Kraft

Havent seen the news here yet but russia officially ended Armata development, citing its high cost as  mine clearing vehicle

Havent seen the news here yet but russia officially ended Armata development, citing its high cost as  mine clearing vehicle

Germany never showed "every intention". We have discussed that at length, and we are in line with most of the rest of the West, unfortunately.
The economy is declining as it sometimes does. "no end in sight" is a bit over the top IMHO.
The interest in Ukraine has declined. Of course, modern society is easily bored. The amount of newsworthy items has gone down. But look at us: downing an A-50 has even us only occupied for a few days until we derailed again.
But: the amount of support given by Germany is pretty stable, and I don't see that changing (see below).
That may not be necessary. The political constellation is currently, that the biggest supporters of Ukraine are both in the government (greens & liberals(*)) and the opposition (conservatives).
The next government will most likely include one or two of those parties. Thus, it is most unlikely that support for Ukraine will falter.
 
(*) not 'liberal' in the US sense of the word

Training for Leopard started in February 2023. They were in active combat, in June 2023. Had there been the will to send these tanks in 2022, they could have been ready by the time the Kherson/ offensive took place/had commenced. It started even later. This is analog to every other weapons system. 
The "not possible" is just a moral veil for "not in the interest".

This has be to be a joke, right? No way Germany would have sold any weapons to Ukraine pre-02/22. Even the second hand sale of a handful ancient East German howitzers was through Latvia was out of the question. Best we were willing to do was sending 5000 helmets. Supplying arms to "conflict zones" was simply not a possibility in pre-war German politics.

To buy? Would Germany really agree to sell them in that time, when in 2014 they rejected to supply engines for BTR-4, because "it may cause more civilian deaths". And even in 2022 there were half years of discussions "will Russia nuke us if we give Leos?"

On the topic of western aid, the total number of ATGMs supplied to Ukraine by France has been declassified.

The number of missiles remains classified, in an effort to maintain strategic ambiguity.
 

On the topic of western aid, the total number of ATGMs supplied to Ukraine by France has been declassified.

The number of missiles remains classified, in an effort to maintain strategic ambiguity.
 

On the topic of western aid, the total number of ATGMs supplied to Ukraine by France has been declassified.

The number of missiles remains classified, in an effort to maintain strategic ambiguity.
 

How many tanks, planes, cruise missiles were lost prewar? Oh right, there were none.
I specifically mentioned day 1, today would look a lot different had there been the forces that ended up driving into a 40km deep minebelt, which was only possible because of weak and undecisive aid, ready in year 1 when russia was throwing ship crews into trenches.

Vietnam war saw US soldiers die by soviet and chinese equiptment, how much was the US willing to accept before sending nukes to the soviet union for that?
cumulative 1.395 trillion purely military aid, 1.765 trillion infrastructure by soviet union. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01495R000500050038-4.pdf Using inflation calculator, cumulative rate of inflation at 594.6%, thats equivalent to 9.690 trillion military aid in todays worth, killing GIs. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ but sure, sending 31 abrams and a one-use atacms delivery after 2 years is equivalent to cold war tension and escalation. Im not sure, did the soviet union also start by debating whether rockets would be too much to send?? 

I don't disagree with any of that. The post I responded to seemed a bit more negative or one-sided to me. This post however I would totally agree with.
Let me say where I came from in the initial post: The West has done a lot, really a lot, but also the West would betray its own identity if it had not.
That's why I don't like when things are expressed in the vein of "oh why is it now the West's duty to help every war, silly Ukrainians? We dont have to give you a penny if we don't want to!"
I dont see that this way, because that is a big part of what makes us us, of what shapes our understanding of "mission", insofar we still have a sense of "mission" in the West.
Turning away from Ukraine would not be a betrayal of Ukraine necessarily, it would be a betrayal of ourselves and our political and ideological foundations and would weaken us in the long-term. 
That is not spoken out of a pure sense of stars-and-stripes idealism. I believe this has practical political ramifications, globally, of where the planet and humanity will be headed geopolitically in this century, which the West, despite diminishing demographic and economic importance, will take a role in shaping.
So I say: We did a lot, we could do better, and it is not pure generosity to do something, but it is beneficial in more ways than one to ourselves, it just also happens to be beneficial to Ukraine.

I wished to express a middle ground. Maybe it did not come across?
I did not mention specific weapon systems or numbers for a reason, since one can get lost in the details of what made sense when.
And what the West sent has been very important and also significant in terms of amount.
But I also sincerely believe that certain ways the support was handled can only be described as short-sighted, weak and even counter the West's own interests (for the 3 reasons stated in my previous post).
At the moment the West seems purely reactive rather than pro-active. Which means when politicians decide to allow Ukrainians to put their apparently ungrateful and uneducated hands on another piece of Western equipment, it takes months of training.
Training for certain systems could have begun much earlier - even if supply might only come later, in reaction to developments which Western politicians set as their red line.
The communication strategy is abysmal. Half the Western world doesn't even realise we have been locked into a wrestling match through a multi-pronged non-conventional attack by a force which utterly despises our core values and our way to live, which would order the killing of millions of Western citizens in a heartbeat and without any remorse if it seemed expedient to its interests. 
We are witnessing Fall Gelb and French politicians are openly telling French people that the first villages being overrun by Germans is fake news, and besides have you seen the German tanks yourself with your own eyes? If not, you are a warmonger, and it is best to vote for the pro-German politican during the French election happening next week. 
These are serious and unconventional, partly unprecedented problems. Irrational, even.
Still, I acknowledge that a lot has happened and many positive developments have taken place, from supplied military goods over economic sanctions to increased military production. That was really great. But while I don't want to downplay it, a lot of it seems to have been incredibly hotch-potched, foot-dragging and improvised, which makes me worry.
Ukraine cannot subsist based on the idealism of the Skandinavian and the Baltic countries alone.

Seriously and @squatter can look here too.  For anyone advocating Ukraine pursuing peace negotiations or suing for peace - easy to say but no one in this camp has provided a coherent theory of what that would look like right now.
Let’s say “Ok, you guys are right. Ukraine is out of options here. There are no viable way for Ukraine to continue to prosecute this war.”  Ok, so what?  What would peace negotiations look like?  How exactly do you guys see these “peace negotiations” happening.  Every time I ask this question I get some hand waving but no one has yet to unpack just how any peace negotiations could end up in anything but weakened western influence and a more vulnerable Ukraine that Russia is going to exploit.  What peace negotiation, that Russia is going to accept - while, as we are continually reminded, Russia is still capable of waging offensives to take ground?  What possible leverage does the west or Ukraine have in guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and security.  Is Russia going to offer reparations?  How about war crimes prosecution?  Is Russia going to give up an inch of ground it has taken?  Are they going to push for recognition of Crimea and Donbas as Russian provinces.
This is what is so disingenuous about this line of advocacy - at best it is delusional liberal left “let’s give peace a chance”.  At worst is it far right BS designed to program failure into this entire war so that their presidential candidate can be “right all along”.  In both cases the idea of peace negotiations right now is an empty coffin where actual ideas on this war go to die.  We may very well need a negotiated end-state in this war, but suing for peace now, while on the back foot is going to embolden Putin and his regime…and is exactly what they are looking for in order to promote themselves “Look we brought them all to their knees”.
But let’s open the floor.  Please walk us through what a peace process would look like right now.  Let’s stop sideline heckling on won’t work and tell us what you think will work.

Training for Leopard started in February 2023. They were in active combat, in June 2023. Had there been the will to send these tanks in 2022, they could have been ready by the time the Kherson/ offensive took place/had commenced. It started even later. This is analog to every other weapons system. 
The "not possible" is just a moral veil for "not in the interest".

Vietnam war saw US soldiers die by soviet and chinese equiptment, how much was the US willing to accept before sending nukes to the soviet union for that?
cumulative 1.395 trillion purely military aid, 1.765 trillion infrastructure by soviet union. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01495R000500050038-4.pdf Using inflation calculator, cumulative rate of inflation at 594.6%, thats equivalent to 9.690 trillion military aid in todays worth, killing GIs. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ but sure, sending 31 abrams and a one-use atacms delivery after 2 years is equivalent to cold war tension and escalation. Im not sure, did the soviet union also start by debating whether rockets would be too much to send?? 

These are probably to few and to expensive to be used for front line air defense, but if they could park fifty kilometers back and start swatting Russian Orlan and Zala class UAVs they would make a difference, maybe a big difference. Especially say just to the safe side of the Dnipro. in support of the amphibious operation we have been discussing at length.
In regards to the the overall state of the war, we started with  a positive loop in terms of attention, foreign assistance, and morale in both Ukraine and Western capitals, that lasted about eighteen months. Now that feedback loop has mostly gone negative. So we have Western politicians pointing to declining Ukrainian morale and recruitment as a reason to send less aid, and that becomes one of the major factors driving Ukrainian morale and recruitment lower.
The obvious way to break this doom loop is to pass the U.S. aid package and carefully coordinate it with a revised recruiting campaign by the Ukrainians. I suspect that there is no more effective way to recruit more Ukrainian recruits than announcing more Bradley equipped brigades are being stood up. If a couple of more A-50s were to have unpleasant experiences with long range drones, and the F-16s made their first public sorties at the same time maybe we can get this whole thing headed back in a positive direction.

I respectfully disagree. 
Defeating the invasion of Ukraine is related to Western interests and the West is not pursuing its own interests due to a mixture of 
1) lack of will
2) lack of skill (military, intelligence and political savy)
3) political corruption 
This is not the fault of Ukraine, and it is very fair that Ukraine feels disappointed by its weak allies and the weak support in an existential war - not only existential for Ukraine, but existential for certain principles the West has built.
It may hurt to admit, especially if one was part of the Western military complex, but the West is not bringing its best.

Did I say direct involvement?
No. My example involved the units that drove into minefields, or as you called it "recon in force".
Now, I surely dont have the military education, but least I invoke the russia is hanging on by mere threads idea, this was mostly true during the first counter offensive, which literally saw police, swat and !sailors! in trenches, had they stopped an armored push the size of 5-7 brigades without minebelts, hedgehogs, bunker and tunnel networks, no FPV or Lancets, and closer to parity air power? Or would it had been a complete collapse? You tell me.
Now say, that instead of 1970s scraps and rusting cold war stock, more units with the hundreds of available Bradleys and Abrams were involved, the outcome would be the same?
But alas, here we are, 2 years later and Kerch bridge attacks upset Mr Putin is still the talking point by which aid is denied. Whatever it takes, though.

Vietnam war saw US soldiers die by soviet and chinese equiptment, how much was the US willing to accept before sending nukes to the soviet union for that?
cumulative 1.395 trillion purely military aid, 1.765 trillion infrastructure by soviet union. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01495R000500050038-4.pdf Using inflation calculator, cumulative rate of inflation at 594.6%, thats equivalent to 9.690 trillion military aid in todays worth, killing GIs. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ but sure, sending 31 abrams and a one-use atacms delivery after 2 years is equivalent to cold war tension and escalation. Im not sure, did the soviet union also start by debating whether rockets would be too much to send?? 

Did I say direct involvement?
No. My example involved the units that drove into minefields, or as you called it "recon in force".
Now, I surely dont have the military education, but least I invoke the russia is hanging on by mere threads idea, this was mostly true during the first counter offensive, which literally saw police, swat and !sailors! in trenches, had they stopped an armored push the size of 5-7 brigades without minebelts, hedgehogs, bunker and tunnel networks, no FPV or Lancets, and closer to parity air power? Or would it had been a complete collapse? You tell me.
Now say, that instead of 1970s scraps and rusting cold war stock, more units with the hundreds of available Bradleys and Abrams were involved, the outcome would be the same?
But alas, here we are, 2 years later and Kerch bridge attacks upset Mr Putin is still the talking point by which aid is denied. Whatever it takes, though.

This may be cynically, but Krynky and recently Antonovskyi bridge bridgeheads are just a bites for attrition of Russian troops on left bank, creating of tense here to prevent Russian troops to be moved as reservers in other place. 
We have no enough manpower in brigades (if companies have 50 % of personnel this considers as good result) to establish more crosses simultainously and we havn't enough artillery ammunitions to cover these bridgeheads as we cover Krynky (and tnen, big part of fire support are from various drones attack). So Krynky holds a force in about 2 dispersed companies equivalent, continously rotating personnel. No sence to land there more troops under endless artillery fire and gliding bomb strikes. For Russian generals lost village is a like red rag for a bull. Higher chiefs fu..k them very tough for lost settlements, so they have no choice except to drive soldiers to assault UKR positions and to lose company by company from UKR artillery and FPVs. 
UKR bridgehead slowly growing up but I doubt we will increasing troops number there more that this require this growing. Probably until F-16 appear in the sky or additional long range AD assets to protect bridgehead and probable crossing ways from aircraft and missile attacks.  

Extremely disturbing for those who would like to avoid such things.
 
With regard to:
In case misapprehension caused his ban, I should say it's at least possible his post:
...was a sincere expression of regret on realising the other poster had tried to help Ukraine and had failed due to problems with corruption/bribery, and was not just an antagonistic internet warrior.  Much can get lost between translation and the lack of context.  It's right on the edge of plausibility but worth clarifying.

Making artillery production dependent on China, thats a very big brain move.

It is the most opportune moment before the speaker is bypassed and billions in aid arrive.