Russia and Ukraine Current Events

[Mendel]

if the war never ends because Zelensky doesn't think diplomacy (ie. Trump's plan) will work, then the mineral deal is worthless.

• Zelensky hopes diplomacy works. That doesn't mean that every suggestion that got floated is good or acceptable.
• Trump has no plan for peace in Ukraine that we know of.

4. Zelensky agrees to give some land and give on some of Putins security demands. (apparently not an option)

Why would you say that's not an option when multilateral negotiations haven't even begun?

oh please. he dropped his trousers back in like 2016.

correct. except his trousers were his country's garment.

Article:

In April 2017, columnist James Kirchick stressed the importance of the German elections (on which "the future of the free world" depended) since America had "abdicated its traditional role as leader of the free world by electing Trump. [..] References to America's abdication of its role as leader of the free world continued or increased after Donald Trump questioned the unconditional defence of NATO partners and the Paris climate accord.[25]​[26]​

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_World

or are you claiming your (or Europe's) respect for this administration was higher before that meeting?

the phrase "stoop to a new low" comes to mind.
Expectations were adjusted downward, yes.

What?! Americans don't like people f'ing with their shit. You honestly think we would just roll over and let Putin take our shit? esp lithium... we want that lithium.

Trump would. He said he wouldn't send US troops to Ukraine, iirc.

That's why this should've been a no-brainer. Zelensky says, please send troops as part of the peace deal, and Trump could've said, "sure thing, of course we'll want to protect these minerals". Instead he says, "we're not going to send troops because otherwise Putin won't agree to my Nobel peace prize winning peace deal".

Putin says, "please don't put troops in Ukraine, it'll take us a few years to get our T-80 tank numbers back up again, and then we will not attack Ukraine with them again".
Zelensky says, "he will, pls send troops, kthx".

And that's the diplomatic conundrum.

If you ask any Ukrainian, "Would you rather keep fighting, or trust Putin not to invade Ukraine again?", most of them won't trust Putin. Heck, most Americans don't, and he hasn't even invaded the USA.

 

[deirdre]

You get it wrong. What we (me, at least) have been arguing along the whole thread is that WW3 gets more probable if Putin is allowed to defeat Ukraine.

i agree with this too. so what's the plan to prevent Putin from capturing all of Ukraine?

(bearing in mind that America is not going to go to war with Russia to protect Ukrainians from becoming Russians again.)

 

[deirdre]

• Trump has no plan for peace in Ukraine that we know of.

how can you have a plan for peace before getting both sides to the table.

(note: i do not think a peace agreement is even possible, because i do not believe Zelensky..or according to our media..the ukrainian government or ukrainian people are willing to give up an inch of land. And even if by some miracle they do agree to give up the crimea area, Putin will never in a million years agree to Nato troops in Ukraine. so... the whole thing is f'ed)

the phrase "stoop to a new low" comes to mind.
Expectations were adjusted downward, yes.

no one believes you.

Trump would. He said he wouldn't send US troops to Ukraine, iirc.

he wont send troops to protect the ukrainians. or to get between their land dispute.
If Putin attacks OUR people, thats a completely different conflict that has nothing to do with Ukraine.

and Trump could've said, "sure thing, of course we'll want to protect these minerals".

He DID say that. That's all he's been saying. But we're not gonna send troops UNTIL Putin instigates a conflict with US.

If you ask any Ukrainian, "Would you rather keep fighting, or trust Putin not to invade Ukraine again?", most of them won't trust Putin.

The issue isnt trusting Putin, the issue is trusting America's -and Europe Proper's- ability (and will) to keep Putin from attacking.

I dont blame Ukrainians for not trusting america or europe proper. we screwed them over multiple times already. didnt we tell them we'd protect them if they gave up nuclear weapons? etc. and sure we can send troops, get the peace deal signed then pull our troops out.

so is this stalemate, or zugzwang? either way, I'm willing to concede that Trump is a deceitful piece of shit and europe will do a much better job handling the situation. that blonde lady just said the EU will put 800 billion into quickly building up their defenses so they can take over this Ukraine situation. And i love Europe Proper for doing this <no sarcasm in that statement.

 

[Mendel]

(bearing in mind that America is not going to go to war with Russia to protect Ukrainians from becoming Russians again.)

the point of a good peace plan is to prevent the next war

so what's the plan to prevent Putin from capturing all of Ukraine?

i doubt any of us forum users have a plan like that in a desk drawer, none of us aspire to a peace Nobel

Article:

Despite the conflict's heavy toll—or, perhaps, because of it—achieving peace in Ukraine will be a daunting endeavor. The deep-seated mistrust and conflicting interests between Russia and Ukraine make the path to a resolution fraught with obstacles. Russia's strategic desire to render Ukraine weak and subordinate contrasts sharply with Ukraine's pursuit of sovereignty.

To begin to address these questions, this paper undertakes a comprehensive review of 25 proposals for returning peace to Ukraine.3​ To the best of my knowledge, this study is the first to systematically categorize and compare the many constructive—though often conflicting—plans put out by governments, think tanks and independent scholars.

Source: https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/comparing-pathways-peace-ukraine

how can you have a plan for peace before getting both sides to the table.

how can you not have a plan?

 

[deirdre]

Ukraine's pursuit of sovereignty.

btw, why do papers keep using phrasing like this? it doesnt translate (yes i know its in english) to my NE ear. Ukraine is already a sovereign nation. i assume they mean Russia acknowledging their sovereignty? isnt there a better way to phrase that though, or am i missing the meaning of sentences like that?

 

[deirdre]

the point of a good peace plan is to prevent the next war

well if the only way to achieve a good peace plan is american troops or the promise of american troops (without american interests) then there will be no good peace plan.

 

[Mendel]

Article:

On the evening of 3 March 2025 Ukraine's worst fears materialised when US President Donald Trump ordered a suspension of US military aid to Ukraine amid its struggle against the Russian invasion. The suspension, which was not made in consultation with US allies, [...]

The halt in US aid includes all US military equipment not currently in Ukraine, including weapons in transit and at bases in Poland, where Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed on 4 March that the suspension had come into force.

Source: https://euro-sd.com/2025/03/major-news/42912/us-ukraine-aid-suspended/

 

[Ann K]

You get it wrong. What we (me, at least) have been arguing along the whole thread is that WW3 gets more probable if Putin is allowed to defeat Ukraine.

The world should have stepped in when Putin seized Crimea. The whole idea of countries banding together is that none of them should lay claim against the boundaries of another, so that should never have been allowed. If Russia takes Ukraine, what's to stop them from deciding to seize any other piece of land they take a fancy to? THAT is what concerns Europe.

But there's no reason to stop at continental Europe either. What if Putin wants, say, Greenland? Or Panama? Or Canada? That kind of careless talk from Donald Trump comes from his admiration of Putin: "I want it so I'll just take it", and it gets the rest of the world justifiably nervous. Can we stop them, so neither dictator gets the chance to starts WW3? We have to try.

 

[FatPhil]

btw, why do papers keep using phrasing like this? it doesnt translate (yes i know its in english) to my NE ear. Ukraine is already a sovereign nation. i assume they mean Russia acknowledging their sovereignty? isnt there a better way to phrase that though, or am i missing the meaning of sentences like that?

They are no longer in control of all of their *internationally agreed* territory, it being occupied by Russia, by force. They wish to regain control over those occupied regions, it's quite a simple concept.

 

[Mauro]

no one believes you.

I can confirm that. Expectations were low already and after the Oval Office show they sank a good deal more.

 

[Ann K]

(note: i do not think a peace agreement is even possible, because i do not believe Zelensky..or according to our media..the ukrainian government or ukrainian people are willing to give up an inch of land.

What an inane suggestion. Don't be silly. Why should they? Did losing Crimea keep Putin peaceful?

Do you think we can avoid a war with another country if we just say "If we give you Maine and Massachusetts, will you pretty-please just go away?" That is just Danegeld (look it up, if you don't know the history) and appeasement by capitulation has never been a winning strategy.

 

[FatPhil]

no one believes you.

Plenty of people considered Trump/Vance's oval office behaviour to be a new low. Many people expressed that in the world media. Every satirical comedy program I'm aware of showed clips of it, accompanied by reactions ranging from shock to horror. Your bubble of disbelief in what @Mendel says seems to have radius one.

Here's simply the latest reaction that's passed through my news feed:

Former Polish president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Wałęsa has written a letter, co-signed by 38 other former political prisoners of Poland's communist regime, to Donald Trump, condemning the US president's treatment of Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine.

"We watched your conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine with horror and distaste," wrote the group, referring to Trump's meeting with Zelensky in the White House on Friday, at which the pair were expected to sign an agreement but which instead turned into an angry confrontation.

"We were also horrified by the fact that the atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation reminded us of the one we remember well from interrogations by the Security Service [SB, the communist secret police] and from courtrooms in communist courts," they added.

"Prosecutors and judges, commissioned by the all-powerful communist political police, also explained to us that they held all the cards and we had none," wrote the signatories. "They demanded that we cease our activities, arguing that thousands of innocent people were suffering because of us."

-- https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/03...ensky-likening-it-to-communist-interrogation/

If you can find examples of Walesa comparing prior Trump behaviour to that of soviet oppression, then you might have a point, but I suspect you cannot, and I suspect you do not.

 

[Mendel]

btw, why do papers keep using phrasing like this?

because the Davis Center writes for people interested in international politics, for whom sovereignty is not a foreign concept, or who at the very least can look it up online.

You cut my quote, btw; the sentence read in full:

Russia's strategic desire to render Ukraine weak and subordinate contrasts sharply with Ukraine's pursuit of sovereignty.

So even we did not know what sovereignty means, we can imply that it is the opposite of a country confined to be weak and to be subordinate to another country in certain areas of politics.

If Zelensky offers for Ukraine to never become a NATO member state, then he is offering some of Ukraine's sovereignty.
If Putin wants to restrict how much standing military Ukraine can have, he'd be restricting Ukraine's sovereignty.
These concessions would need to be matched with Russian concessions.

When Trump demands for Zelensky to step down as president, he is disrespecting the sovereign right of the Ukrainian people to choose their own leader.

Edit: 'Sovereignty' is similar to the American concept of 'Independence'.

 

[deirdre]

Why should they?

i didnt say they should.

 

[deirdre]

If Zelensky offers for Ukraine to never become a NATO member state, then he is offering some of Ukraine's sovereignty.
If Putin wants to restrict how much standing military Ukraine can have, he'd be restricting Ukraine's sovereignty.

They are no longer in control of all of their *internationally agreed* territory, it being occupied by Russia, by force.

thank you for the information. It was helpful.

 

[John J.]

I get that many think we (america and the EU/uk) SHOULD start ww3 and fight for Ukraine..

I don't think any serious people- respected/ senior politicians, mainstream media outlets, former senior soldiers etc.- have suggested that Western nations should start direct military operations against Russian forces.

i agree with this too. so what's the plan to prevent Putin from capturing all of Ukraine?

Broadly, the plan was to provide equipment, training of Ukrainian personnel and finance to allow Ukraine to inflict continuous damage to attacking/ occupying Russian forces, in the hope that the cost to Russia- financially and in terms of casualties- becomes unsustainable (or at least that the war becomes so unpopular in Russia that Putin has to limit his ambitions).
This was also the aim of Western economic sanctions.

Unfortunately (IMO), the larger European nations (including the UK) allowed their defence budgets, troop levels, kit stockpiles and defence manufacturing capacity to shrink* since the end of the Cold War, "the peace dividend".
I think it's a legitimate criticism that Europe did expect the United States to do most of the lifting in supporting Ukraine.
In the case of a possible reduction or ending of US support for Ukraine, European nations probably won't have the ability (regardless of how much is spent) to make good the difference for a very long time.

*Poland being a notable exception in recent years.

 

[deirdre]

In the case of a possible reduction or ending of US support for Ukraine, European nations probably won't have the ability (regardless of how much is spent) to make good the difference for a very long time.

i think you can. the US has paused urkaine military aid, BUT we are still providing intelligence [crucial] and the starlink service for communications [also crucial]..basically things europe cannot supply.

everything else can be covered with money..i am positive europe proper can just pay us for weapons and ammunition. Granted i hear our stocks are a bit low..not sure if thats true,but ukraine has upped its own manufacturing and you could maybe buy some stuff from China or India if we are low.

*although im guessing Trump will want you guys to pay for starlink eventually also. but i highly doubt (crossing my fingers) he would just cut it off as that would be a death sentence for ukraine.
(plus since that evil guy Elon Musk is running our country, he will want to continue to be paid and he decides what DOGE cuts and doesnt cut..so i doubt starlink will get cut)

 

[Gary C]

Since this the discussion has turned to what Europe can do about the loss of US support, this video from PERUN covers just that question. His ironic delivery style may be a bit much for non-native English speakers but it's a good treatment of the topic for a non-professional audience.

This is a one hour video that specifically covers the future of European NATO with limited or no American support.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7giYIisLuaA


There are dozens of related videos analyzing the conflict in Ukraine in considerable detail. Hope folks find this useful.

 

[deirdre]

His ironic delivery style may be a bit much for non-native English speakers

his cadence might be a bit much for non-english speakers. i even slowed down the speed and still have trouble following his tempo.

 

[Ann K]

i think you can. the US has paused urkaine military aid, BUT we are still providing intelligence [crucial] and the starlink service for communications [also crucial]..basically things europe cannot supply.

Musk unilaterally turned off Starlink service to them one other critical time when Russia was making some strategic movements toward Ukraine. It would be extremely naïve to think he wouldn't do it again, on a whim or on any pretext he chooses. As for intelligence, that's another service the Trump/Musk administration has decimated in recent days. You're placing an unwarranted confidence in the two of them that makes me think you're not really keeping up with current events.

 

[deirdre]

Musk unilaterally turned off Starlink service to them one other critical time when Russia was making some strategic movements toward Ukraine.

that's horrible. so now the EU is gonna have to figure out a communications system for Ukraine as well? that is bad news.

 

[derwoodii]

is 5 eyes is now 4, have UK EU spooks been advised not to pass on intel to USA


The question no one dares ask: what if Britain has to defend itself from the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/27/britain-defend-itself-us-military
Thu 27 Feb 2025 19.00 AEDT

Now consider our vulnerabilities. Through the "Five Eyes" partnership, the UK automatically shares signals intelligence, human intelligence and defence intelligence with the US government. Edward Snowden's revelations showed that the US, with the agreement of our government, conducts wholesale espionage on innocent UK citizens. The two governments, with other western nations, run a wide range of joint intelligence programmes, such as Prism, Echelon, Tempora and XKeyscore. The US National Security Agency (NSA) uses the UK agency GCHQ as a subcontractor.

All this is now overseen by Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, in charge of the CIA, NSA and 16 other agencies. After she recited conspiracy fictions seeded by the Syrian and Russian governments, she was widely accused of being a "Russian asset" or a "Russian puppet". At what point do we conclude that by sharing intelligence with the US, the UK might as well be sharing it with Russia?

 

[deirdre]

The question no one dares ask: what if Britain has to defend itself from the US?

In further news, Russia lays off 10,000 misinformation workers and propaganda spreaders as Western Social Media makes their jobs redundant.

 

[derwoodii]

In further news, Russia lays off 10,000 misinformation workers and propaganda spreaders as Western Social Media makes their jobs redundant.

thanks deridre, if could show me where that "Russia lays off 10,000 misinformation" originated?? as I too have seen similar claims recently. I guess we need how many where on the payroll,,, is 10,000 a lot from the pool ? and i guess underscores the amount of effort FSB Putin put into global disinfo works

 

[Gary C]

Ian Bremmer of G-Zero Media has what I feel is a good summary of the situation as it stood yesterday afternoon.

Despite Zelensky's and European leaders' best efforts to get on Trump's good side, the US is no longer a reliable or a good-faith partner. If Vice President JD Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference denouncing European democracy did not make that clear enough, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's attempt to shake down Zelensky for 50% of Ukraine's present and future mineral wealth revenues – not in exchange for future US support but as payment for past military aid disbursed during the Biden administration – should have. These terms amounted to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than the reparations imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty.

Source - https://www.gzeromedia.com/by-ian-b...eaves-ukraine-and-europe-with-nowhere-to-turn

A fresh thought occurs to me after looking back on our discussion and my daily readings on the conflict, we could be stuck in this situation for another two years.

In another PERUN video, the analysis concludes that Soviet-era stockpiles of weapons, the Russian rate of inflation, and Russian casualties should allow Putin to maintain roughly current levels of military operations for another 1-2 years.

European defense initiatives begun after the 2022 invasion will require another 1-2 years of expansion to replace US support. Longer to exceed those levels of support.

Mid-Term elections in the US typically go against the sitting President. 2026 could be a watershed event.

Can Ukraine hold out two more years?
Are there resource constraints on Russia that we don't currently recognize?
Will Trump become irrelevant after the mid-terms?

Two years into the First World War, everyone agreed the situation was intolerable. No one could come up with a way out or a way to win. Generals did more of the same only bigger and with more casualties. It dragged on.

 

[deirdre]

Mid-Term elections in the US typically go against the sitting President. 2026 could be a watershed event.

Can Ukraine hold out two more years?

i doubt congress funding approvals would apply to war. The President is the Commander and Chief of the military. perhaps that would be an interesting thread topic.

but as of last night Trump is still willing to pursue negotiations to end the war. and Waltz said this morning the teams are again in discussion with ukraine teams.


add: but now the reports are intelligence sharing has been paused. whichis different then i heard yesterday

Article:

Trump administration officials confirmed Wednesday that the White House paused intelligence-sharing with Ukraine in its war against Russia as part of a broader review of assistance to Kyiv.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe and national security adviser Mike Waltz both said the U.S. had paused intelligence sharing in addition to military aid.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5177417-us-ukraine-intelligence-freeze-trump-administration/

 

[Ann K]

the US has paused urkaine military aid, BUT we are still providing intelligence [crucial] and the starlink service for communications [also crucial]..basically things europe cannot supply.

As I predicted, your optimism was premature.

C.I.A. Director Says U.S. Has Paused Intelligence Sharing With Ukraine
Trump administration officials say the halt in assistance is a warning to the Ukrainians of the consequences of not cooperating with the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/cia-director-ukraine-intelligence.html

 

[deirdre]

As I predicted, your optimism was premature.

i already posted that right above your comment. i was wrong and the situation is indeed bleaker for ukraine than i had hoped.

 

[John J.]

is 5 eyes is now 4, have UK EU spooks been advised not to pass on intel to USA

Probably not;

(1) The UK left the EU after a referendum in 2016.

(2) The intelligence agencies of the various European nations are national assets, and some operate under very different legal frameworks to others. They are not run by the EU.

(3) US intelligence agencies have global reach and huge resources, so cooperating with them is useful to the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In return the US operates, or has access to information from, various signals intelligence/ listening posts, satellite communications and monitoring stations, communications relays and early warning radar in those countries, as well as Cyprus (UK Sovereign Base Area), Gibraltar, Diego Garcia.
Notable establishments include Pine Gap in Australia:

The location is strategically significant because it controls United States spy satellites as they pass over one-third of the globe, including China, North Korea, the Asian parts of Russia, and the Middle East

-Wikipedia, Pine Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap; and RAF Menwith Hill in England:

The site contains an extensive satellite ground station and is a communications intercept and missile warning site. It has been described as the largest electronic monitoring station in the world.

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Menwith_Hill, also (from 2007) UK agrees missile defence request, BBC News,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6916262.stm.
Menwith Hill is said to be the largest known ECHELON establishment, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON.

(3) Although the EU is much more than just a free trade area, it isn't primarily a defence or security alliance like NATO. It is likely that the EU members will agree to greater defence cooperation through the EU, although attitudes to this (and how this might be implemented) vary from country to country.

Since 24 February 2022, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has acted as a geopolitical reset for Europe and created further impetus for what should become an EU Defence Union.

European Parliament, Common security and defence policy,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/159/common-security-and-defence-policy,
see also Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy.

23 of the 27 EU states (including e.g. Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden) are NATO members, 4 EU states (Ireland, Austria, Cyprus, Malta) are not. All the NATO members benefit from sharing military intelligence.

(4) The name's Bond, James Bond. Not Jacques. (Admittedly his mum was Swiss).

 

[Mendel]

I found the press pool report, and within it two Otter.ai transcripts, for the February 28th Trump-Zelensky meeting, in case anyone needs a direct source to quote.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/pool-reports-february-28-2025
https://otter.ai/u/bhycQUuALmXkxPp8OdJF0M70jMU
https://otter.ai/u/rln8oO5WlCSJrNzxwSIiyTRD_pY

 

[Scaramanga]

LOL.
You made a claim, you can't prove it, so you're trying to shift the burden of evidence.
That's not how it works.

Ah. I must try using 'LOL' more often...see if it makes me more correct.

In your case it doesn't. I did link to precisely the bit of the interview where Zelensky questions the very diplomacy that has arrived at the very document he is there to sign.

Not wanting to accept the facts is not the same as them not existing.

 

[AmberRobot]

i doubt congress funding approvals would apply to war.

why do you doubt that?

Would not the War Powers Resolution apply?

 

[deirdre]

why do you doubt that?

Would not the War Powers Resolution apply?

i dont think the comment i was responding to was about declaring war on Russia.

i could be wrong, but my impression was more that the comment was about a democrat majority after midterms could approve more military aid for ukraine. Obviously congress could do that, i just dont think the President would have to deliver weapons to a country our military isnt interested in joining in the conflict. I think the Commander in Chief would have to agree to send the military aid. ??

 

[AmberRobot]

i dont think the comment i was responding to was about declaring war on Russia.

i could be wrong, but my impression was more that the comment was about a democrat majority after midterms could approve more military aid for ukraine. Obviously congress could do that, i just dont think the President would have to deliver weapons to a country our military isnt interested in joining in the conflict. I think the Commander in Chief would have to agree to send the military aid. ??

I don't know the answer to your 'question', but it has been clear that Trump does not believe he has to follow Congressional appropriations, so the theoretical answer may be moot.

 

[deirdre]

but it has been clear that Trump does not believe he has to follow Congressional appropriations, so the theoretical answer may be moot.

it depends on the appropriation, its complicated. i imagine something like military aid would be taken up by the courts fairly quickly though and be decided.

 

[John J.]

In the case of a possible reduction or ending of US support for Ukraine, European nations probably won't have the ability (regardless of how much is spent) to make good the difference for a very long time.

i think you can. the US has paused urkaine military aid, BUT we are still providing intelligence [crucial] and the starlink service for communications [also crucial]..basically things europe cannot supply.

everything else can be covered with money..i am positive europe proper can just pay us for weapons and ammunition. Granted i hear our stocks are a bit low..not sure if thats true,but ukraine has upped its own manufacturing and you could maybe buy some stuff from China or India if we are low.

That's a good point re. European nations buying from the US. Maybe that's part of the Trump administration's thinking. It would depend on the US allowing exports of arms knowing they were for Ukraine.

China is now militarily more closely aligned with Russia than it has been at any time since the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s.
China has not directly criticised the Russian invasion of Ukraine or imposed any sanctions; the Chinese leadership are probably mindful of their own claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. The majority of Taiwan's people do not want to be governed by China and want to continue their "western" (especially US) ties and their individual freedoms.
It is likely China has been supplying Russia with military or dual-purpose aid in support of operations in Ukraine,
"U.S. intelligence shows China is surging equipment sales to Russia to help war effort in Ukraine, AP says",
PBS News, 12 April 2024;
"US intelligence finding shows China surging equipment sales to Russia to help war effort in Ukraine", AP, 19 April 2024;
"China reverses roles in arms trade with Russia", Financial Times, 30 March 2022.

It must be very unlikely that China would sell military equipment for use by Ukraine. China won't sell its most advanced equipment to west European nations (or the US) just as "we" wouldn't sell top-end fighter jets, radar etc. to China.

India might be problematic as well; successive Indian governments have maintained broadly friendly relationships with successive Soviet/ Russian governments, and much of India's major military equipment is of Russian origin.
India appears to be currently receiving Russian T-90 tanks and Su-30 fighter jets,
see List of equipment of the Indian Army and List of active Indian military aircraft, both on Wikipedia.

Despite its self-declared non-aligned status, India had Soviet (in effect Russian) military and economic advisors through most of the Cold War. India is collaborating with Russia in the design of hypersonic cruise missiles (Wikipedia, BrahMos-II).
India, with its significant defence procurement ties with Russia, probably won't be prepared to sell military equipment for use by Ukraine.

 

[Mendel]

That's a good point re. European nations buying from the US. Maybe that's part of the Trump administration's thinking. It would depend on the US allowing exports of arms knowing they were for Ukraine.

Trump's USA are simply not reliable enough for Europe to base its arms supply off them. We have our own military-industrial complex we can grow.

Trump has told the world, in effect, "don't rely on our contracts and promises". The world listens.

It'll do wonders for US exports, I'm sure. /s

 

[John J.]

Trump's USA are simply not reliable enough for Europe to base its arms supply off them. We have our own military-industrial complex we can grow.

Agreed. But I'm not sure it will be fast enough to provide sufficient materiel for Ukraine to maintain the current status quo.

 

[deirdre]

Agreed. But I'm not sure it will be fast enough to provide sufficient materiel for Ukraine to maintain the current status quo.

Article:

Fedir Venislavsky, a member of the Ukrainian parliament's defence committee, estimates his country's weapons stockpile will last just six months after Donald Trump's decision to pause shipments of military equipment.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwydq82e7r1o

six months is quite a while. i read america could only last about 3 weeks right now if we went to war with CHina.. so i'm assuming we would be able to open up factories and start pumping out ammo fastish.

Plus there are the weapons in the current pause, if things dont work out with peace talks ...well they are still good for 6 months which is good.

 

[captancourgette]

@Deidre the US would explode from infighting with a week if shit came to pass

Ukraine is good, yeah 6 months at least maybe 1 year and then we see
I'm not a fan of zelensky but he is the right man for this problem now
Ukraine ppl are still strong - Russia needs to stop, everyone knows this even russians know this - perhaps I talk later when war is over, well I will do anyways cause a lot of shit written here and news is wrong, certain events are just complete BS as reported in the news. but hey its war just report shit