Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Ghostse]

I absolutely agree that the United States ought to hold her allies to a higher standard when it comes to free speech. With that said, there are times and places to make statements like his. I do not see how what he said is helpful to ending the war in Ukraine or maintaining a strong alliance in Europe.

Those issues are serious, but it seems really odd to point them out as the most important issues the average American cares about. There's also the fact many problems in the US are regional and local. The average person living in Texas probably doesn't give a shit about the stuff at the Capital. I'd wager Americans, on average, are satisfied with their state/local government, but not necessarily the federal government depending on what side of the ideological fence you're on (which is essentially your post anyways). Also, states have some political autonomy to resist federal policy because of the court system and separation of powers.

Its easy to forget because we are a lot that is tuned into the situation and both recent and not distant history.
But let me remind everyone here because I think it gets lost and forgotten:
Russia conquering Ukraine does not directly or immediately affect the security of the United States except through our entanglements via treaty (NATO). The same is NOT true for EU countries.
The US could just say "Fuck it, we out.", leave (read: disband) NATO, pull our forces from Europe, Let Putin remake the USSR and the immediate, direct threat to the US will be...nothing. Russian ICBMs won't be any closer to the US mainland than they are now, the Russian navy won't be any less fake and gay. The only countries that suffer directly from this happening are Ukraine and the EU.

Now, please note I said "immediate" and "direct". We are all aware of the ramifications of this going down - from concrete ones like Russia having new funding sources to begin developing new weapons, to the US losing trade, to very indirect ones like China getting ideas about expansion -but that's potentials and down the road.

This is a bit like your neighbor's house being on fire, asking you to get the hose, but you saying "So hey about that $20 you owe me?"; its maybe not the perfect time for that conversation, but if that nigga hadn't been dodging you on repayment this wouldn't be something that needed discussing. And its not YOUR house that's on fire (yet).

Ukraine needs proper security guarantees, not a piece of paper, not some temporary, half-arsed DMZ. It won't be allowed in NATO and I doubt it will gain EU membership, which is the fault of Europe mostly because we still seem to keep sitting on our fucking hands with a cock in our mouths. As others have mentioned, we won't know what deal will eventually be agreed upon, but it certainly must have Ukraine at the negotiating table and not just Russia.

It's hard to imagine a Harris convoy doing any better, but so far-I'm not impressed or optimistic of what I'm seeing now.

The Ukrainian President does hope the agreement covers more than simply minerals, but also the benefit and security guarantees for Ukraine. Anyhow, a mine in Ukraine guarded by US troops is a fairly decent security guarantee. Recent history is full of various gents now under the soil who thought they could hassle Uncle Sam and a few of his soldiers.

The issue with any peace treaty, as you both touch on, is that there's the likelyhood of a limpwrist in the Whitehouse and in any number of Euro parliaments that would let Russia get away with violating it with no serious repercussions.

Would that be the same Nixon who gave Taiwan, Hong Kong, Uyghur and Tibet to China because the USSR was a bigger threat?

tl;dr was Taiwan post 1965ish never had a hope of retaking mainland China or expanding borders. Nixon recognized the opportunity to drive a wedge now that Mao's crush Stalin was dead. I don't think he appreciated just how big of a thorn they'd become.

America looks weak, divided by culture war bullshit, which is fuelled by Russian/MAGA social media campaigns (Both groups closely cooperate in their messaging).

Tell me you haven't looked into the funding for MoveBlue without telling me you've never looked into the funding of DNC mouthpieces.

Russia funds both sides, but you only take issue with one side.
Yet not a single word of rebuke for "dividing america" when Biden was making his policy all about trannies, niggers, and prioritizing foreigners and providing more right and resources non-citizens illegally in the US than citizens.
How can you argue that doesn't make the US look weak?

idk man, China is straight up run by a communist party, it's as socialist as you can get in 21st century, but the state is so powerful, they could probably retake greater manchuria from Russia through economic and diplomatic pressures alone, without firing a single bullet. Outside of that, they have the largest military force in the world, while Russia is about to enter a demographic crisis. They did not need to sacrifice socialist gibs to achieve this.

Possibly. The tl;dr is the China has shit force projection and abysmal logistics. Every single action they've been engaged in since...well, pretty much ever has only not been a strategic disaster by nature of them just having more men and feeding those soldiers into the grinder at a rate that would make the most soviet-brained Russia commander say "goddamn dude slow down a bit fuck".

You can look at chinese MREs: they are still issuing compressed food bricks. Even when we take soldier skill and willingness to fight out to the equation they just aren't ready for campaigning.

OTOH when you have more men than they have bullets all sorts of possibilities open up.

You're talking about preexisting surplus that was withdrawn from service. It's not like the US commissioned Lockeed Martin to build new equipment from the Federal Budget to furnish Ukraine. Also the US State Department didn't bill Ukraine for this equipment. Want money? Then offer something to make it worthwhile. Would you pay a bill from the police after they did a half ass job trying to arrest the hoodrat that stole your bike?

They weren't "transferred"; at least some of them were sold to Ukraine after decommissioning from the US coast guard, under the excess defence articles program, between 2018 and 2021. They would have been scrapped at significant cost otherwise. I'd say you're also stretching the definition of warship rather a long way by applying it to a coastguard cutter.

e: dates. may still be wrong.

The cutters weren't slated for breakup. They would have been transferred to inactive reserve and mothballed incase they were needed. This isn't like giving them post-sell-by ATACMS .

@teriyakiburns The more I read and hear things, the more embarrassing and incompetent it seems our (UK) entire military complex is, though maybe someone with a lot more knowledge can enlighten me.

Just how and when did it get so bad?

I feel like we (EU/Uk) rely way too much on America to produce our weapons and then would need their permission (Storm shadow) to actually use/donate them.

The 90s and draw downs.
Once the soviets stopped innovating, and as the west got their hands on soviet equipemnt, they began to realize just exactly how far ahead of the soviets they were: Look at Ukraine, they are proving modern day russia can't take on Desert Storm era US equipment.

There was a push-pull then: with the #1 threat to world order gone, there was no need to have the CityFucker9000-B heavy tank built. There was also an incentive to not make Russia feel threatened (or I'mmma nooooooook!) so everyone just dialed back and canceled projects.
Add to this China was trying to artificially boost their industrial base by opening to foreigners (so they can steal from them) and doing stuff like dumping steel onto the market for less than cost. This gutted western heavy manufacturing, especially when companies realized "wait, we can just force people to work 16 hours shifts for $1.43 an hour?! And as long as we take the governor to a vegas strip club twice a year no one will say anything? Why the Chinese Communists laughing when we ask them about trouble with the unions?". And then Suddenly, over night, global warming became real for some reason -but global shipping was excluded from all emissions calculations.

Everyone let their arms industries go soft during the 90s. Russia got their's back into gear almost immediately after, because weapon exports was one of the few things Russia could do to keep their economy from collapsing. And no one said boo abotu it, or moved to counter it (Except the US and it was half-hearted), and we see the result.

I would hope this would a wakeup call to Europe about the need to refund their armies and defense industry, but I don't hold out much hope of anyone learning the right lessons from what's going down.

Is it controversial to argue that Europe should have it's own standing army?
[ ... ]
More so, why should the US defend Europe if it's unwilling to defend itself? If hypothetically NATO went to war with Europe against Russia, how could they win if Europe wasn't willing to fight? If anything, I think Europe wants the United States to be a meat shield like the Soviets were during WW2. That's just not acceptable.

It is. Partly because of "Who would run the EU army" and the massive, massive graft that would be involved, and the almost certainly completely dysfunctional result.

My issue is less with Europe being unwilling to defend itself, but then they also try to shit on their protector while also posturing like their opinions should matter. They need to pick one.

The difference between Blackhawks and the Russian transport helicopters is the UH-60 is easier to operate and maintain. There's also the issue of trying to maintain a Russian designed helicopter where parts are in short order. Flying machines suck down perishable parts and the UH-60 has more vendors to keep flying. SBU operates a fleet they purchased from the private sector (which the Biden State Department got butthurt and went after some Polish company that aided them in the effort) and the AFU has desired more since.

I don't know if i'd say easier to maintain, everyone I've talked to who's wrenched on them say they are hanger queens. But once in the air they can take massive ammounts of punishment and keep going.

There are non-russian licensed Mi-8 part manufactures.

I guess what I'm trying to say is helicopters are of limited utility, Ukraine isn't experienced with them, and supplying parts for Ukraine's soviet choppers is not under any serious threat. That's a thing that can be sorted later.

Europe has to build up a military. If each country would stop some of the socialism and spend money on their military, they could probably defeat Russia as a collective effort. Russia isn't in good shape and this war in Ukraine proves it. It wouldn't take much.

They at least need to build the ability to provide the abiltiy to defend themselves.

 

[WelperHelper99]

My bad was thinking of the Paladin. Point still stands though. The war in Ukraine shows why you want your weapon systems to be mobile.

It is mobile though. With a helicopter or light truck. It can even be pushed by the crew for short distances. Ukraine is not the US Army an and hense doesn't have all the equipment or doctrine that makes the M777 the monster that it is.

 

[The best and greatest]

It is mobile though. With a helicopter or light truck

Why would you do this if you can combine the cannon with the truck in the first place? Maybe you're someone important in the military off-site Idk so perhaps you have more insight into military affairs than me. What I DO know is that I would NOT want to be the sucker manning a static emplacement during the next peer-level conflict.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Why would you do this if you can combine the cannon with the truck in the first place? Maybe you're someone important in the military off-site Idk so perhaps you have more insight into military affairs than me. What I DO know is that I would NOT want to be the sucker manning a static emplacement during the next peer-level conflict.

Because it's lighter. It won't sink into the ground like the truck. And if you're willing to take losses and just want to hammer a city, Towed artillery is cheaper and fires faster generally due to the crew being in the open and able to move around freely. You can also put it in places like mountains where a SPG can't get into via the helicopter.

 

[No. 7 cat]

The issue with any peace treaty, as you both touch on, is that there's the likelyhood of a limpwrist in the Whitehouse and in any number of Euro parliaments that would let Russia get away with violating it with no serious repercussions.

Whatever has changed, I don't see even a Kamala Carter Clinton II letting away Russians with attacking a garrison of US forces, which remains the one security guarantee Putin will respect. And with Polish or Finnish forces to underline the point of leaving Ukraine in peace.

Anders Puck Nielsen analyses the present Trump peace plan, suggesting Trump has no great plan beyond stopping the war and notes (noting myself that Trump wildly exaggerates the disparity between US and European aid) that levels of aid between Europe and the US are now similar and that many of the key systems Ukraine uses are their own. The Trump Administration seems to really have an exaggerated understanding of Russian strength. Their rate of advance did increase earlier, but now it has slowed, and they increasingly have a deficit of armor nad materiel sending men into battle with old vans, cars, scooters. Notes that for all the declarations from European states, they like Trump, have no particular vision of a future security order. A notable point is that there should be no overreaction to Trump statements. What will matter is what will be done when the present efforts don't work for Nielsen doesn't see a coherent and realistic Trump plan for ending the war.

Possibly. The tl;dr is the China has shit force projection and abysmal logistics. Every single action they've been engaged in since...well, pretty much ever has only not been a strategic disaster by nature of them just having more men and feeding those soldiers into the grinder at a rate that would make the most soviet-brained Russia commander say "goddamn dude slow down a bit fuck".

Every war they've fought since Korea (border wars with India and Vietnam for instance) has seen them make almost no gains for a vast expenditure of resources. There is no evidence they can accomplish the difficult task of landing men on Taiwan island with any sort of opposition. Taiwan-Republic of China has been preparing for that for decades, so it would go badly. Moreover, unlike Russia, they rely to an extraordinary degree on imported food and fuel. If the West has even the slightest level of needed ruthlessness, they can make such a war go irreversibly badly for Red China by ensuring coal, oil and grain cannot be imported to the necessary degree. Now the US Navy under every previous Administration could be relied upon to support Taiwan. Given that Trump now attacks Taiwan (supposedly destroying the US chip industry) like he has with other allies, and seems to have a newly favorable view of Xi, presumably because he's a dictator, there is some measure of uncertainty for Taiwan, but it would be insane for Beijing to try conquer Taiwan. Trying to bully the Philippines and entrapping turd worlders in their Belt and Road scam, is about their level.

 

[SBG]

Reading a bit about the deal Trump's people presented and apparently there was some confusion about whether future mineral rights disputes could be handled in a New York court.

Another sticking point is the document’s specification that New York would be the jurisdiction in which disputes over the mineral rights are resolved, according to two people familiar with the matter.

A person close to Zelenskyy said that US ambassador Bridget Brink presented him with the document containing the proposal shortly before Bessent’s arrival in Kyiv, without prior warning.

Kyiv did not believe the proposal was enforceable under New York law, the person said.

https://www.ft.com/content/b08b7258-7ae0-4bae-9499-e6d3183d5894

Though of course had the main sticking point being their desire for security guarantees (as everyone likely expected).

Ukrainian officials asked how the agreement would contribute to their country’s long-term security, but were only told it would ensure an American presence on Ukrainian soil — a vague response that left key questions unanswered, those people said.

Also sounds like they did have something in the agreement about American presence, which maybe Trump's people intended to be some sort of security guarantee on its own?

Feel like all the elements of what people wanted are generally there, but they still need to work out the kinks. Meanwhile people elsewhere are all crying or celebrating the idea of Ukraine being abandoned/looted depending on their personal politics, regardless of anything that actually happened.

 

[Fuck It We'll Do It Live]

Unlike a Self Propelled Gun, you only lose a gun if it blows up, not a whole fucking truck. In mass scale artillery, or where you need to air drop artillery in a weird spot, it's perfect

I'd rather lose a truck (pretty sure the US produces loads of those), not a helicopter to AA or even opportunistic counter-battery when it lands. An slung-loaded M777 is great in counter-insurgencies in remote areas with no roads (i.e. the mountains of Afghanistan) - as you have said - where the enemy has limited AA but SPGs are the way to go for conventional warfare. The US Marines have been transitioning away from M777s to HIMARS for a while now, and even some of those HIMARS they are using will be replaced with MLRS and NMESIS.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I'd rather lose a truck (pretty sure the US produces loads of those), not a helicopter to AA or even opportunistic counter-battery when it lands. An slung-loaded M777 is great in counter-insurgencies in remote areas with no roads (i.e. the mountains of Afghanistan) where the enemy has limited AA but SPGs are the way to go for conventional warfare. The US Marines have been transitioning away from M777s to HIMARS for a while now, and even some of those HIMARS they are using will be replaced with MLRS and NMESIS.

The Marines are not a army. They are a rapid reaction force for naval warfare. Bad comparison. Even then I doubt they fully will, always subject to change. For a Army, thr M777 is a solid backbone in the Artillery tech tree to compliment your SPG's.

 

[BradeRunna]

The problem with statements like this is that it's not really that simple. Every nation in western Europe agrees, in principle, with the idea of having a military capable of responding to Russian aggression. Very few of them, even without their "socialism", would be able to afford it, even collectively.

The problem is that the threat of Russia has been perceived as minimal since the end of the cold war. Russia seemed more interested in consolidating control over central asia than posing any threat to Europe, and appeared to be willing to join the post-war consensus of mutual benefit through trade. This post-soviet era let Europe redefine the meaning of an "external threat" to be something far less expensive, while membership of the EU gave member states a way to defray costs by punting final responsibility for everything onto a nebulous collective effort. The EU has been content, for the last thirty years, to leave the US and Russia to stare at one another across the fulda gap and play superpower games, while it set about creating a unified European military capable of handling all the disparate requirements of the core member states. They ended up with the European Rapid Reaction Force, the structure of which was based on the belief that all future conflicts would be asymmetric sandpit wars, with the occasional dip into a poor European neighbour, and so it ended up as little more than a way for France to externalise the cost of its colonial policing force. The fact that it was also ideal for suppressing internal civil conflict was left unremarked in all the white papers.

You also have to account for bureaucratic incompetence. The UK, for instance, exceeds its NATO budget requirements and has for as long as it has been a member; with such a large economy, that turns out to be a fairly significant amount of money being thrown around. Yet, what is the end result of that? Two carriers that were compromised from conception by the need to be compatible with the ERRF and the Joint Strike Fighter (they were originally a joint project with France), a half dozen missile destroyers, a handful of frigates, less than 300 tanks (with half due to be mothballed while the other half are going to be upcycled and called "new"), and a generally poorly equipped military that has not met recruitment goals since before the turn of the century. The number of idiotic spending decisions made by the MoD and the Chiefs of Staff Committee has seen a significant component of that budget wasted time and time and time again, on useless radios that took twenty years to develop and were scrapped after mere months in the field, constant equipment churn, and endless "consultations" on why 80s-era landrovers should be kept for another five years instead of replaced with vehicles that actually protect the men inside. (They did eventually get rid of the snatch landrovers, but then after considering all the better options, replaced it with something equally bad).

There are some exceptions. Sweden still has a large military, despite cuts. It could certainly hold its own if the Russians ever managed to break through the defensive Finnfield. Overall though, the problem is that Europe, even collectively, doesn't have the resources to fund and field the kind of military people like Trump seem to envision when they say "spend more". And spending more doesn't necessarily get the results in any case.

Then Europe better start showing the US and Trump some respect since they can't defend themselves and depend on the US to do it.

dk man, China is straight up run by a communist party, it's as socialist as you can get in 21st century, but the state is so powerful, they could probably retake greater manchuria from Russia through economic and diplomatic pressures alone, without firing a single bullet. Outside of that, they have the largest military force in the world, while Russia is about to enter a demographic crisis. They did not need to sacrifice socialist gibs to achieve this.

If this is to be the Chinese century afterall, the worst possible thing Europe could do right now is emulate depressed empires like Russia or the US. I mean fuck, part of the reason Russians are so obsessed with the "glorious past" is because many would be willing to forfeit jeans, smartphones, burgers and cola just so they could have state guaranteed healthcare, housing and even work, as their grandparents had. You can say what you want about USSR, about how much of a rustpunk paper tiger it was, but everybody was guaranteed a job, which is an unimaginable reality in modern day Russia. And what was that socialism sacrificed for? For Russia to build a military industrial complex whose logistics are held up by duct tape and literal herd stock like goats or camels?

I don't necessarily have have gripes with some of the socialism being stopped, because economics are a complex affair and there are people way more intelligent than me that could bring valid arguments for one or the other, but it must bet replaced by something. If there's nothing replacing it, that will fuel further resentment among the population, further credence to rhetoric of schizoid politicians, who claim that organizations like WEF or blackrock exist to destroy the middle class, while they're simultaneously endorsing Israel. It all could undo all the efforts in forming a unified European force, if EU or NATO ceases to exist. I don't want Europe to end up in a situation like Germany, which decided to shut down all of it's nuclear reactors in the name of green energy, only to become forced to use coal to meet new energy demands. I don't want western Europe to economically privatize as it's eastern counterparts did, only to end up as a post-soviet oligarchic shitholes.

China is on it's way out. They depend on US consumerism and US consumerism in declining rapidly. Their economy is tied to the US economy. China can be stopped economically. Just stop doing business with them. There will be no Chinese century.

Yes, Europe depends on the US for defense. They should stop acting like a bunch of ungrateful bitches and start showing the US and Trump some respect. Keep up the bare minimum of 2% GDP military investment. The US will save you from the Russians shit tier army.

That or they can always tell the Europeans they have to give up some of their socialism or they will just have to put up with the Russians blowing their shit up hoping they will surrender. Even during the cold war, the European militaries were only seen as speed bumps meant to slow the Soviets down enough till the US could get enough military over there to push them and that's only if the Soviets didn't nuke their way across the countryside.

 

[Fuck It We'll Do It Live]

The Marines are not a army. They are a rapid reaction force for naval warfare. Bad comparison. Even then I doubt they fully will, always subject to change.

But it's from the Marines that the Ukrainians have received at least some of their M777s; your original point was that the donated M777s will have to be replaced, which at least some of them were going to be anyway if the Marine Corps continues with more rocket pod artillery replacing tube ones.

All that equipment has to be replaced. Javelin missiles cost money. M777 howitzers, which are NOT SURPLUS, cost a fuckton of money and Titanium. And even surplus isn't free. We could have used those cutters or sold them off. The US isn't a charity and isn't Communist. Mining rights are fair, no matter how the war pans out, because now we have to replace and refurb our own stocks for future wars.

 

[WelperHelper99]

But it's from the Marines that the Ukrainians have received at least some of their M777s; your original point was that the donated M777s will have to be replaced, which at least some of them were going to be anyway if the Marine Corps continues with more rocket pod artillery replacing tube ones.

Motherfucker they donated over 100. Because Biden was a fucking retard. Even if they were taken out of service they would have been put in storage and used for parts for the entire fleet. My guy yes they do have to be replaced, at considerable expense, because now the entire fleet between Army and Marines is under greater strain. Nothing is free man. And as it seems, the mining rights deal is coming along well.

 

[Fuck It We'll Do It Live]

Motherfucker they donated over 100.

America is seriously unable to recover the cost of those howitzers, to a point they need rare earth mining rights to recoup them? Even the value of the howitzers Germany has allocated is more than the US: $1,085 million vs $977 million.

 

[WelperHelper99]

America is seriously unable to recover the cost of those howitzers, to a point they need rare earth mining rights to recoup them? Even the value of the howitzers Germany has allocated is more than the US: $1,085 million vs $977 million.

It's not that we can't. It's that you break it, you buy it. We aren't commies. Everything must be accounted for, down to the last bullet. Mining rights, which Ukraine has agreed to in principle, is a fair trade.

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

Javelins and other missile systems expire. Triple 7s were a dead end and in the way out.

The M777 are just being phased out for the U.S. Military. However, production haven't stopped thanks to their combat performance in Ukraine. Drawing attention of foreign militaries* who're now buying and/or license producing them.

Edit: *Of countries with mountainous terrain, wetlands, and other places with unsuitable terrain for heavier wheel and tracked vehicles. And helo air portability is almost a must.

 

[Pocket Dragoon]

Fiber optic webs:

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Would that be the same Nixon who gave Taiwan, Hong Kong, Uyghur and Tibet to China because the USSR was a bigger threat?

This is why we need to give Ukraine to Russia, because China is the bigger threat now!
/sarc

And if you're willing to take losses and just want to hammer a city, Towed artillery is cheaper and fires faster generally due to the crew being in the open

Okay so you've successfully made the argument why towed artillery is great for Russian doctrine, now explain how it works with US doctrine please

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

Staying out of that line of discussion as I got Spacebattles on another tab immolating right now over Trump and Ukraine.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Okay so you've successfully made the argument why towed artillery is great for Russian doctrine, now explain how it works with US doctrine please

The US has Black Hawk helicopters for rapid redeployment. Also the US Air Force to kill the fuck out of enemy artillery before they can get a shot off.

 

[Ghostse]

Why would you do this if you can combine the cannon with the truck in the first place? Maybe you're someone important in the military off-site Idk so perhaps you have more insight into military affairs than me. What I DO know is that I would NOT want to be the sucker manning a static emplacement during the next peer-level conflict.

tl;dr: You can use much lighter vehicles to tow things like M777. lighter vehicles are easier to mainain and guzzle less fuel. They are also much easier to replace: if a truck breaks down you don't need to get a large recovery vehicle out, very likely another truck can tow it. It is much easier to fine a truck than a new SPG. And while you firebase is operating they can do other jobs like haul ammo and supplies. An SPG requires other vehicles to bring it ammo and fuel.
Smaller trucks also make less noise which means you can shift your battery to different positions; this is much less valuable now that everyone has 4k drones hovering around, but you can still make them hunt for new set up.

In regards to a peer conflict, not every emplacement is going to be involved in heavy artillery duels. Ukraine just doesn't have the US's "infinite ammo" and "JDAM problem removal" cheats turned on.

The real issue is, as you start to point out, is that SPGs offer shrapnel protection for the crew. IIRC the usual practice with standard field artillery is to fire, watch for a flash, and once you see that flash everyone scatters for the tree lines until the counter battery is over, then you either set back up or shift location.

I'd rather lose a truck (pretty sure the US produces loads of those), not a helicopter to AA or even opportunistic counter-battery when it lands. An slung-loaded M777 is great in counter-insurgencies in remote areas with no roads (i.e. the mountains of Afghanistan) - as you have said - where the enemy has limited AA but SPGs are the way to go for conventional warfare.

In short, for especially 155mm you should be deploying far enough back where enemy AA won't be an issue.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

I cannot decide on Zelensky and his stupidity. He is either stupid or ignorant because he should have known a country especially a capitalist one is not going to give you untold billions without a price. Except the UK the UK government is retarded and indebted to their commie overlords.

In the end, Trump is going to have the final say and control in this, he is the big boy in the sand pit. He has pinned himself in a corner where he has to submit because the Ukranians want it to end and the US is bored handing out money.

Bruh, do you even history? USSR (then Russia) barely paid anything back to US from Lend-Lease in WWII, and nothing will be done about it. At the same time, Russian government forgives massive debt to shithole countries in exchange for flaccid friendship at the expense of its citizens.
Sometimes (most of the time) it's an investment with different goals in mind rather than a loan. In case of Ukraine, it's tard-wrangling Putin with their hands, and depending on the deal, denying Putin natural resources in the region if not taking them for themselves.
On that note, I doubt US would just get unilateral rights to minerals, I would rather expect them to get an exclusive deal on development and produce where Ukraine also gets to benefit.

Fiber optic webs:
View attachment 6987621

Soon there will be reports from all over Ukraine about people getting killed due to stumbling over cables and getting tangled in them