Ukrainian budget, from which money is transferred to the investment fund.
• US Contribution:
• The US makes a financial contribution, which may be additionally increased due to military assistance that the US provides to Ukraine (the cost of new military equipment, weapons, etc. is included in the financial assessment of the US contribution).

3. Tax and Financial Benefits
• All operations of the fund, income, payments, contributions of the parties are exempt from taxation in Ukraine.
• The American side also exempts the income of the Ukrainian partner of the fund from taxes in the US, if the income is received from projects implemented on the territory of Ukraine.

4. Currency Conversion and Fund Transfer
• Ukraine guarantees the free conversion of hryvnia into US dollars and the unhindered transfer of funds abroad without any additional fees or delays.
• However, in the event of an economic crisis (significant deterioration of the balance of payments or reduction of gold and foreign exchange reserves), Ukraine may temporarily impose restrictions on transfers and conversion. Such measures must be agreed with the United States.
• Ukraine is obliged to compensate the Fund for all losses that may arise as a result of such restrictions.

5. Fund’s Rights to Participate in Investment Projects
• Ukrainian state authorities undertake to include in all new licenses for the extraction of natural resources conditions under which potential investors must notify the Fund of investment opportunities and negotiate with it.
• Ukrainian state authorities should also include similar provisions in contracts for large infrastructure projects.

6. Priority rights of the fund to purchase products
• The fund (the American side) receives the priority right to purchase products extracted on the territory of Ukraine (for example, natural gas, rare metals, oil).
• Ukraine undertakes to ensure that third countries or companies do not receive significantly more favorable conditions than the fund.

7. Stability and priority of the Agreement
• The Agreement takes precedence over Ukrainian domestic legislation. Ukraine undertakes not to worsen the conditions for the fund by adopting new laws or amendments.
• Ukraine cannot refer to its own legislation to justify non-implementation of this Agreement.

8. Consistency with EU integration
• Ukraine recognizes its international obligations to the EU, and if the terms of this Agreement contradict Ukraine’s future obligations to the EU, the parties must consult and amend the Agreement accordingly.

9. Term of the Agreement
• The Agreement shall enter into force upon ratification by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and shall remain in effect for an unlimited period of time until both parties agree to terminate it.

Risks and issues for Ukraine:
1. Risk of loss of part of budget revenues
• Ukraine gives half of the revenues from new licenses for natural resources to the fund, which reduces potential revenues for the Ukrainian budget for many years.

2. Limitations on control over natural resources
• The fund’s priority rights to investments and purchases of natural resources may significantly limit Ukraine’s ability to choose the most favorable commercial terms and partners.

3. Limitations on financial independence
• Guaranteed conversion and transfer of funds. Ukraine must also compensate the fund for any costs in the event of economic restrictions.

4. Significant legal restrictions and dominance of US conditions
• The priority of the Agreement over Ukrainian legislation limits Ukraine’s right to independently regulate its own legislative environment in the field of investments and natural resources.

5. Military aid
• While it is not clear from the text, conditionally if we buy weapons - then this is also considered an American contribution to military aid to Ukraine and is counted in the Fund.

6. Terms
• The agreement is indefinite and we do not yet see a specific mechanism for making changes from the text.

7. Security guarantees
• Let's be honest - they are absent here.

Just like when Trump came out blaming Ukraine for the war and made a mockery of Zelensky in front of the world, this agreement will be heavily exploited by the USA because Ukraine needs them to survive. The USA will make sure that the Russian threat is always there so that they can extract the most from Ukraine. Americans if were being honest are just as treacherous, duplicitous and deceitful as the Russians are.

 

[contricusc]

The minerals deal is completely fine. It has become significantly more favorable for Ukraine.

While the deal is clearly not as bad as it was initially supposed to be, the optics of Ukraine being forced to sign the deal in order to appease Trump are awful.

Why was this deal required in the first place? It was reauired because Trump wanted to humiliate Ukraine so he can boast to his electorate how tough he is and how much better than Biden he is. The only reason why this “deal” was conceived is because Trump wanted to abandon Ukraine to the Russians, and Ukrainians tried to find a way to convice Trump not to do it.

It’s like giving candy to a todler because otherwise he doesn’t stop screaming. While the todler may behave until he finishes his candy, you can rest assured that he will start acting bad again everytime he will want another candy.

The way Trump behaved towards his allies, from Ukraine, Panama to Denmark and Canada was awful, and he should not be rewaded for it. Any reward he gets, even if it is just a symbolic “minerals deal”, reinforces his ideas that he was right to bully his allies in the first place.

The same goes with the trade war he started with the rest of the world. Any country that goes to negotiate with him now is doing the world a disservice, because it legitimizes the todler’s tantrum. China is the only country dealing correctly with Trump, by not even talking to him.

Europe should get its act together and start pumping weapons and ammunition, instead of humiliating itself in front of Trump just to keep him in the “alliance”. Why does Europe need “security guarantees” from the US in order to deploy troops in Ukraine? Is this just another excuse to talk taugh and do nothing?

 

[contricusc]

The USA will make sure that the Russian threat is always there so that they can extract the most from Ukraine. Americans if were being honest are just as treacherous, duplicitous and deceitful as the Russians are.

The USA and Russia are two sides of the same coin. Both of them are imperialistic bullies who think they are above everyone else. The US’s advantage is that it is much more economically devloped, and being their vassal is much more lucrative than being Russia’s. It’s better to be the UK than to be Belarus, and it’s better to be South Korea than North Korea.

 

[Relic]

After the mineral deal was signed, it's been reported that USA has now agreed to start selling weapons to Ukraine for immediate transfer. Trump told Zelenskyy that USA would not ship Ukraine weapons for free anymore, beyond those in the pipeline that were paid for under the Biden administration.

That said, behind the scenes the Trump Government has been open to idea of selling Ukraine weapons that they already use and that are being mass produced currently, largely for Ukraine. This only makes sense given that it support U.S. industry. That said, Trump has been using the Mineral Agreement as leverage to approve those purchases. It's obvious that an unwritten part of the deal was that the U.S. would immediately start selling weapons to Ukraine upon the deal being signed.

It's now being reported that the Trump administration has informed Congress that he's making an initial $50 million usd sale of weapons to Ukraine. While not officially disclosed, it's thought that the agreed upon weapons are interceptors (AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM) for Ukraine's American made NASAMs systems.

Furthermore, Milhail Podolyak (Zelenskyy's advisor) has come out to say that Ukraine will now be approved for the purchase of further air defense systems from the USA now that that the Mineral Deal has been signed. We'll wait for details to be released by the Americans to confirm, but it's believed that the air defense systems being hinted at are as many as 10 Additional Patriot Air Defense System Batteries (with PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors.) Ukraine has publically offered $15 Billion usd for the batteries ($1.5 Billion usd per battery). It's unclear if Ukraine will be approved to purchase some / all of the systems. Ukraine is is trying to purchse up to $50 Billion usd worth of weapons from the Amricans.

Finally, we now have photo evidence that as part of the "spare parts" USA has agreed to send Ukraine, the Americans are sending retired F-16 airframes to Ukraine for them to be used as spare parts for the fleet of 75+ combat ready aircraft that the Eropeans are sending Ukraine in batches. The Americans have hundreds of F-16s in desert storage at the 309th, and spare parts are paramount to keeping the fleet operational.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918024469978718340

Trump administration readies first sale of military equipment to Ukraine

State department certifies licence for ‘$50m or more’ in defence hardware and services after minerals deal signed

www.theguardian.com

MAKS 24 👀🇺🇦 (@maks23.bsky.social)

✈️🇺🇸🇺🇦 To support Ukraine’s F-16 fleet, the U.S. now is sending retired F-16s from the Davis-Monthan “boneyard” to be used as spare parts, - TWZ

bsky.app

@tommytwopence.bsky.social

No shortage of spare parts there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/309th_Aerospace_Maintenance_and_Regeneration_Group

bsky.app

 

[Soldier30]

The first footage of a detailed inspection of the inside of an abandoned Ukrainian Strv 122 tank. The tank was damaged in December 2023 and abandoned by the Ukrainian army in the Torsk operational direction. The Strv 122 tank is a Swedish modification of the German Leopard 2A5 tank.

 

[contricusc]

After the mineral deal was signed, it's been reported that USA has now agreed to start selling weapons to Ukraine for immediate transfer. Trump told Zelenskyy that USA would not ship Ukraine weapons for free anymore, beyond those in the pipeline that were paid for under the Biden administration.

So here are the main changes regarding Ukraine since Trump came to office:

1) The US will sell weapons to Ukraine (paid by Europe, because Ukraine doesn’t have the money) instead of giving them for free.

Winner: US
Losers: Ukraine, Europe

2) The minerals deal where US gets rights to Ukrainian minerals that it did not have before, while Ukraine gives up some of its soverignity over its natural resources.

Winner: US
Loser: Ukraine

In both cases, the US gets better terms than what it had during Biden, while Ukraine is worse off (and Europe by extension, who needs to foot the bill for military aid that was previously provided by the US for free).

Trump gets a big win, and shows to the American electorate that his strategy of bullying Ukraine and appeasing Russia worked. The US gets rewarded for bullying its allies. This creates a very nasty precedent that will shape US politics for decades to come.

From now on, the US will keep on bullying its allies to get concessions from them and change the partnership terms with ones more favorable to the US. This will keep on happening, until the US gets snubbed and punished for it. As long as bullying is rewarded, it will continue.

 

[Relic]

So here are the main changes regarding Ukraine since Trump came to office:

1) The US will sell weapons to Ukraine (paid by Europe, because Ukraine doesn’t have the money) instead of giving them for free.

Winner: US
Losers: Ukraine, Europe

2) The minerals deal where US gets rights to Ukrainian minerals that it did not have before, while Ukraine gives up some of its soverignity over its natural resources.

Winner: US
Loser: Ukraine

In both cases, the US gets better terms than what it had during Biden, while Ukraine is worse off (and Europe by extension, who needs to foot the bill for military aid that was previously provided by the US for free).

Trump gets a big win, and shows to the American electorate that his strategy of bullying Ukraine and appeasing Russia worked. The US gets rewarded for bullying its allies. This creates a very nasty precedent that will shape US politics for decades to come.

From now on, the US will keep on bullying its allies to get concessions from them and change the partnership terms with ones more favorable to the US. This will keep on happening, until the US gets snubbed and punished for it. As long as bullying is rewarded, it will continue.

Exactly. USA (like it, or not) has fully moved away from supporting Ukraine for "free". They are painting the mineral deal as a long term way of recouping some of the funds they sent Ukraine during the Biden administration and they used it as leverage for the sale of future weapons to Ukraine.

And yes, Europe will face the overwhelming financial burden of helping fund those weapons, with loans and grants from countries such as Britain , Canada , Japan , Australia and South Korea . I actually think this is the healthiest outcome we could hope for under a Trump governemt that wants to withdraw military aid, but is willing to focus on military sales. Is it as good of a deal as Ukraine was getting under Biden? Or course not. The reality is, however, in specific weapons categories (especially air defense) only USA has the production capacity required to keep Ukraine flush with interceptors. Additionally, Ukraine's access to USA's 155mm artillery shell production, armored vehicle inventory, intelligence, etc, are deeply important to them.

The reality is that Europe has roughly the same GDP as the USA . If you add the countries I listed above to the mix, their GDP far surpasses the USA. The truth is that the European Union + Britain + Canada + Australia + New Zealand + South Korea + Norway + Ukraine can afford this war, they simply have to step up and put their money where their mouth is. There is no reason that the above countries can't combine to foot a $50-75 Billion usd annual cost to keep the Ukrainian military strong and increasingly capable for the remainder of the conflict. Especially if USA continues to allow Ukraine strong access to its military industrial complex to augment supplies from Europe, third party purchases and Ukraine's own quickly expanding domestic industry.

USA doesn't want to fund this war anymore. The other countries with a vested interest are going to have to step up (long term) for a change and fund it. 20+ of the top 30 economies in the world are involved in supporting Ukraine. There are not excuses.

Annual funding requirements in grants and loans...

Ukraine : $35 Billion usd
Germany : $10 Billion usd
Britain : $6 Billion usd
France : $6 Billion usd
Japan : $6 Billion usd
Italy : $4 Billion usd
Canada : $4 Billion usd
Norway : $3 Billion usd
Spain : $3 Billion usd
Sweden : $3 Billion usd
South Korea : $2 Billion usd
Australia : $2 Billion usd
Denmark : $2 Billion usd
Netherlands : $2 Billion usd
Poland : $2 Billion usd
Finland : $2 Billion usd
Czech Republic : $2 Billion usd
Romania : $2 Billion usd
Portugal : $2 Billion usd
Baltics Combined: $1 Billion
Greece : $1 Billion usd
Turkey : $1 Billion usd
New Zealand : $1 Billion usd
Everyone else: $1 Billion usd

Total: $103 Billion usd

That alone, without any support "free" aid money from the United States, is enough money for Ukraine to field an army that is consistently 750,000 strong, featuring a modern / mixed air force a fantastic air defense network. It's extremely "doable", especially with a focus on weapons manufacturing in Ukraine and Eastern Europe (especially for less technical equipment) where it's cheaper to produce weapons. Complimented by higher tech items purchased in USA, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Britain, Poland, etc, Russia would simply continue to exhaust their military, facing crazy inflation and borrowing rates, while securing extremely marginal gains, at an exceptionally high cost.

 

[Century]

The minerals deal is completely fine. It has become significantly more favorable for Ukraine. Below is an outline summarizing the agreement, as well as associated risks:

Summary:

1. Creation of the American-Ukrainian Investment Fund
• Form: The Fund is created as a joint partnership of the two parties:
• The USA is represented by the International Development Finance Corporation.
• Ukraine is represented by the state organization "Agency for the Support of Public-Private Partnerships".
• Purpose: Investments in the reconstruction of Ukraine, which suffered significant destruction as a result of the Russian invasion. The main areas of investment: natural resources (mining, energy) and infrastructure.
• Strategic importance: The Fund is the central mechanism for cooperation between the USA and Ukraine for post-war recovery and integration of Ukraine into the global economic framework.

2. Fund Financing
• Ukraine's Contribution:
• Ukraine undertakes to direct half (50%) of royalties and other license fees from new licenses for natural resources (oil, gas, metals, etc.) to the fund.
• For this purpose, a special fund is created in the Ukrainian budget, from which money is transferred to the investment fund.
• US Contribution:
• The US makes a financial contribution, which may be additionally increased due to military assistance that the US provides to Ukraine (the cost of new military equipment, weapons, etc. is included in the financial assessment of the US contribution).

3. Tax and Financial Benefits
• All operations of the fund, income, payments, contributions of the parties are exempt from taxation in Ukraine.
• The American side also exempts the income of the Ukrainian partner of the fund from taxes in the US, if the income is received from projects implemented on the territory of Ukraine.

4. Currency Conversion and Fund Transfer
• Ukraine guarantees the free conversion of hryvnia into US dollars and the unhindered transfer of funds abroad without any additional fees or delays.
• However, in the event of an economic crisis (significant deterioration of the balance of payments or reduction of gold and foreign exchange reserves), Ukraine may temporarily impose restrictions on transfers and conversion. Such measures must be agreed with the United States.
• Ukraine is obliged to compensate the Fund for all losses that may arise as a result of such restrictions.

5. Fund’s Rights to Participate in Investment Projects
• Ukrainian state authorities undertake to include in all new licenses for the extraction of natural resources conditions under which potential investors must notify the Fund of investment opportunities and negotiate with it.
• Ukrainian state authorities should also include similar provisions in contracts for large infrastructure projects.

6. Priority rights of the fund to purchase products
• The fund (the American side) receives the priority right to purchase products extracted on the territory of Ukraine (for example, natural gas, rare metals, oil).
• Ukraine undertakes to ensure that third countries or companies do not receive significantly more favorable conditions than the fund.

7. Stability and priority of the Agreement
• The Agreement takes precedence over Ukrainian domestic legislation. Ukraine undertakes not to worsen the conditions for the fund by adopting new laws or amendments.
• Ukraine cannot refer to its own legislation to justify non-implementation of this Agreement.

8. Consistency with EU integration
• Ukraine recognizes its international obligations to the EU, and if the terms of this Agreement contradict Ukraine’s future obligations to the EU, the parties must consult and amend the Agreement accordingly.

9. Term of the Agreement
• The Agreement shall enter into force upon ratification by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and shall remain in effect for an unlimited period of time until both parties agree to terminate it.

Risks and issues for Ukraine:
1. Risk of loss of part of budget revenues
• Ukraine gives half of the revenues from new licenses for natural resources to the fund, which reduces potential revenues for the Ukrainian budget for many years.

2. Limitations on control over natural resources
• The fund’s priority rights to investments and purchases of natural resources may significantly limit Ukraine’s ability to choose the most favorable commercial terms and partners.

3. Limitations on financial independence
• Guaranteed conversion and transfer of funds. Ukraine must also compensate the fund for any costs in the event of economic restrictions.

4. Significant legal restrictions and dominance of US conditions
• The priority of the Agreement over Ukrainian legislation limits Ukraine’s right to independently regulate its own legislative environment in the field of investments and natural resources.

5. Military aid
• While it is not clear from the text, conditionally if we buy weapons - then this is also considered an American contribution to military aid to Ukraine and is counted in the Fund.

6. Terms
• The agreement is indefinite and we do not yet see a specific mechanism for making changes from the text.

7. Security guarantees
• Let's be honest - they are absent here.

Well, the deal brings in critical investment and cements strategic ties with the U.S., but the extent of legal and economic concessions raises valid concerns. Prioritizing one foreign partner so heavily, especially in such a long-term, open-ended framework, could limit Ukraine’s flexibility and leverage down the line. It’s a bold move. Whether it’s wise will depend on how well they manage the balance of power going forward.

The real question is: how do one ensure this partnership empowers Ukraine rather than gradually undermining its sovereignty?

 

[contricusc]

And yes, Europe will face the overwhelming financial burden of helping fund those weapons, with loans and grants from countries such as Britain , Canada , Japan , Australia and South Korea . I actually think this is the healthiest outcome we could hope for under a Trump governemt that wants to withdraw military aid, but is willing to focus on military sales.

The problem with this situation is that it will be very hard to justify sending money to Ukraine for countries like Australia or New Zealand, when the US is not only not giving money, but actually making a profit by selling military hardware (and also getting the minerals).

Why should Australians and New Zealanders care more about Ukraine and Russia than the Americans, who were the Soviet Union’s rivals?

It’s a taugh sell to people of such far-away countries (and I would include South Korea and Japan here as well).

Why would Australia give money and get nothing in return, while the US makes weapons sales and also gets mineral rights, while not giving any money to Ukraine from now on?

What happened until now is the past, where the US contributed, just like all the others. The problem is that from now on, the US will stop contributing and start making profits, while the others are supposed to contribute even more than before. This is outrageous.

Is it as good of a deal as Ukraine was getting under Biden? Or course not. The reality is, however, in specific weapons categories (especially air defense) only USA has the production capacity required to keep Ukraine flush with interceptors. Additionally, Ukraine's access to USA's 155mm artillery shell production, armored vehicle inventory, intelligence, etc, are deeply important to them.

The air defence interceptors are extremely expensive, especially the ones that only the US has (long range). They are not a cost effective way to spend the money. Ukraine would be better off with offensive missiles instead of air defense interceptors. Better spend that money on Taurus and Storm Shadows than on Patriot interceptors.

USA doesn't want to fund this war anymore. The other countries with a vested interest are going to have to step up (long term) for a change and fund it. 20+ of the top 30 economies in the world are involved in supporting Ukraine. There are not excuses.

Yes, but Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand have a smaller vested interest than the US had.

While I agree that the remaining allies have enough resources to keep Ukraine funded, I think that rewarding the US for quitting the alliance sends the wrong message.

The US is basically rewarded with mineral rights for not sending any more money from now on. I think this deal has the potential to ruin the cohesion and support from the other allies.

My choice would have been for Europe and the rest to go it alone, and ditch the US altogether. No mineral deal, no reward for siding with Putin. And once Putin and Russia are defeated, US bases should be kicked out of Europe.

And European countries should start to build nuclear weapons. There are many that could rapidly develop nukes, like Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain. They should all do it. Also Canada, South Koea, Japan and Australia should do it.

And Europe should also start a pan-European program (like the Eurofighter) to build ICBMs that can strike anywhere in the world with nukes. That’s the only way to guarantee security and peace, and to be able to ditch the US for good.

 

[Relic]

The problem with this situation is that it will be very hard to justify sending money to Ukraine for countries like Australia or New Zealand, when the US is not only not giving money, but actually making a profit by selling military hardware (and also getting the minerals).

Why should Australians and New Zealanders care more about Ukraine and Russia than the Americans, who were the Soviet Union’s rivals?

It’s a taugh sell to people of such far-away countries (and I would include South Korea and Japan here as well).

Why would Australia give money and get nothing in return, while the US makes weapons sales and also gets mineral rights, while not giving any money to Ukraine from now on?

What happened until now is the past, where the US contributed, just like all the others. The problem is that from now on, the US will stop contributing and start making profits, while the others are supposed to contribute even more than before. This is outrageous.



The air defence interceptors are extremely expensive, especially the ones that only the US has (long range). They are not a cost effective way to spend the money. Ukraine would be better off with offensive missiles instead of air defense interceptors. Better spend that money on Taurus and Storm Shadows than on Patriot interceptors.




Yes, but Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand have a smaller vested interest than the US had.

While I agree that the remaining allies have enough resources to keep Ukraine funded, I think that rewarding the US for quitting the alliance sends the wrong message.

The US is basically rewarded with mineral rights for not sending any more money from now on. I think this deal has the potential to ruin the cohesion and support from the other allies.

My choice would have been for Europe and the rest to go it alone, and ditch the US altogether. No mineral deal, no reward for siding with Putin. And once Putin and Russia are defeated, US bases should be kicked out of Europe.

And European countries should start to build nuclear weapons. There are many that could rapidly develop nukes, like Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain. They should all do it. Also Canada, South Koea, Japan and Australia should do it.

And Europe should also start a pan-European program (like the Eurofighter) to build ICBMs that can strike anywhere in the world with nukes. That’s the only way to guarantee security and peace, and to be able to ditch the US for good.

You're not wrong, but geopolitics are about doing what you have to do to win. Yes, it's shitty that the U.S. wants to stop footing the bill for the war, but Europe and other Ukrainian allies would be cutting their noses off to spite their faces if they stopped buying weapons from USA simply so the Anericans don't receive the benefit of the funding. The reality is that there is more funding available than there is inventory in Europe to purchase and deliver in a reasonable time period. Buying select items off the USA for Ukraine's defense is well worth it, even if it's bought using money from one of the other 30'ish countries that are helping Ukraine out fiscally.

A just wanted to make two points in particular.

1. Yes, offensive missiles are vital to Ukraine's war effort, but missiles like Taurus are rare. Germany has about 600 of them and about half of those would need refurbishing to be usable. It's very unlikely that even if Merz does approve their transfer, that they'll send Ukraine more than 50'ish of them. Meanwhile, Britain , France and Italy are clearly running low on inventory of Stormshadow / SCALP-EG missiles they're willing to send Ukraine. If they have 50 (combined) more that they are willing to send in the short term that's probably damn near the limit. Would 100 Tarus / Stormshadow missiles be able to do some strategic damage, especially in Crimea and the regions adjacent to Ukraine? Sure. But is it some kind of silver bullet / game changer? No

Now, the Americans might sell Ukraine some older ATACMS as they bring quantities of PrSMs into their inventories, but I think we should be thinking about numbers in the dozens rather than hundreds, for example... And we're back to buying American weapons.

2. Air defense interceptors are expensive, but they're vital to protect Ukraine's energy infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, air bases, radar installations, etc. Not all interceptors are the value of Patriot PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles each. For example, Ukraine raves about the success rate of their NASAMS systems. It costs around $500,000 usd for a AIM-9X sidewinder that can be used by both the F-16 and the NASAMs in an air defense role. Buying 500 units for $250-$300 million usd is a very good use of funds given how effective they are against everything but Russian ballistic missiles. At $1.1 million usd, the AIM-120 AMRAAM is more expensive, but buying 300 of them would give you a longer range option for the NASAMs, and a strike weapons for F-16s, at a reasonable price.

 

[Relic]

USA has agreed to sell Ukraine $310 million usd worth of F-16 pilot training, spare parts and equipment. This was announced one day after USA agreed to sell Ukraine $50 million usd worth of undisclosed weapons believed to be missile interceptors.

We're going to see a lot more of this now that the mineral deal has been signed and the U.S. is walking away from trying to facilitate negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The days of Ukraine getting free military resources from the U.S. may be over, but you're going to see significant quantities of weapons sales to Ukraine be approved. There is a 0% chance that Trump is going to stop U.S. arms manufacturers not be able to see their products to Ukraine. Especially when Ukraine is flush with cash after receiving a $50 billion usd loan for the purchase of weapons, of which, USA contributed $20 Billion usd. Trump absolutely wants to make sure that at least the American portion of that loan is spent buying weapons and services in the USA.

As Putin digs in, Trump approves F-16 training deal for Ukraine - Euromaidan Press

Pentagon greenlit a $310 million package for Ukraine, as peace talks with Russia stall.

euromaidanpress.com

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-state-dept-oks-possible-sale-f-16-training-sustainment-ukraine-2025-05-02/

 

[contricusc]

The reality is that there is more funding available than there is inventory in Europe to purchase and deliver in a reasonable time period. Buying select items off the USA for Ukraine's defense is well worth it, even if it's bought using money from one of the other 30'ish countries that are helping Ukraine out fiscally.

While I agree with this as a pragmatic solution, I think purchases from the US should be avoided as much as possible, and the excessive cash should be used to ramp up capacity in Europe and Ukraine. Give European companies big contracts worth billions of dollars so that they have the certainty of big long term orders that allow them to open new factories and scale production.

Yes, the weapons will not come right away, but while they will come at a later time, they bring the added value of building infrastructure for future mass production.

Now, the Americans might sell Ukraine some older ATACMS as they bring quantities of PrSMs into their inventories, but I think we should be thinking about numbers in the dozens rather than hundreds, for example... And we're back to buying American weapons.

Buying American offensive missiles is ok, and this is where most orders for US weapons should be made. Europe should push for buying more advanced and longer range weapons, like Tomahawks. Since they pay and the US no longer contributes, they should have a stronger negotiating position in regards to what they buy. They should negotiate with conditions like “we buy X air defence interceptors only if you also sell us Y amount of long range attack missiles”.

If the US wants lucrative orders, they should also sell the more useful staff. Since Trump’s nature is transactional, he should be treated as such.

For example, Ukraine raves about the success rate of their NASAMS systems. It costs around $500,000 usd for a AIM-9X sidewinder that can be used by both the F-16 and the NASAMs in an air defense role.

While NASAMS are no doubt very good, the orders for medium range air defense should be focused on IRIS-T, which are even better and made in Europe. Why spend money on the US MIC instead of boosting the European MIC? Not only that the money spent in Europe are recycled back through taxes and wages, but they also build much needed capacity and strategic autonomy.

And an added benefit of not buying American (or at least keep it to an absolute necessary minimum) and expanding European MIC is that it will make US MIC anxious and nervous about Trump and his decisionmaking, which could prove fatal (maybe even in a literal way) for him.

 

[mTT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918604723684360195

 

[Soldier30]

Footage of a competent combined assault by Russian troops on the village of Novoolenivka in Donbas. First, Russian FPV drones attack a Ukrainian BMP-1TS, a Bogdana self-propelled gun, and a mortar in the village. Drone strikes on buildings are also visible. After this, Russian attack aircraft enter the village on motorcycles. As a result of the battle, Ukrainian units leave the village of Novoolenivka, as shown at the end of the video.