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

Footage from today's Sumy attack. Current death toll is reported at 32, and likely to rise, already exceeding the 20 killed in Kryvyi Rih about a week ago.
The fact anyone tries to both-sides this shit is just wild to me and is basically an IQ test for whether you're smart enough to breathe oxygen or not. Beheading soldiers, missile attacks on playgrounds, and double tapping dense civilian centres for shits and giggles is such a black and white summation of the total degenerate gangster mongol slavnigger mindset that it staggers the brain about any sort of moral equivalency in this gay invasion. Wish we had nuked Moscow and Beijing back when we had the chance to just firmly end the menace once and for all but here we are.

If Trump didn't want Ukraine to be treated as an issue for his administration he'd be distancing himself from it by giving up on the negotiations and leaving it to Europe/Ukraine to deal with. He could be washing his hands of it politically and try focusing more of his administration's foreign policy efforts on any other region to try and salvage some foreign policy win while other aspects of his administration work on issues like their trade war or immigration.
This is what I really just don't get. If he didn't give a shit why not just say we're done see ya? Why half measures? Why put up with Russians chucking spergout slavnigger bombs into civilian areas while they piss in your face and say they're committed to peace bro just trust bro just one more cancer hospital bro and maybe we'll talk this time...

Yes Europe should get its shit together (if Merz actually delivers Tauruses I'll eat my hat) but if you're Trump are you totally checked out like @mindlessobserver is saying or are you getting retarded advice from morons like Vance et al? Is there nothing more American than fucking up Russia and showing how strong you are DBZ style by using only a fraction of your power?

Mind reading Trump is an impossible task but like the tariff shit, it just feels wild and chaotic with a grain of Retarded Like a Fox somewhere.
 
Yes Europe should get its shit together (if Merz actually delivers Tauruses I'll eat my hat) but if you're Trump are you totally checked out like @mindlessobserver is saying or are you getting retarded advice from morons like Vance et al? Is there nothing more American than fucking up Russia and showing how strong you are DBZ style by using only a fraction of your power?
Well, that's the issue isn't it. The USA isn't really at odds with Russia in any broad strategic or ideological sense. Not to the same way we are with China. We are at odds with Russia over the vestigial cold war architecture of alliances and obligations. Fundamentally the MAGA crowd is correct in they saying Russia marching into Kiev doesn't really matter as far as North America is broadly concerned.

This is of course shortsighted. For one thing Russia is unlikely to not stay married at the hip to the Chinese, so Russia aggrandizing its aspirations now could become a big problem for the USA later. Especially as it inevitably alienates the USA from its allies. The issue in the calculation though is if the USA goes to war with China, there is not much Europe can realistically do for the USA beyond moral support and cheerleading. The only countries with active carriers in NATO right now are the Italians, the French, and Brits. But only the French Carrier is nuclear powered and thus capable of sustained operations far from home. As far as any sort of expeditionary capability of Ground and Air forces, Europe has...none. Whatever troops they send, would have to be by necessity token forces and completely reliant on US supply chains.

Which would be a needless complication. Be more useful for the USA to spin up a few National Guard units instead. And those units would probably be better equipped and trained. Which says something considering how the regular forces in the USA view the Guard. These sort of great power calculations matter when considering the long term implications. A compelling argument could be made that the USA exercising half measures could be to light a fire under Europe's ass so they can be useful as allies again.

I doubt Trump is thinking that far ahead though. I would imagine he see's the current status quo of, "Ukraine is very far, the EU are not useful as allies, but knee capping the Russians by continued limited support for Ukraine is moderately useful". Which is admittedly a big step down from his stated goal of ending the war quickly. But that is clearly not going to happen. Russia looks to want to get in one more offensive this summer before it comes to the table in good faith.
 
They've got them making noise about it. I doubt anything comes from it other than that the Eurofighter II project might actually come out with a prototype before 2050 and without completely falling apart over Euro slapfighting (🌈)
They're already been slapfighting over whether to continue to use the F-35s they already got or buy more "made in Europe" fighter. Leading to more slapfighting whether to get Rafales, Typhoons and/or Gripens. Leading to the problem of stripping everything American made and/or license out. Yet leading to more slapfighting of whose EU replacements should or could be used.
 
This is what I really just don't get. If he didn't give a shit why not just say we're done see ya? Why half measures? Why put up with Russians chucking spergout slavnigger bombs into civilian areas while they piss in your face and say they're committed to peace bro just trust bro just one more cancer hospital bro and maybe we'll talk this time...
Feel like it has to come down to Trump and his people wanting to treat the conflict as a non-issue for their administration due to feeling it's a foreign conflict that shouldn't have anything to do with them. But yet any attempt to drop it leads to worse political fallout amongst voters and congressmen.

The closest thing they can realistically do, due to political limitations, to walk away from it would be to allow a sort of maintenance of the status quo, continuing basic support while letting other nations purchase things for Ukraine, but that'd make it impossible for them to try softening relations with Russia to let them get their attempt in at tempting them away from China. Like they can't really make some juicy trade deal with Russia and lift sanctions if the conflict is still going, so any hopes of decoupling Russia from China, to any extent, would be dashed away.

So if they view that decoupling of Russia and China a major priority they're somewhat stuck with trying to get a peace deal worked out or hoping someone else gets one done. Otherwise nothing would ever progress on it. Feels a bit like they're trying to skip from Step 1 to Step 10 with turning around relations with Russia and tripping over their own feet in the process.
 
In his cabinet meeting today trump just explicitly said putin started the war and he's the number 1 to blame.

"Biden and zelensky could have stopped it, putin should have never started it" : https://youtu.be/QhY79kjmhh4?t=816
"Putin number 1 cause": https://youtu.be/QhY79kjmhh4?t=892

I've been out of the loop on the topic for a bit but I want to say this is the first time he has explicitly blamed putin in any capacity? I saw him do what seemed like dancing around blaming putin when asked point blank. It's possible it was also just a result of his weird ADD way of talking sometimes but regardless i've seen a lot of lefty sperging that he refuses to name putin at all. Which in their defense was true.

This is a development, maybe part of trump's grand strategy to punish putin for not agreeing to the full ceasefire? Or maybe just him being an idiot. Either way it's going to cause mega seethe from several political factions for a variety of different reasons.
 
Feel like it has to come down to Trump and his people wanting to treat the conflict as a non-issue for their administration due to feeling it's a foreign conflict that shouldn't have anything to do with them. But yet any attempt to drop it leads to worse political fallout amongst voters and congressmen.
My personal speculation is Trump is using the situation as a cudgel to get Euro to actually rearm. Sort of how Russia actually invading forced Sweden and Finland's hands at joining NATO. So I think for a european audience Trump is playing like he doesn't care because the possibility of a US pull out is making Europe do what they should have done ten years ago, internally he views it as a secondary priority to be settled after tariffs, and I think he is expecting to horsetrade Ukrainian arms packages with the Dems over the budget (which I think he's completely off base there).

Again, every NATO nation's proposals are now 2% or above GDP. Its unlikely they stick to those proposals, but that is more action than any US president since Ike has gotten out of Europe.

(if Merz actually delivers Tauruses I'll eat my hat)
Scholz would never. I think there's a possibility, not an overly high one but it exists, that Tauruses will be delivered before the end of combat operations.

In his cabinet meeting today trump just explicitly said putin started the war and he's the number 1 to blame.
He's still both sidesing a bit which I get the sentiment on one hand but roasting Zelensky for not going full-bore on arming up is locking the stable after the horse has run out - He's not wrong but that doesn't change or improve the current situation. And Putin's the one who went over the borders.

And once again for people in the back, lol at believing a politician's statements, but Putin being #1 on the blame, that's at least positive movement.

They're already been slapfighting over whether to continue to use the F-35s they already got or buy more "made in Europe" fighter. Leading to more slapfighting whether to get Rafales, Typhoons and/or Gripens. Leading to the problem of stripping everything American made and/or license out. Yet leading to more slapfighting of whose EU replacements should or could be used.
They are "Reviewing" the F-35 and here is what the reviews will say: "F-35 or Su-57 so lol its gonna be the F-35. Reviews complete, we totally made it look like we stood up to Trump while everyone was looking, no one cares anymore, so go a head with out original order as originally planned on the original time line." because the capabilities aren't even close and while I personally thing that especially Germany would be better served with by 400 Typhoons/Rafales than 200 F-35s, the Krauts aren't wanting to eat the upkeep on 400 Typhoons & try to retain the requisite number of pilots.

This will be used as leverage when its time to renegotiate the contracts, but its not going to change anything today. The most you might see is delivery pushed to 2028 so they can claim they gave Orange Man what for.

I'm still rolling from Macron saying he'll supply Europe with Rafales when its taken 20 years to fill 1/3 of France's internal order.
 
In his cabinet meeting today trump just explicitly said putin started the war and he's the number 1 to blame.

"Biden and zelensky could have stopped it, putin should have never started it" : https://youtu.be/QhY79kjmhh4?t=816
"Putin number 1 cause": https://youtu.be/QhY79kjmhh4?t=892

I've been out of the loop on the topic for a bit but I want to say this is the first time he has explicitly blamed putin in any capacity? I saw him do what seemed like dancing around blaming putin when asked point blank. It's possible it was also just a result of his weird ADD way of talking sometimes but regardless i've seen a lot of lefty sperging that he refuses to name putin at all. Which in their defense was true.

This is a development, maybe part of trump's grand strategy to punish putin for not agreeing to the full ceasefire? Or maybe just him being an idiot. Either way it's going to cause mega seethe from several political factions for a variety of different reasons.
Yet while refusing to sell Patriots to UA, Trump blames Ukraine for starting the war, this war of Putin's choice


One interesting question is whether Merz can supply the Taurus. He appears to want to, but the Federal Chancellor is in coalition with Scholz or his successor leading the SDP. They're highly prone to bitch out when Putin invokes 'escalation'.
 
Last edited:
Screenshot 2025-04-15 at 12.46.01.webp

short kings lol. Did they go out of their way to send someone Putin-sized?


"According to Witkoff, Putin expressed interest in achieving a “permanent peace,” although this was not immediately part of the conversation. “It took a while for us to get to,” he said, referring to the discussion around ending the conflict. Witkoff highlighted that the path to peace appears to center on a deal involving five territories, although he did not specify which ones. “This peace deal is about these so-called five territories, but there’s so much more to it,” he said, suggesting broader geopolitical and economic considerations.

Witkoff emphasized that a breakthrough might be imminent, describing the situation as “something that would be very, very important for the world at large.” He also underlined the potential for reshaping U.S.-Russia relations through strategic commercial engagements that could contribute to regional stability."


And nothing of substance was said.
 
Yet while refusing to sell Patriots to UA, Trump blames Ukraine for starting the war, this war of Putin's choice

https://kyivindependent.com/trump-dismisses-zelenskys-proposal-to-buy-10-patriot-systems-blames-him-for-starting-war/
One interesting question is whether Merz can supply the Taurus. He appears to want to, but the Federal Chancellor is in coalition with Scholz or his successor leading the SDP. They're highly prone to bitch out when Putin invokes 'escalation'.
He's blaming Zelensky for being involved in a nearly decade long proxy-war with Russia and not ramming the "Rearm Throttle" into the firewall after losing Crimea, and expecting Europe (read: NATO, so America) to bail them out.

In the view Trump is espousing, Putin started the conflict, but Biden showed weakness but Ukraine (incorrectly putting 8 years of... suboptimal... choices by Ukraine's political and military leaders solely on Zelensky) was weak and should have been doing whatever was needed to either not be weak or not be a target.
Which again:
A) Pointing fingers might be accurate but doesn't actually do anything to fix the current situation
B) The view might not be entirely incorrect, but when the predator desires only your complete destruction there is only so much appeasement you can do
C) Rearming would have likely only brought about more Russian proxy war, and Ukraine already did slam the rearm throttle pretty frigging hard, and was held back by western (read: US & German) leaders concerned about Russia, and other leaders (Polish and Hungarian) concerned about a Ukraine who they have border disputes with, having too strong of a military.
or in short, "Ukraine didn't arm enough" doesn't really hold water if you look at it more than surface level because they couldn't.

And all this (accurate) shitting on Biden though rings quite hollow when other than unproductive peacetalks, Trump hasn't done anything to Russia to show strength other than tardwrassle Zelensky.

Also Trump isn't refusing to sell Ukraine patriots, he seems to be casting doubts on where Ukraine is going to come up with 15 billion to buy the 10 systems he has said Ukraine will buy.

short kings lol. Did they go out of their way to send someone Putin-sized?
Unironically yes, they very likely did because otherwise Putin would be triggered about being reminded he's a manlet. You send the most non-threatening appeasement individuals you can because its just about keeping them talking.

And nothing of substance was said.
aka any meeting with Special Envoys.
 
In his cabinet meeting today trump just explicitly said putin started the war and he's the number 1 to blame.

"Biden and zelensky could have stopped it, putin should have never started it" : https://youtu.be/QhY79kjmhh4?t=816
"Putin number 1 cause": https://youtu.be/QhY79kjmhh4?t=892

I've been out of the loop on the topic for a bit but I want to say this is the first time he has explicitly blamed putin in any capacity? I saw him do what seemed like dancing around blaming putin when asked point blank. It's possible it was also just a result of his weird ADD way of talking sometimes but regardless i've seen a lot of lefty sperging that he refuses to name putin at all. Which in their defense was true.

This is a development, maybe part of trump's grand strategy to punish putin for not agreeing to the full ceasefire? Or maybe just him being an idiot. Either way it's going to cause mega seethe from several political factions for a variety of different reasons.
Not sure if it's been posted already, but there was a story from the WSJ of aides pushing Trump to be tougher on Russia.

In spite of claims that it'd be impossible, there are people in the state and treasury departments looking into options of increasing sanctions on Russia. And there are reports Kellogg and Rubio have been pressing Trump to be tougher on Russia. You also have the thing from Lindsey Graham about legislation targeting Russia's oil and energy exports which the White House was against.

The comments from Trump in the oval office seem less like him changing stance and more that his staff are able to influence him, however minor an amount, while possible dealing with pressure from congress to at least try doing something.

Aides Push Trump to Adopt Tougher Approach With Moscow​

WASHINGTON—Several senior aides to President Trump are advising him to be more skeptical of Moscow’s desire for peace with Ukraine, arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin has yet to show genuine interest in halting the fighting.

The group, which U.S. officials said includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg, has recommended more caution when dealing with Putin and for a harder line against Moscow’s demands for territorial concessions from Kyiv.

Trump, however, is still siding with envoy Steve Witkoff, who thinks Putin wants to make peace after meeting with him twice in Moscow, the officials said.

But Russia has rebuffed Trump’s call for a cease-fire and slow-walked his drive for a partial suspension of the fighting, playing for time as it presses its battlefield gains and strives for maximum concessions in negotiations.

Trump is hoping to halt the Ukraine war in part to clear away a major obstacle to a broader rapprochement with the Kremlin. He has at times appeared impatient with Putin, but he hasn’t followed through on his threat to impose new sanctions on Russian oil exports.

Even Trump advisers who favor a tougher approach toward Moscow support his goal of stopping the three-year war. But Russia’s ballistic missile attack Sunday that killed 34 civilians and injured another 100 in the Ukrainian city of Sumy underscored the differences among Trump’s senior advisers

In comments Monday to reporters from the Oval Office, Trump called the attack a “mistake.” When pressed by reporters about who was responsible, he blamed former President Joe Biden for “letting the war happen.”
Kellogg said Sunday in written statements that the Russian attack “crosses any line of decency,” while Rubio labeled it “horrifying” and “tragic.”

In a rare criticism of the Russian leader, Trump said that Putin was chiefly to blame for the war, along with Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “I want to stop the killing, and I think we’re doing well in that regard,” Trump added. “I think you’ll have some very good proposals very soon.”

During White House deliberations about whether the U.S. should increase sanctions on Russia to force it to negotiate, Rubio and Kellogg have advised Trump to be more wary of Putin’s diplomatic intentions, the officials said.
Zelensky said Monday that Putin aims to continue the war because “in Moscow, they are not afraid. If there is no strong enough pressure on Russia, they will keep doing what they are used to—they will keep waging war.”

“The missile attack on Sumy is a clear and stark reminder of why President Donald Trump’s efforts to try and end this terrible war comes at a crucial time. Our hearts go out to the victims, their loved ones, and all those impacted,” National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said.

Daniel Fried, a former senior State Department official, said the State and Treasury departments were preparing options to increase sanctions on Russia. But “all that means is that they now think they have the political cover or the policy cover to look at this in the event that Trump actually decides that he’s had enough of Putin,” he said.

The State Department and Treasury Department declined to comment. Kellogg didn’t return requests for comment.

On April 1, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R, S.C.) and other lawmakers introduced legislation targeting Russia’s oil and energy exports should Moscow fail to make peace with Ukraine, disregarding a request from the White House to hold off, congressional aides said. An administration official confirmed the delay request, noting the administration wanted to maintain a leverage point during negotiations with Russia.

Graham said at least 50 senators were supporting the measure during a private dinner this month with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, also attended by Witkoff, according to congressional aides.

Trump’s attempt to reset relations with Russia has been tried by many of his predecessors, all of whom became disillusioned at the meager results, said Thomas Graham, former senior director for Russian affairs on former President George W. Bush’s NSC.

Moscow wants to annex swaths of Ukraine’s territory and to install a pro-Russian government to rule over what remains—goals that haven’t changed since its invasion in 2022, he said.

Trump said during the presidential campaign that he could compel Putin and Zelensky to stop fighting within 24 hours of re-entering the Oval Office. Kellogg later extended the deadline to Trump’s first 100 days, which arrives on April 30.

“We will know soon enough—in a matter of weeks, not months—whether Russia is serious about peace or not,” Rubio said this month in Brussels. “I hope they are. It would be good for the world if that war ended, but obviously we have to test that proposition.”
 
Ukraine’s Elite Drone Unit Is A Lethal, Fast Growing Tech Start Up
By David Hambling, Senior Contributor. I'm a South London-based technology journalist, consultant and author


Follow Author
Apr 14, 2025, 09:18am EDT

Ukraine’s legendary ‘Birds of Magyar’ is one of the most successful drone units of all time. Under its charismatic commander Robert Brovdi, callsign Magyar ( ‘Madyar’ in Ukrainian, meaning Hungarian), the unit has grown in three years from a platoon into a regiment, destroying vast numbers of Russian forces each month. This rate of growth is extraordinary in a military unit and looks more like a tech start up --and maybe that is a better description of what Birds of Magyar really is.

The unit has become famous on the internet, and compilation videos of drone strikes go viral, aided by Brovdi’s trademark commentaries with catchphrases ‘Jagga jagga!’ and ‘Bada-boom!’ highlighting effective attacks.

But Magyar’s success is not about presentation. The numbers show this one unit is contributing a significant fraction of Ukraine’s combat power. Magyar has achieved this by using the skills of a tech entrepreneur in a military context.

Small Beginnings And Rapid Growth

Brovdi’s appearance, with a shaggy, greying beard makes him look like the guy in a biker bar you least want to annoy. His language is harsh, describing the Russians as ‘hunting worms,’ pulling no punches in his online pieces describing the current situation and what needs to be done. But beneath the Dark Ages warrior exterior is an keen grasp of a new type of warfare.

Brovdi has been way ahead of the technology curve all the way. Previously a successful businessman, Brovdi joined the volunteer territorial defence as a foot soldier in 2022 at the start of the full-scale Russian invasion. He became platoon commander and, frustrated by trench warfare and in violation of the rules at the time, bought and flew a commercial drone to get a better view of the battlefield.



Before long he had acquired more drones and established Birds of Magyar as a drone reconnaissance platoon.

The unit soon started making their own drone bombs and by March 2023, Birds of Magyar had grown from a reconnaissance platoon into a strike drone company. Initially within territorial defense and then as part of the regular army in the 59th Motorized Infantry Brigade.


In January 2024 the unit expanded again and became an independent Marine Corps drone battalion, taking the name of 14th Strike UAV Battalion.

In December 2024 the battalion was expanded again into a full regiment, with a further tripling of the number of personnel.

And all along, at the same time as being engaged in high-intensity conflict, Birds of Magyar has adopted and adapted new technology. They were among the first to make their own drone munitions, to use FPV drones, heavy bomber multicopters, to experiment with FPV carriers , to fly interceptor drones, to use flying relay drones, to carry out minelaying by drone and to use FPVs with fiber-optic controls, With all of these things, they have managed to find the best way of using the technology, optimized it – often by building or modifying their own hardware – and scale it up to make a real impact on the battlefield.

As well as flying reconnaissance and attack missions, Birds of Magyar also has its own interceptor unit, a unit for experimental unmanned systems and a unit for the development and another for implementation of new systems. The unit operates its own production facilities for drones and drone munitions, and carries out its own pilot training.

Gamification: How Success Fuels Success
The Ukrainian government operates a system which turns success into fuel for further success. As Brovdi himself explained in a 2024 post, the attack drone business has been gamified. The process resembles a video game where scoring points allows a player to upgrade their warrior, mecha or spacecraft to take on successively bigger opponents. Or a starup plowing profits back into the business.

Turret toss
A successful FPV strike causes a Russian tank to detonate, throwing the turret high into the air
Security Service of Ukraine
Kills on specific targets which can be verified earn a drone operator points. For example, destroying a top-end Russian T-90M tank earns a reward equivalent to about $10,000. This comes in the form of points which can be spent on new drones. This process rewards the high performers and ensures that drones go to the units which make best use of them.

Brovdi compared his unit to a business in an interview with Forbes in November 2022. Then a platoon commander, Brovdi said: “It’s a complete business cycle, where you just improve the product every time.”

The product in this case is destroyed Russian equipment,

In previous wars such a system might have led to inflated claims, like the controversial U.S. ‘body counts’ in Vietnam or the Russian system in which commanders regularly lie their superiors about their progress, the Ukrainian have a strict audit process. But every drone strike is automatically recorded by its own camera and can be cross-indexed with Ukraine’s Delta battlefield information system which merges data from drones, satellites and other sources. Follow-up drones carry out damage assessment and kill claims are strictly audited.

“I am not claiming this is 100% precise, but it is a structured assessment that, in my opinion, reliably reflects trends,” writes Yurii Butusov in a piece on Censor.Net looking at the drone kill statistics for January. “The vast majority—99%—of this data is accurate.”

An efficient system for crediting kills means that Ukraine can channel resources to the units that are doing most with them. Butusov’s main complaint is that currently this channel is only available to a minority of drone units and needs to be widened out. But Birds of Magyar have shown how well it can work.


Birds of Magyar release a monthly video compilation of their strikes. These days there are so many it can only include highlights; even five minutes of solid end-to-end explosions can only include a fraction of their total activities. The videos are split into sections showing strikes on armored vehicles, targeting artillery, air-to-air intercepts, night bomber missions, destruction of buildings, and many, many strikes on individual Russian soldiers.

There are a lot of interesting statistics in the monthly scorecard which shows hundreds of vehicles destroyed . But the biggest one is the headline figure of almost 22,000 combat sorties, of which 11,691 were strike missions. These hit 5,334 targets, destroying 1,848 of them.

This suggests that roughly 50% of attack missions damaged a target, and 16% scored a kill. Although things are complicated where multiple drones hit a target in succession, this suggests a high hit rate compared, say, to artillery shells or ATGMs

Looking at the last couple of months, Birds of Magyar account for around 7% of the total number of armored vehicles destroyed by the Ukrainian military as a whole. And as Butusov notes, there are other similarly successful drone units.

In essence, this is a unit which destroys its own weight in Russian forces on a monthly basis and just keep growing. And the next step could be the most significant yet.

Drone Line: A 9-Mile Death Zone Along The Entire Front
The next stage of expansion will see Birds of Magyar integrated into a strategic drone network. In February, Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov announced the "Drone Line" project would integrate drone and ground forces into a single strike system to detect and target everything at ranges of 6-9 miles , destroying Russian assault before they can get close to Ukrainian positions. This would involve further expansion of existing drone units.


Rusten specifically mentioned the 20th Separate K-2 Regiment, the 429th Achilles Regiment, the 427th RAROH Regiment, the Phoenix Regiment as well as “the 414th Magyar’s Birds Brigade.” President Zelensky had a face-to-face meeting with the unit commanders including Brovdi in March.

The drone line will see drone integrated with a variety of sensors plus artillery, rockets and other assets, and the idea is that it will extend across the entire front with Russia. This might seem ambitious. But looking at Birds of Magyar’s rate of growth so far, it looks more like a logical next step.
archive - Forbes / original link - Forbes

Because it's marked mature (wrongly I think as any gore is pixelated), I cannot seem to be able to download via YT-DLP.


Brovdi was very much a self starter who formed his own drone force while in the territorial defense force to get a better view of the battlefield. His worm / Russian hunting compilation is punctuated by his catchpahrases like ‘Jagga jagga!’ and ‘Bada-boom!’ His force accounts for 7% of the armor destroyed by Ukrainians in a month. Drone operators are awarded points which are spent on new drones which rewards the best operators with better equipment. There's 22,000 combat sorties, of which 11,691 were strike missions which hit 5,334 targets, destroying 1,848 of them. Quite a few Russian POWs note not encountering Ukrainian forces just drones and have been known to surrender to drones, which can guide them to a point where they can surrender and be taken into safe custody.

@Ghostse

I'm not sure there's the complexity there you attribute to Trump's position. Zelensky did mostly focus in his first two years on sincere efforts at a diplomatic solution, even talking to Putin with ideas like getting the 'little green men' withdrawn and an agreed referendum. Armament was not neglected, as is evident from an effective initial response to a mostly blundered Russian invasion, but his approach offended those like Azov who wanted a tougher response. The idea voiced repeated by those in Trump's circle and the shills like Carlson he talks to was that Biden used a willing Zelensky to goad Putin into invading. Even if Trump says nearly the opposite every other day, it is deeply offensive given recent atrocities, as it so utterly opposite to the truth.



The fact that the US would not sign on to a condemnation of the Sumy atrocity because of those stupid negotiations says a lot. This is after Russia has waged a hybrid (propaganda and terrorism) against the West.

JD whatever his real name (the only good thing about him are the memes), former college commie and cross dresser, denied being on the Russian side in a condescending way, again claiming Ukraine overwhelmingly depends on the US, which is untrue, but Zelensky is also just factual about how Russian narratives have taken root among the MAGA movement.

Trump and Vance seem only good now at drawing America's increasingly former friends and deadly enemies of the US (eg Vietnam, Red China) together to try work out how to weather the wilful damage done to the world economy and the Western Alliance (eg the Greenland and Canada schizo stuff). I honestly rate any attempt to discern nuance here as deeply optimistic. His Administration is heavily weighed up with shallow, vapid Russian influenced ideologues (eg Gabbard or the equally malign RFK Jr) and alcoholic TV hosts. Trump has great reserves of cunning and strong political instincts, but his Administration is extraordinary amateur. Vance fumbling that trophy is very representative of the bungling.

Trump also couldn't pull himself away from a golf tournament sponsored by bonesaw MBS to cap the fulsome Lithuanian farewell to the four perished US soldiers with attendance at the Memorial Service in Vilnius Cathedral and generally seemed uninterested in the tragedy.

Witless Wikloff and his stupid statements fit in with many other pandering statements of the MAGA movement and some deeply foolish idea that Russia could be befriended and drawn away from its alignment with Red China. Astonishingly Wikloff is also negotiating with the mullah's of Iran over their nuclear program. I cannot see how he's some of affable fool to distract Putin and the mullahs from Trump's clever, subtle 5D chess move. Wikloff seems to be an affable fool, but he's entrusted with responsibilities he's not remotely equal to. The mullah's won't accept any idea of uranium stored in a third country and the Trump attraction to superficial deals might well overrule the damage that Putin's closest actual ally does to world shipping and Middle Eastern peace.

Putin is said to mock Trump. If he did fear him once, that's in the past. If his Administration is any guide, Putin would buy and sell him. It's probably dawning on Trump slowly that Ukraine is not overwhelmingly dependent on the US. Aiding Ukraine is a pragmatic source of fresh combat data and a mess to destroy a malign player on the international stage.

Again, I hope I'm wrong here and the Trump Administration will work in a way that helps its ally Ukraine and harms its enemy Russia.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Support to Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War

***

Executive Summary

As of early 2025, the United States has committed approximately $185 billion in total assistance to Ukraine, encompassing military aid, economic stabilization, humanitarian support, and security cooperation. This white paper evaluates the strategic return on that investment, estimating that the United States has received between $778.7 billion and $1.66 trillion in direct and indirect benefits.

By degrading a near-peer adversary’s military capability, gaining unprecedented battlefield intelligence, and accelerating the testing and development of advanced weapons systems, the U.S. is realizing a Return on Strategic Investment (ROSI) of 321% to 797%. This figure rivals or exceeds the strategic value generated by Cold War containment, and it has been achieved without deploying American troops into combat.


1. Introduction

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, U.S. support has been framed largely in moral, political, or ideological terms — a defense of sovereignty, democracy, and the rules-based international order.

This paper reframes the issue through a strategic lens: Ukraine is not simply a recipient of American aid — it is a combat-proven accelerator of U.S. strategic interests.

By supporting Ukraine, the United States has helped:

● Severely degrade Russia’s conventional military strength;


● Expose critical Russian doctrine, systems, and weaknesses;


● Train and refine autonomous and AI-enabled battlefield systems;


● Accelerate weapons R&D and real-world iteration; and


● Enhance deterrence against future aggression by near-peer competitors.

2. Methodology

Valuation is based on a comparative analysis of:

● Historical U.S. expenditures in high-intensity conflicts;


● DoD and GAO estimates for R&D cost per weapons system;


● Defense industry pricing and foreign military sales (FMS) reports;


● NATO intelligence reports, OSINT data, and AI training benchmarks;


● RAND, CSIS, and SIPRI estimates of strategic deterrence and adversary degradation.
Figures are triangulated using open-source and government data, adjusted for inflation and normalized to 2025 USD.


3. Strategic Return Estimates

The following table summarizes the strategic value of Ukraine’s partnership, based on documented battlefield outcomes and defense impact.


https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/6b585b98-93b7-42d6-bbb5-8e8070f323d6_975x242.png
***

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Battlefield AI Dataset ($25B–$100B)

Ukraine provides the world’s most robust collection of real-world, labeled data on enemy armor, infantry positions, EW signatures, camouflage, and damaged states. This dataset is a cornerstone for:

● Training vision-based AI on drones and loitering munitions;


● Improving automated BDA (Battle Damage Assessment);


● Enabling on-device, edge AI processing for ISR platforms.
Commercial equivalents cost tens of millions and remain synthetic. Ukraine’s dataset is combat-proven and growing daily.

4.2 Real-World Weapons Testing ($1.7B–$6.5B/year)

Testing new weapons and countermeasures in combat normally requires years of simulation and bureaucratic hurdles. Ukraine enables:

● Real-time feedback from frontline operators;


● Rapid battlefield iteration and adjustment;


● Data on performance in EW-contested, urban, and mixed-terrain environments.
This accelerates not only development but also doctrinal validation.

4.3 Russian Military Degradation ($500B–$1T)

Russia has suffered extraordinary losses:

● Over 3,000 tanks;


● Thousands of IFVs, artillery systems, and air defense units;


● Dozens of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters;


● Strategic naval assets in the Black Sea;


● Irreplaceable personnel losses among elite units (VDV, Spetsnaz).
To replicate these outcomes via direct U.S. force would have required a war on the scale of Iraq or Korea.

4.4 Exposure of Russian Systems ($50B–$150B)

NATO has acquired deep visibility into:

● Russian EW platforms (e.g., Krasukha-4, Leer-3);


● Air defense systems (S-300, S-400 performance and vulnerabilities);


● Drone doctrine and ISR limitations;


● Tactical communications and logistics under fire.
These insights feed directly into U.S. and allied military modeling and allow for targeted modernization and deception planning.

4.5 Strategic Deterrence ($100B+)

Lessons from Ukraine shape the next decade of deterrence planning:

● Taiwan contingency logistics;


● Baltic corridor reinforcement;


● Maritime security in the Black Sea and Arctic.
Avoiding surprise or underestimation in a future war could save hundreds of billions in corrective defense measures.

4.6 Foreign Military Sales ($1B–$5B)

Combat validation boosts the global demand for:

● HIMARS (Poland, Taiwan, Romania, Latvia);


● Javelin and NLAW;


● Drones and C-UAS systems;


● Defensive radars and AI targeting software.
U.S. defense exports benefit directly — as do industrial base expansion and allied interoperability.

4.7 Geopolitical Impact ($100B–$300B)

Russia’s international influence is at its lowest in decades:

● Arms sales to India, Egypt, and Southeast Asia are collapsing;


● BRICS coordination is weakened;


● Western sanctions and corporate exits have reduced long-term Russian GDP and global engagement potential.

5. Conclusion

Support for Ukraine is not just the right thing to do — it is the smartest strategic investment the U.S. has made in decades. For a one-time outlay of $185 billion over three years, the U.S. has:

● Avoided direct war with a near-peer adversary;


● Accelerated battlefield AI and military innovation;


● Degraded Russian military capacity by decades;


● Shaped global deterrence against China, Iran, and North Korea;


● Strengthened alliances and defense exports.
This is not foreign aid. It is a return-focused investment in American power, security, and long-term dominance.


Appendix: Selected References

● RAND Corporation. War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable (2015)


● CSIS. Loitering Munitions and the Future of Warfare (2023)


● SIPRI Arms Transfers Database


● Oryx. Russia Equipment Losses Tracker (2022–2025)


● U.S. Department of Defense. AI Strategy (2022)


● IMF. Russian Economic Outlook Reports (2022–2024)


● Atlantic Council. Sanctions Tracker


● DSCA. Foreign Military Sales Reports

Benjamin Cook continues to travel to, often lives in, and works in Ukraine, a connection spanning more than 14 years. He holds an MA in International Security and Conflict Studies from Dublin City University and has consulted with journalists on AI in drones, U.S. military technology, and related topics. He is co-founder of the nonprofit UAO, working in southern Ukraine. You can find Mr. Cook between Odesa, Ukraine; Charleston, South Carolina; and Tucson, Arizona.

Hate Subscriptions? Me too! You can support me with a one time contribution to my research at Buy Me a Coffee. https://buymeacoffee.com/researchukraine

6b585b98-93b7-42d6-bbb5-8e8070f323d6_975x242.webp
242ef769-70ba-4123-ba53-3e9b3d45d354_975x713.webp

archive - Sarcastasaurus / original link - Sarcastasaurus



Ukraine’s defence forces have struck the permanent deployment site of the 448th missile brigade of the Russian army in Kursk Oblast. This brigade had launched a missile strike on the city of Sumy on Palm Sunday 13 April.

Ukrainian Defense Forces struck Russian military unit 35535 — home of the 448th Missile Brigade in Klyukva, Kursk region.

As a result of the strike, a secondary detonation of ammunition was also recorded.

“Units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ Unmanned Systems Forces, Special Operations Forces and the Security Service of Ukraine, in coordination with other defence units, carried out strikes on several targets in Kursk Oblast linked to war criminals involved in the missile attack on Sumy on 13 April 2025, as well as other war crimes against the people of Ukraine” - @uaf_general_staff
source
 
Last edited:
I'm too lazy and/or incompetent to archive, and its not anything super important for posterity but:

Suchomimus has videos of the latest BUK breaking

There have been just under 100 confirmed losses of BUK systems, Russia started the war with about 400, so that's a 25% loss of their high-mobility mid-range air defense. Say it with me: oof.

He also had more video of some Russian turtle tanks and BMPs getting Drone'd that kept getting age-locked so he put it on his patreon for free with no subscription/registration required

Its just more BMPs going pop so not earth shattering.
 
There are reports from European diplomats that the US has been "fed up" with Europe continuing to arm Ukraine and Pentagon officials questioning why Europe is helping.


So looks less like the US was hoping Europe to step up and defend interests in the region and more like the US hoped to just turn off all support for Ukraine and force a surrender entirely on Russia's terms.


Trump’s Ukraine ceasefire is slipping away​

The American president increasingly looks like Russia’s willing dupe​


Donald trump promised to end the war in Ukraine within a day. Now, insiders say, he hopes to secure a ceasefire within his first 100 days—ie, by the end of this month. He has started to refer to the conflict as “Biden’s war”. But if it drags on, he worries it will increasingly become his.

How to stop the fighting? Russia has ignored America’s call for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, which Ukraine accepted on March 11th. Instead it has played for time and intensified its attacks. On April 13th two Russian missiles struck the town of Sumy, killing 34 people, many of them gathering to attend Palm Sunday services. It followed a similar strike on Kryvyi Rih on April 4th that killed 20 people.

Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, said Mr Trump’s team should realise that the Kremlin was “mocking their goodwill”. Mr Trump, though, seems immune to shame. He has proved peculiarly indulgent of Russia and hostile towards Ukraine. Even as some of his aides denounced the Russian attack on Sumy, Mr Trump suggested it was a “mistake”, albeit a “horrible” one. Astonishingly, on April 14th he blamed Ukraine for being invaded by Russia, shrugging off a Ukrainian request to buy American missiles. “You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” he declared.

Admirers of Mr Trump insist he is ready to get tough with Russia. He has renewed his predecessor’s sanctions on Russia, and has expressed impatience with the Kremlin, telling one interviewer that he was “pissed off” with Russia and floating the idea of imposing “secondary tariffs”, presumably on countries buying Russian oil. On April 11th he said, “Russia has to get moving.” European leaders are clamouring for additional sanctions on Russia to make such words count, so far to no avail.

In March Mr Trump briefly cut the weapons and intelligence to Ukraine. Keith Kellogg, an adviser, compared this to “hitting a mule with a two-by-four across the nose”. It worked: within days, Ukraine agreed to the 30-day ceasefire. For the obdurate Russians, however, there have been no sticks, only carrots. American and Russian officials met in Istanbul on April 10th to discuss upgrading their embassies. The countries also exchanged two prisoners. Russian media say the rapprochement is proceeding regardless of the Ukraine talks.

When Mr Trump announced his worldwide “reciprocal tariffs” this month, he whacked Ukraine with the minimum 10% universal rate while excluding Russia (supposedly because it was already under sanctions). One solace for Ukraine is that the turmoil of the trade war is such that the price of oil has tumbled from around $80 a barrel in January to $65, sharply cutting Mr Putin’s revenues.

Notably absent from Mr Trump’s discourse is any notion of additional military aid for Ukraine. Indeed, America’s support is dwindling. The flow of weapons approved by Joe Biden will run out in the coming months, and Mr Trump has not authorised any more. Another budget allocation to support Ukraine looks unlikely.

America is withdrawing troops and equipment from Rzeszow, a vital hub in Poland for weapons being sent to Ukraine. Their duties will henceforth be carried out by European troops. Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth, the American defence secretary, stayed away from a meeting in Brussels on April 11th of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, a gathering of 50-odd countries contributing military help that was created and led by his predecessor, Lloyd Austin, though Mr Hegseth joined by video link.

Another sign of the times is that Pentagon figures recently questioned one ally about why it was still supplying weapons to Ukraine—a challenge that was ignored. Diplomats in Washington also report that some Trump aides say privately that they are “fed up” with Europe’s effort to strengthen Ukraine. As always with such a chaotic administration, it is hard to distinguish the true signal from the noise.

For now Europeans are pushing along two tracks. The first is the effort by Britain and France to create a European “reassurance force” to help Ukraine after a ceasefire. Russia objects to that deployment, even if America is offering no assurance that it will back the Europeans. The force would not seek to police the front lines between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Instead it would stay away from the front, probably in western Ukraine, where it would concentrate on training Ukrainian forces, and perhaps do joint air patrols.

Europeans hope to show Mr Trump that they are taking up the burden of European security, hoping to retain at least some kind of American commitment, to NATO if not to Ukraine. Under this emerging scheme, the future “deterrence” of Russia would come in three zones: reinforced Ukrainian troops holding the line against Russia in the east, European forces in the west and, at least for now, a lingering American presence in NATO countries.

But the creation of such a force depends on an ever-elusive ceasefire. Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump’s envoy to Russia, is reported to have said that the quickest way of securing one would be to let Russia take four Ukrainian provinces which it claims, including territory it has failed to conquer. That would be unacceptable to Ukraine and its European partners.

All this reinforces the need for the second track: increasing Europe’s military assistance to Ukraine. David Shimer, a former official in Mr Biden’s National Security Council, says there is no time to waste. Europeans should give away more of their stocks of weapons despite the risks; finance Ukraine’s military industries; negotiate with Mr Trump to buy American air-defence systems for Ukraine; and use frozen Russian assets to pay for it all.

With Russia determined to press its invasion, and America seemingly determined to pull away, Ukraine will have to fight on, Mr Shimer says. “Now is the time for the Europeans to intensify their aid to Ukraine—so that Ukraine has the support it needs to defend itself and to push Putin to engage in meaningful negotiations.”
 
Can't quote you because of the broken GUI @SBG but that piece of news isn't unexpected IMO because European support for Ukraine directly undermines the leverage America may have over it, in particular, it makes it easier for Ukraine to refuse to sign whatever BS mineral rights deal Trump offers.
 
View attachment 7221929

short kings lol. Did they go out of their way to send someone Putin-sized?


"According to Witkoff, Putin expressed interest in achieving a “permanent peace,” although this was not immediately part of the conversation. “It took a while for us to get to,” he said, referring to the discussion around ending the conflict. Witkoff highlighted that the path to peace appears to center on a deal involving five territories, although he did not specify which ones. “This peace deal is about these so-called five territories, but there’s so much more to it,” he said, suggesting broader geopolitical and economic considerations.

Witkoff emphasized that a breakthrough might be imminent, describing the situation as “something that would be very, very important for the world at large.” He also underlined the potential for reshaping U.S.-Russia relations through strategic commercial engagements that could contribute to regional stability."


And nothing of substance was said.
TL;DR: "We're lubing up for another appeasement"
 
Back