I am urprised how much money suddenly is available where other future-critical projects are starved of funding while needing just a fraction of that amount, specifically nuclear fusion.
What makes fusion research "future critical"? I honestly don't see any realistic timeline where fusion energy contributes >10% to any nations electricity grid in 2040.
Sure, throwing money at the problem might accelerate things marginally, but you might as well build out renewables, battery storage and invest into grid connectivity, with greater effect (over the next decades), less risk and faster RoI.
It's the same in the UK. Pensioners had their heating allowance removed to plug a £22 bn 'black hole', whilst tonnes of money is pledged to AI. I can imagine the EU is in a similar state.
Removing AI investments will not plug a 22 bn "black hole". This is 200 million europe wide, and the UK is at best 1/6th of Europe if we're very generous.
Your comment is misinformed, you are unfamiliar with the UK context here, but even if your comment would be correct, 200/6 = 33 EUR that would most definitely plug that black hole, however that is not what the comment is about, please look at the actual context before commenting.
The point being made is not about removing AI investments. The OP's comment:
> I am urprised how much money suddenly is available where other future-critical projects are starved of funding while needing just a fraction of that amount, specifically nuclear fusion.
The point is that money is found easily for such projects, whilst other important projects go unfunded due to a supposed lack of money. There is the appearance of dishonesty regarding budget availability.
> The UK is also sending eye-watering amounts of money to Ukraine without a problem, while everyone else is pulling out of the project.
The UK government has never been more obviously out of step with the rest of the West. Like it or not, the global stage is currently being driven by signals from Trump.
> There was also the plan go give the Chagos islands to a country that is ~2000km away and pay them billions for the privilege of using them.
Don't get me started on this. There is quite likely an amount of corruption involved there too.
Many very costly things could happen if you forget the Munich lesson.
It's easier to stop Putin there than to let him have it and spend 10x on the next war.
Many very costly things happen if we forget the Afghanistan lesson, where an insane amount money was plowed into a military riddled with corruption that folded without a fight once the US abandoned the area. On paper the Afghan forces were more numerous and better equipped, in reality most of those soldiers collected their pay checks and went home.
Ukraine's army and soldiers have done everything, above and beyond what could be expected of them, and none "collected their pay checks and went home".
But where do you get this info? This is bullshit. There are no 200k desertions, not even half that, even in the worst estimates. And because of immigration numbers in Europe ALONE we know for sure there are 1m desertions in Russia, from just the Russians that register as refugees in Europe. There were 100+km traffic jams JUST FROM DESERTERS LEAVING RUSSIA. Let's assume at least double that are in other destinations. That's 15 Russian desertions per Ukrainian if we take your numbers, something like 35 Russians deserting per Ukrainian if we take realistic numbers.
I'm fucking trying to hire a Russian deserter. Interviewed him, currently trying to arrange a permit, getting info on what would be involved. For what a shit country it is Russians can be damn well educated, and obviously, are currently available for hire (with caveats of course) in Europe ... frankly at bargain prices even for Europe.
There's a, now pretty famous, Russian deserter that was part of Putin's IT team [1]. There's a famous Russian deserter from the Nuclear weapons team [2]. There's desertions of Kremlin insiders [3].
As for the losing ground ... everyone was sure Russia was going to beat the Ukrainian army and government in 3 days. Then it was definitely not going to take 2 weeks, and now Russia's entire army is in shambles, Ukraine is executing areal attacks against Russian fucking air defence with Cessna "rockets", and that works! There's reports, with video of Russia's army having entirely run out of equipment, using golf carts as armored vehicles.
And yes, Ukraine works by the general tactic of retreating 100 meters leaving a trap, having Russia sacrifice WAY too much dealing with the trap, retreating another 100 meters.
As for the money, aside from the amount quoted being bullshit, the 150 billion dollars that US + EU loaned combined in trade for destroying the Russian army? That's cheap. In fact those amounts are loans, being spent largely in the US, to be repaid by the Ukrainian government. 70% or so is a direct stimulus for the US economy, paid by Ukraine, if they win. It would be cheap even if it was a gift to Ukraine, but it's not.
By contrast, just the Russian actions in the Baltic seas, cutting internet cables are estimated to cost 2+ billion. In other words it's not even possible to avoid spending it. And those damages are NOT loans. We will be paying for that, one way or another, out of pocket, nobody will pay anyone back for that.
Emigration or fleeing is not desertion, if you leave a country before being part of the army, you have fled the country but you did not desert. You have to be part of a military unit to have the ability to desert.
You can look at Ukrainian sources about the desertion problem, there are videos of actual Ukrainian soldiers and commanders talking about this, they made laws around this issue.
> Russia's entire army is in shambles, Ukraine is executing areal attacks against Russian fucking air defence with Cessna "rockets", and that works! There's reports, with video of Russia's army having entirely run out of equipment, using golf carts as armored vehicles.
> And yes, Ukraine works by the general tactic of retreating 100 meters leaving a trap, having Russia sacrifice WAY too much dealing with the trap, retreating another 100 meters.
So are the maps that I'm looking at all fake(including the Ukrainian ones) or the Russian army that is in shambles is till beating the Ukrainian army?
> As for the money, aside from the amount quoted being bullshit
The 100bn came from Zelensky, so is he saying bullshit?
> the 150 billion dollars that US + EU loaned combined
I'm pretty sure the US alone has sent more than 150, but it doesn't matter because it would make the situation look even worse.
> trade for destroying the Russian army
For a destroyed army they are gaining a lot of ground, I'm afraid to even think about what would a not-destroyed Russian army would be capable of.
> be repaid by the Ukrainian government. 70% or so is a direct stimulus for the US economy, paid by Ukraine, if they win
Even if they win, they won't have an economy to pay it back.
> It would be cheap even if it was a gift to Ukraine, but it's not.
It is a gift because the likelihood of Ukraine ever paying it back is one the same level of Hawk Tuah Coin gaining back it's value. It's not cheap because it didn't accomplish much.
> By contrast, just the Russian actions in the Baltic seas, cutting internet cables are estimated to cost 2+ billion.
You do realise that the Baltic sea is far away from Ukraine and even if Russia loses the war they can still send submarines there right?
---
I recommend you look at factual accounts of what is actually happening, you can look at multiple sources to minise bias and you should be open to the possibility that your favourite news outlets might not be completely honest with the way they are presenting things because their reporting does not line up with all the facts.
Even if I accept all your beliefs about Putin and Russia, I can still say that most of the money given was wasted compared to spending it on the European side of NATO.
> So are the maps that I'm looking at all fake(including the Ukrainian ones) or the Russian army that is in shambles is till beating the Ukrainian army?
In what sense is half a percent of territorial gain for 400 000 casualties "beating" anyone? It is textbook Pyrrhic victory.
Size of Russian age groups (male), for comparison:
20–24 years: 3.85 million
25–29 years: 3.75 million
30–34 years: 5.02 million
35–39 years: 6.29 million
40–44 years: 5.68 million
Russian "success" consists of rapidly burning through its male population for miniscule and unmeaningful gains. And before anyone says that war is non-linear and massive gains are only a breakthrough away: Russia has no armour left to exploit breakthroughs. Armour is depleted, territorial gains have stalled, daily losses are larger than ever before, and there's no end in sight. For most military strategists, being stuck in unwinnable war like this is a nightmare scenario. The war started with Russian media boasting how they'll be in Kyiv in three days; now they celebrate each time they manage to exchange tens of thousands of lives for an abandoned village in rural Ukraine.
> In what sense is half a percent of territorial gain for 400 000 casualties "beating" anyone? It is textbook Pyrrhic victory.
Maybe gaining territory was not really the objective, maybe not all territory is considered equal.
Also they gained 20% of Ukraine along with some of it's population, if they gained more than 400 000(or whatever the actual number is) people, then the exchange was profitable.
It would have been interesting to see how many people would the US have been willing to sacrifice had the Cuban Missile Crisis would not have been averted.
> Russia has no armour left to exploit breakthroughs
They might be fighting with clubs, slingshots and shovels, but they are still gaining ground, so either this is not true, or the Russians are so good that they don't need armour. Since I have seen Ukrainian videos with recent dates that show columns of Russian armour, I would say that it's probably not true.
> territorial gains have stalled
They have actually accelerated, remember how long Bakhmut lasted? Now they are speedrunning it, they capture something militarily important almost every month.
> no end in sight
There is: Ukraine wants to recruit 18 year olds, clearly they are at the end of their rope.
> being stuck in unwinnable war like this is a nightmare scenario
They can freeze the conflict whenever they want, the Russians don't want to because they feel that they have the initiative, that's why it's so difficult to negotiate with them.
> abandoned village in rural Ukraine
In military context small villages can have significant importance. Landfills can be incredibly important as well even though they don't have much intrinsic value.
> exchange tens of thousands of lives
Maybe that's a win for them, maybe they just want to erase military power and even if their exchanges are less efficient it might still be worth it for them because they can absorb the higher cost in lives due to their larger population. I do believe that because the Russians are more numerous and have their own military industry, it's the Ukrainians that suffer more casualties, however it doesn't matter because if it meets their objective, it's a victory.
They have not. In the first 30 days of the war, Russia captured some 22% of Ukraine. Successful Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2022 reduced this to 17-18%. In 2023 and 2024, Russia failed to regain its foothold and still occupies less than at the end of the first month of the war. All while monthly casualties have risen to the highest they've ever been.
The figures I mentioned - half a percent of territory, 400 000+ casualties - are for 2024 alone. All Russians have to show for such insane losses are militarily super-duper-important landfills, as you put it.
For a country with an aging society and already one of the lowest birth rates in the world, this is pure suicide. They will literally run out of young men before reaching Kyiv. The most cynical people in Washington must be real pleased with the way the war is going. Russia is losing people and permanently crippling itself, while the US population has grown by almost 100 million in the last 30 years.
> Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2022 reduced this to 17-18%
Percentage of territory in terms of a war is not a good indicator of progress, especially taking into account the objective and the context here, if the Russians would capture Kharkiv that wouldn't be a big territorial gain, but it would be game over for Ukraine.
The Russians have captured Avdiivka(which was probably the most important victory), Vuhledar, Chasiv Yar, Toretsk, Niu-York, Kurakhove and many others, they have also rolled back all of the small gains made by the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Just remember that before it took like around 11 months to capture just Bakhmut and now I can't even count how many comparable victories they are having.
> militarily super-duper-important landfills, as you put it
I did mean actual waste heap, it might be funny to us, but for military purposes a waste heap can be important because it gives elevation same way as worthless fields on hills.
> For a country with an aging society and already one of the lowest birth rates in the world, this is pure suicide.
The Russians probably think that allowing Ukraine to become a NATO military power is even worse, if you look at it from that perspective it makes a bit more sense.
> They will literally run out of young men before reaching Kyiv.
Progress and casualties is not linear.
> The most cynical people in Washington must be real pleased with the way the war is going.
They were, until it started affecting them as well and when they realised what it's like to fight an opponent that has a military industry and all the natural resources it can ever need.
It was also an embarrassment for NATO.
> Russia is losing people and permanently crippling itself, while the US population has grown by almost 100 million in the last 30 years.
The US can grow 200 million this year if it wants to, that's not a good indicator of progress. Russia has also gained people from the territories it has annexed so far.
-------
For easy consumption I highly recommend the Military Summary Channel[1], they make daily videos and cite all their sources, you don't have to agree with their interpretation, you can check their sources instead. History Legends[2] is also good if you don't want the level of detail you can get from the Military Summary Channel.
For a different interpretation of what is the Russian perspective I highly recommend looking at John Mearsheimer, you can check out talks he gave before the war even started and see how well it holds up today[3].
Reason I believe my sources are better than the mainstream media, is because they managed to stay consistent all these years, whereas the mainstream media fumbled and flip-flopped on things that were easily verifiable.
I don't see how the captured settlements indicate any better progress.
Avdiivka, the "greatest success" of 2024, was a small town with pre-invasion population of 32 000, less than 5 miles of the frontline on day 1 of the invasion in 2022. Avdiivka was literally visible from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings in Russian-occupied Donetsk. It took three years to get there.
All other listed are even smaller: Vuhledar 14 000, Kurakhove 5000. By now they are heaps of rubble where no-one lives. Compared to the capture of Crimea, which did not cost any lives and left Crimea intact, how is losing 400 000+ a year for such places not a total disaster?
> All of these channels are blatant Russian propaganda. They're also full of blatant lies. All 3 of them.
Can you point out examples of lies or do you just label every source that does not align with your beliefs as propaganda?
The Military Summary Channel sources Deep State (pro-Ukraine) and videos made by Ukrainians, are you telling me that these are also lies?
There was that video of a bradley(IFV) managing to defeat a Russian tank on History Legends, why would the Russians make such propaganda?
> Avdiivka was literally visible from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings in Russian-occupied Donetsk.
That's why it was so critical to capture it because the Ukrainians were able to comfortably shell the separatists from there, that's why it was important.
> Avdiivka, the "greatest success" of 2024, was a small town with pre-invasion population of 32 000
It was one of the most and best defended strongholds of Ukraine that was in range of the separatist capital, getting rid of that was huge.
Being important economically is not the same as being important militarily, a village of 1000 people can be more important than a town of 10 000 if it's in the right place.
> All other listed are even smaller: Vuhledar 14 000
It had high rise buildings and it was surrounded by flat terrain, incredibly difficult to approach, was blocking the Russian army for a long time.
> It took three years to get there.
Because it had an insanely high concentration of Ukrainian forces and some of the best defences.
> losing 400 000+ a year
War started in 2021, we are now in 2025, that's 4 years, estimated size of Russian army is ~1 500 000, which means they should have a minus 100 000 soldiers, that does not add up. You could argue that maybe the Russians are just that good at recruiting people at this horrible survival rate, however you would need to account for contracts not being renewed, which makes it very hard to make the numbers add up.
> War started in 2021, we are now in 2025, that's 4 years, estimated size of Russian army is ~1 500 000, which means they should have a minus 100 000 soldiers, that does not add up.
The war started in February 2022, not 2021. I do not recall saying that Russia has seen 400 000+ casualties for each of the three years. Quite the opposite: in the initial weeks of the invasion Russia made large gains with relatively tiny losses, estimated at low thousand a month. That progress has stalled and casualty rate has now grown tenfold to 48 670 dead and wounded for December 2024 (worst month of the entire invasion). January 2025 is narrowly behind with 48 240. The running total is estimated 850k+. The first year contributed 85k. The second year 300k. The third year 400k. Even if the pace of losses stops growing and remains where it currently is, Russia will lose another 12x48=576k this year.
How is this not a disaster? I'd appreciate if you answered with a coherent paragraph instead of sniping every single sentence with a oneliner.
> I do not recall saying that Russia has seen 400 000+ casualties for each of the three years.
Thought you meant to say it was every year, my bad, I had no intention to misinterpret it.
> I do not recall saying that Russia has seen 400 000+ casualties for each of the three years. Quite the opposite: in the initial weeks of the invasion Russia made large gains with relatively tiny losses, estimated at low thousand a month. That progress has stalled and casualty rate has now grown tenfold to 48 670 dead and wounded for December 2024 (worst month of the entire invasion). January 2025 is narrowly behind with 48 240. The running total is estimated 850k+. The first year contributed 85k. The second year 300k. The third year 400k. Even if the pace of losses stops growing and remains where it currently is, Russia will lose another 12x48=576k this year.
> How is this not a disaster? I'd appreciate if you answered with a coherent paragraph instead of sniping every single sentence with a oneliner.
Not sure what your source is, but in general it's only the Russian Ministry of Defence that know the actual casualty numbers, but they aren't telling, other than that it speculation and depending who you ask you can get wildly different results.
Casualties include wounded and typically you have 4 wounded for each dead, which with your numbers would mean 170k deaths over 3 years, considering what they are up against this is to be expected, so in military terms I would not call this a disaster because if both sides are well equipped, it's just unavoidable. You can look at the Vietnam war for comparison.
Is it bad for society to lose this much of the male population? Of course it is, but one possible alternative scenario is that they get into an Israel - Gaza situation, which one can argue is even worse.
Do you think the US would have been willing to absorb similar levels of casualties if Mexico decided to join a military alliance with Russia or China?
> Do you think the US would have been willing to absorb similar levels of casualties if Mexico decided to join a military alliance with Russia or China?
No, certainly not. Russian losses are totally insane. The US lost 107 903 killed in action and 208 333 wounded in the entire Pacific theater of WWII, over four years that saw massive aerial and naval battles, unrestricted submarine warfare, large-scale amphibious operations, and savage fighting in the jungles across Southeast Asia.
Mediazona, which tracks Russian losses through open sources like obituaries in newspapers, has identified over 90 000 dead Russians by name and estimates the true number of deaths to be in the range of 138 500 to 200 000. Each death is accompanied by several wounded and permanently disabled cases, so as unbelievable as the Ukrainian estimates initially seemed to everyone, they appear to be roughly correct.
The consensus among military analysts is that after the initial months of 2022, Russia has seen only tactical-level successes, at best operational victories. There have been no strategic gains. For this, Russia has paid a higher price than the US did for fighting its way across the Pacific to Japan and forcing its surrender.
I think we can agree to disagree on that one, we are talking about a country that started wars for far less.
> Russian losses are totally insane. The US lost 107 903 killed in action and 208 333 wounded in the entire Pacific theater of WWII, over four years that saw massive aerial and naval battles, unrestricted submarine warfare, large-scale amphibious operations, and savage fighting in the jungles across Southeast Asia.
You don't have as many men on the ships as you need to cover ground.
You should check the Russian losses in WWII, compared to that, this is just a walk in the park.
> There have been no strategic gains.
If they keep categorizing all Russian gains as non strategic then of course there are none. The problem with this narrative is that it makes the Ukrainians look incompetent for sacrificing so much for these unimportant places.
Either the Ukrainians were complete morons for defending these places for so long or they were actually important and the media just likes to spin it the other way when the truth is inconvenient for their narratives.
> US did for fighting its way across the Pacific to Japan and forcing its surrender
You kind of forgot to mention one other player in that game and a certain type of weapon.
> You should check the Russian losses in WWII, compared to that, this is just a walk in the park.
Indeed, let's check them:
Battle of the Dnieper (Aug-Dec 1943): 1 200 000 killed and wounded
Dnieper-Carpathian offensive (Dec-Apr 1944): 900 000
Lvov-Sandomierz offensive (Jul-Aug 1944): 300 000
Russia has already exceeded German losses from 1941-1942 for capturing Ukraine (including Crimea). At a rate of less than 1% of territory gained for 400k+ casualties per year, Russia would exceed the total Soviet losses for all of Ukraine before even reaching the halfwaypoint at the Dnieper river. Russia hasn't even reached the hardest part yet: major urban areas like Kharkiv (pop. 1.7m) and Zaporizhzhia (840k), where the heaviest fighting could be expected, remain in Ukrainian hands.
Note the timeframe too. Both Germany and the USSR rolled through Ukraine in 12 months. In a week, the Russian war against Ukraine will enter its fourth year.
Capturing Texas wouldn't enlarge Russia too much percentage wise, because it's already massive, not that this metric matters at all.
You keep assuming that Russia needs more territory that's why this war is happening, whereas in reality Russia does not want a powerful Ukraine armed to the teeth with NATO gear right next door, that's it, that's what the Russians have been saying all along, their position has never changed, you can look up the Mins k agreement.
> 400k+ casualties per year
It's not per year.
> Russia would exceed the total Soviet losses for all of Ukraine before even reaching the halfwaypoint at the Dnieper river.
You are assuming that Ukraine has their forces uniformly distributed across it's territory which would make it the dumbest army in the universe, in reality most of it's armed forces are near the front, if they are gone, there won't be much left to defend the rest of Ukraine.
> Russia hasn't even reached the hardest part yet: major urban areas like Kharkiv (pop. 1.7m) and Zaporizhzhia (840k), where the heaviest fighting could be expected, remain in Ukrainian hands.
They don't have to, they can bleed the Ukrainian army by dragging them into a meat grinder elsewhere, Russia does not want Ukraine, they just want to destroy the Ukrainian army and permanently make sure Ukraine will never have an army that is a threat to Russia. The crazy thing is Zelensky is doing the work for the Russians with his media stunts like Kursk and Krynky.
> Note the timeframe too. Both Germany and the USSR rolled through Ukraine in 12 months. In a week, the Russian war against Ukraine will enter its fourth year.
Wonder how well both would have done with drones and HIMARs involved.
> You are assuming that Ukraine has their forces uniformly distributed across it's territory which would make it the dumbest army in the universe, in reality most of it's armed forces are near the front, if they are gone, there won't be much left to defend the rest of Ukraine.
I fully understand that you hope to see sudden breakthroughs, but they are clearly not happening anytime soon. In the early months of the war, we saw large armoured spearheads, such as the one destroyed at the Siverskyi Donets river crossing in May 2022, which consisted of 80-100 vehicles. Advancements in drone warfare on the Ukrainian side and equipment shortages on the Russian side have made it impossible to assemble such spearheads anymore. So even if there are breaches in Ukrainian frontlines, they cannot be (and haven't been) exploited on a massive scale as they were earlier in the war.
Besides that, any rapid Russian advancements in Ukraine would likely be countered by the deployment of a multinational European force. This seems to be currently in preparation even without any breakthroughs.
> You keep assuming that Russia needs more territory that's why this war is happening, whereas in reality Russia does not want a powerful Ukraine armed to the teeth with NATO gear right next door, that's it, that's what the Russians have been saying all along, their position has never changed, you can look up the Minsk agreement.
Europeans are expected to officially announce a 700bn defense package after the German elections on Sunday. 700bn is many times more than has been provided to Ukraine so far, by the entire world, combined. The longer the war drags on, the more modern equipment Ukraine will receive to replace the destroyed Soviet stocks and the more closely it will be aligned with NATO countries.
This is another measure by which the Russian invasion has been a complete failure. We went from Obama refusing to provide lethal aid to Ukraine in 2014, to Ukraine's air force flying F-16s and Mirages in 2025 while Rheinmetall is building arms factories in Ukraine.
This is far more than any NATO ally has received since the Cold War.
> I fully understand that you hope to see sudden breakthroughs
I want to see an end of this pointless war where a lot of people died for a lot of nothing and Europe along with other parts of the world just became poorer.
> In the early months of the war, we saw large armoured spearheads, such as the one destroyed at the Siverskyi Donets river crossing in May 2022, which consisted of 80-100 vehicles. Advancements in drone warfare on the Ukrainian side and equipment shortages on the Russian side have made it impossible to assemble such spearheads anymore. So even if there are breaches in Ukrainian frontlines, they cannot be (and haven't been) exploited on a massive scale as they were earlier in the war.
War has changed and that would be a big headache for the US and NATO in general because they know nothing about cheap-drone-warfare and NATO troops rarely faced off against a similar force, they became complacent.
> Besides that, any rapid Russian advancements in Ukraine would likely be countered by the deployment of a multinational European force. This seems to be currently in preparation even without any breakthroughs.
Europe's army is pathetic, they organised a meeting in Paris and all they could muster up is 25k soldiers, that's nothing, we have serious issues here.
> Europeans are expected to officially announce a 700bn defense package after the German elections on Sunday.
That's great but how long till it actually materialises into something? It takes time to build a military industry.
> 700bn is many times more than has been provided to Ukraine so far, by the entire world, combined.
Not as much if you research the real cost of participating in this war, a lot of economic productivity was erased as a result of the sanctions.
Money means nothing if there is nobody left to hold the weapon.
> The longer the war drags on, the more modern equipment Ukraine will receive to replace the destroyed Soviet stocks and the more closely it will be aligned with NATO countries.
You are making the assumption that "more modern" as always better and that NATO doctrine is superior in a setting where NATO has never fought before.
> This is another measure by which the Russian invasion has been a complete failure.
The whole point was to demonstrate that you can ignore deals you make with Russia because Russia is no longer a superpower, well that didn't work out.
> We went from Obama refusing to provide lethal aid to Ukraine in 2014, to Ukraine's air force flying F-16s and Mirages in 2025 while Rheinmetall is building arms factories in Ukraine.
Yes and then Russia has built a missile that we can't shoot down that can target anything in Europe, great progress, what's next, do we want to see them test it with actual nukes inside it?
> This is far more than any NATO ally has received since the Cold War.
People clinging on to the Cold War need to retire, the world has moved on and changed.
All of these channels are blatant Russian propaganda. They're also full of blatant lies. All 3 of them.
And as for the second channel ... sorry man WTF. An attack on Chernobyl's protection is NOT A FUCKING SUCCESS. That is a dumb failure on 10 different levels. It's not a military target, it was probably a stupid mistake, it's a waste of what looks like an expensive drone, it could cause yet another Russian nuclear disaster, ... the list goes on.
If this is how they prove how well the Russian army is doing, I'm going to have to start saying that even Trump is smarter than the Russians.
It makes more sense when you realize that all the money being thrown into Ukraine is likely being funneled out as tax-exempt gains by one billionaire or another who gives kickbacks to the politicians who enable this grift.
It's a giant grift, Ukraine has always unfortunately been a very corrupt country that enables such.
> It makes more sense when you realize that all the money being thrown into Ukraine is likely being funneled out as tax-exempt gains by one billionaire or another who gives kickbacks to the politicians who enable this grift.
The Western governments give Ukraine money, the money gets spent on weapons, the weapons are being bought from the West, Western government officials are stakeholders in weapons company growth & success.
Some government officials have a strange habit of multiplying their net work several times whilst in influential positions whilst on a relatively lower salary than would allow such gains.
