Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargo
Stopping Ukraine aid would cost Berlin 10-20 times more than current support, think tank says Kiel Institute’s research shows German economy would suffer 1-2% GDP loss annually, compared to current 0.1% GDP assistance, due to increased defense spending and refugees. A new analysis by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy suggests that stopping military aid to Ukraine would cost Germany’s economy “significantly more” than maintaining current support levels. The researchers estimate that ending support would lead to substantially higher costs for Germany through three main channels: increased military spending, additional refugee influx, and loss of trade and investment with Ukraine... https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/11/...ink-tank-says/ Was kostet es, die Ukraine nicht zu unterstützen?
You can facepalm, but this is Ukraine strategy they saved more than they would in an offensive strategy I know you can not grasp the idea of this because you believe more in a strategy of a neutral country that has not been in a war since 1945. This strategy is based on real military doctrine that proven itself for centuries and is the only strategy that under the current criteria sustain Ukraine army to defend themselves. All said why keep defending Bakhmut, why keep defending Avdiivka and/or why keep defending... because they lose so many for a town/city now Ukraine changed that strategy you throw facepalms how swell much knowledge really courageous. |
You must not explain to me these strategems and tactics - I predicted some of them for the time after their first offensive collapsed in the deep layered russian minefields and costed them a decisive ammount of their Western tanks. I predicted they would go into defensive mode, and that we would see tactical fallbacks and straightening of frontlines for better defence.
The point is that you cannot see the difference between the successful implementation of just these things, and the the change when these things started to fail and the plans did not turn out successful anymore. Hence you mistake these previous ideas with the grim reality there now is, and where they cannot hold a line anymore and get pressed back, sometimes under heavy own costs, you still call that "a Ukrainain trap", "a tactical withdrawel", "according to plan".
And the biggest miscalculation of yours: you do not see that the losses of Ukraine may be smaller in total and so the losses they impose on the Russians in total may be higher, but that they are not sufficently higher to give the ukainians a compensation for their own losses und numericla inferiority. They would need MUCH HIGHER KILL RATES. Russia can easier afford its high losses, than the Ukraine can afford its in relation smaller losses (which does not mean they are not high, too). Thats why in this war of attrition Ukraine falls back more and more, and runs out of breath easier and more decisevely than Russia. And thats why Russia accepts any losses of its own to enforce that the war is beign fought as an attrotion war. Because this is where Russia can maximise its advantages.
Pull your head out of the sand. The despair of the ukrainians became obvious when they went into Kursk, it was a desperate attempt to enforce somehow, by miracle and wonder, a change of the way the war was working against them, it was a gamble, and that they took it with all the immense risk involved shows how desperate their situation was already back then. And I wrote that too, at the beginning of the Kursk offensive. Their gamble did not work, they did not get what they wanted, neither did they distract forces from Donezk to a degree that it was felt on the battlefield, nor did the Russians slow down. Quite the opposite: the Ukrainian troops in Kurks ar no longer available for the defence in Donezk and Donbass, and the Russians massively raised their pressure and speed of advance while at the same time pushing back in Kursk and degrading the territorial gains by Ukraine there. Ukraine's attempt to counter that with a second pocket west of the main drive into Kursk also failed. And the assumed idea of that they wanted the land as a trading argument to exchange land for land in negotiations with Putin also failed, since Putin does not want to negotiate. Ukraine now mulls pulling out there, sicne it cannot hold the pressure much longer, and its losses are dramatically mounting. They wasted their reserves for this excursion. They were unable in preservign these forces as active reserves or as a stockpile of troops for the building of future reserves. They suffered losses in material that they cannot afford to lose.
In my thinking, Kursk is not just a failure - its a total
DESASTER for Ukraine. Standardizing losses versus what each side can sustain and afford in losses due to its potentials, Ukraine suffered a technical knockout over Kursk. It got nothing, and now stands there with empty hands and gone reserves, the remaining forces additionally exhausted. As a healdine of an article I linked to some day ago put it: the frontline in total is now trembling.
You can twist and turn it any way you want. As things run now: Ukraine loses, and since a long time. And it loses at increasing pace. Maybe Western support will change in the future, though I do not expect it, but if it does, decisevely and not just cosmetically, then we can talk again. But until then, I stick to my assessments.