How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

21 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

Tend to agree regarding our societal level lack of appetite for sacrifice in the 'West', that said a comparison with fin de siècle Edwardian Europe has its limits. Entitled those societies may have been but subsequent events did not show a lack of willingness to sacrifice, however badly directed or misguided.

I've a suspicion that perhaps they were rather more cohesive and obedient to authority than today.

 

I disagree.  It highlights my diatribe even better when framed this way.  The entitlement and unwillingness to sacrifice that dominated the back end of the 19th century kicked the problem down the road until it came to a point when the sacrifice was no longer discretionary, it became existential.

Pre-WW1 Europe went into that war blind to its realities, refusing to understand what the sacrifices actually meant (“home by Xmas”) and by the time they did it was far too late.  That was not “willingness” by 1915, it was Sunk Cost entrapment.  The most powerful and richest nations in human history tore themselves apart as war became a fire that ran away with its own consumption.

Failure to sacrifice does not mean immediately raising the “white flag of war” at the first shot.  It means that during the competition stage one refuses viable but painful options to get off the spiral.  Once you hit bottom it is too late.  Sacrifice is going to happen.  At that point one can only choose which “bad” to take.

If a nation allows events to slide to the point they are in existential crisis they have already failed in many ways.  It is not western unwillingness to send millions of it own to die.  It is our unwillingness to make the sacrifices to avoid that very destination ahead of events that concerns me.

[Letter from Prague]

7 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Finland practically closes Russian border because of hybrid migrant operation:

https://yle.fi/a/74-20060587

 
A car trip that used to take a couple of hours from Saint Petersburg to Helsinki now will take over 20h. International media is not really picking this up because it is not "total closure" but in practise it is.

That is actually pretty smart. Previous border closures cause outcry in various pro-Russia circles because of "this is collective punishment" and "if we don't allow Russians to visit Paris on vacation, our commitment to human rights is a farce and we're worse than Putin" (I promise I am paraphrasing only a little), but if it is not noticed then it will not be reacted to.

Also, mixing migrants in it is not smart from Russia's perspective, since a lot of Russia supporters are far right who is now beating the drum of "protecting borders" so the very same people now can't complain.

 

1 hour ago, Harmon Rabb said:

I brought up this fine organization before. Was hesitant to bring this campaign up because I don't speak Czech and did not know if it was real. Guess it is.

Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter for Ukraine (weaponstoukraine.com)

It is real, the already delivered a bunch of stuff.

[Tux]

33 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I disagree.  It highlights my diatribe even better when framed this way.  The entitlement and unwillingness to sacrifice that dominated the back end of the 19th century kicked the problem down the road until it came to a point when the sacrifice was no longer discretionary, it became existential.

Pre-WW1 Europe went into that war blind to its realities, refusing to understand what the sacrifices actually meant (“home by Xmas”) and by the time they did it was far too late.  That was not “willingness” by 1915, it was Sunk Cost entrapment.  The most powerful and richest nations in human history tore themselves apart as war became a fire that ran away with its own consumption.

Failure to sacrifice does not mean immediately raising the “white flag of war” at the first shot.  It means that during the competition stage one refuses viable but painful options to get off the spiral.  Once you hit bottom it is too late.  Sacrifice is going to happen.  At that point one can only choose which “bad” to take.

If a nation allows events to slide to the point they are in existential crisis they have already failed in many ways.  It is not western unwillingness to send millions of it own to die.  It is our unwillingness to make the sacrifices to avoid that very destination ahead of events that concerns me.

Are we sure that the distinction between late-19th century Europe/today’s West and any other human society really stands up to scrutiny, in this respect?  Sure, Ukraine are sacrificing but they have no choice.  Russia are sacrificing but we are repeatedly reminded that the people there very much believe they have no choice - as far as they’re concerned the government has taken them to war (incidentally fully intending to be done within 3 days, let alone by Xmas) so, like bad weather, they’d better just deal with it.

The entire planet refused countless, relatively cheap and painless opportunities to prevent climate change from becoming an existential problem.  It may not quite be a truly existential threat just yet but we are very much already at the point of being forced to choose between bad options to deal with it.

Perhaps I’m speaking out of turn here and what you describe is an established, well-demonstrated phenomenon but I’m honestly struggling to think of any society which has ever voluntarily made this kind of sacrifice without either being forced to, believing the sacrifice would be far smaller than it turned out to be (“home by Xmas”) or believing they had no other choice.

[akd]

Another insane clip from 3rd Assault Brigade (and excellent demonstration of the value of an APC in the assault):

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by akd

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, dan/california said:

I should have specified that I was excluding actual battlefield results. I don't think videos have that much weight, there are just too many of them.

Pity I don’t have the money to start a toy company that sells an autonomous drone swarm as a toy or something with a poverty version of the nano hornet or something similar. Maybe DJI will do that in a few years.

[Twisk]

 

My expectation isn't that a predictable trickle will break the deadlock but that a predictable trickle on top of these packets would give Ukraine a somewhat rational way of making decisions with their equipment that they lack right now. They received ~100 some BFVs in January of this year. If you extend that rate out they would have +55 BFVs today backfilling losses over 50% and guaranteeing that some of these units trained on the damned vehicles would be able to apply that training and experience on the same vehicles.

 

 

 

[Kraft]

Quote

The opposition's submission regarding the transfer of Taurus missiles to Ukraine was once again rejected by the Bundestag today

Even with the increased budget, very weird

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Tux said:

The entire planet refused countless, relatively cheap and painless opportunities to prevent climate change from becoming an existential problem.  It may not quite be a truly existential threat just yet but we are very much already at the point of being forced to choose between bad options to deal with it.

Perhaps I’m speaking out of turn here and what you describe is an established, well-demonstrated phenomenon but I’m honestly struggling to think of any society which has ever voluntarily made this kind of sacrifice without either being forced to, believing the sacrifice would be far smaller than it turned out to be (“home by Xmas”) or believing they had no other choice.

Well this is kinda my overall point.  I guess the only example of early-sacrifice to head off a larger one may be the Cold War.  That took immense sacrifice yet society in the 50s and 60s had already lived through what "ignoring the problem until too late" looked like. One could still argue "forced" but it paid forward as opposed to waiting for WW3.

But your point also kinda misses my deeper one.  We are in a competitive state with the other great powers (hence why pre-WW1 fits nicely).  We are facing stark sacrifices that will need to be made in order to keep the playing field level. Our opponents appear to be ready to make hard decisions while we do everything possible to avoid them or pretend they aren't happening.

On the margins we are actually weaker then they are.  We will not tolerate massive losses to protect the far abroad.  We will risk manage and push down the road.  Kinda like how we got into this mess in Ukraine in the first place.  it is perfectly normal.  So is having people who see it coming and get ignored. 

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Well this is kinda my overall point.  I guess the only example of early-sacrifice to head off a larger one may be the Cold War.  That took immense sacrifice yet society in the 50s and 60s had already lived through what "ignoring the problem until too late" looked like. One could still argue "forced" but it paid forward as opposed to waiting for WW3.

But your point also kinda misses my deeper one.  We are in a competitive state with the other great powers (hence why pre-WW1 fits nicely).  We are facing stark sacrifices that will need to be made in order to keep the playing field level. Our opponents appear to be ready to make hard decisions while we do everything possible to avoid them or pretend they aren't happening.

On the margins we are actually weaker then they are.  We will not tolerate massive losses to protect the far abroad.  We will risk manage and push down the road.  Kinda like how we got into this mess in Ukraine in the first place.  it is perfectly normal.  So is having people who see it coming and get ignored. 

The fact we can't get the the bleeping contracts out there for enough 155 production nearly two edit; years,  in is somewhere between pitiful, and actual self sabotage.

Edited November 16, 2023 by dan/california

[Tux]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Our opponents appear to be ready to make hard decisions while we do everything possible to avoid them or pretend they aren't happening.

What hard decisions are they making which they don’t at least believe they have no choice but to make?

I certainly agree that we generally do everything possible to avoid putting ourselves out on other people’s behalf (witness the many global conflicts that don’t incur the kind of response Ukraine has) but I suspect that so does every society. It’s the nature of large groups of humans, which I think may be one of your points, to be fair.

This actually relates to how I see western support for Ukraine developing in the coming year or so:  I think that, if a settlement appears which could be palatable to Ukraine and Russia, western governments will push hard for that solution.  We won’t feel the need strongly enough to choose a prolonged effort to try and beat Russia harder.  However I think the West will feel the need to not lose this.  As long as Russia may be able to claim some victory I think ‘we’ will feel we have no choice but to ratchet up our commitment to Ukraine, even if only to maintain current support levels with new production, for example.

[Harmon Rabb]

Nothing really to add that the description does not say except, I like the choice of music in this video more than the sniper video Euromaidan Press posted yesterday.

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Tux said:

What hard decisions are they making which they don’t at least believe they have no choice but to make?

Russia just did this.  It was wrong, but Putin decided to basically sacrifice the front of end of his entire land force and 100k Russians (and as has been harped on repeatedly, the Russians got on board with this).  I do not believe for a second that this was easy or simple.  Behind the scenes I am betting there was a lot of freaking out.

For Russia this was exactly what I am talking about.  Putin decided to interdict western encroachment before it went too far.  He risked everything and now his nation continues to demonstrate the desire, to a baffling level, to keep at it.  Again I am not saying it is right in any way but one had to admit that Russia was far more willing to make sacrifices and continues to in comparison to western nations.

China is another example.  In the Pacific starting competition they have demonstrated a willingness to make sacrifices that hurt them and when it comes to Taiwan I strongly suspect that they are far more invested than we are.

As to Ukraine, we are invested but trust me, we are not totally invested.  If we were we would have risked no-fly zones and western troops.  The original post was in response to Steve posting that the EU is finally getting around to sanctioning precision machinery...21 months into this thing.  More bluntly, to the average westerner the plight of Ukraine is on a long list of "crappy stuff that happens elsewhere, let's change the channel". 

The risk/cost/calculus for us is very different.  We had a chance in 2014 and basically did nothing.  It is 2023 and we are doing a lot but I am still not sure whose resolve is going to fail first at this point.  Russia's or the Wests.  Much in the same way I am concerned about western resolve - which is basically the resolve of our people - with respect to China or any other threatening nation.

We faced hard decisions too.  Ones that we really had no choice not to make...but we did choose not to make them.     

[Harmon Rabb]

 

Always nice to see these things taken out, oh and the Ukrainian soldier has a beautiful singing voice that you hear at the end of the clip.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[Carolus]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

We faced hard decisions too.  Ones that we really had no choice not to make...but we did choose not to make them.     

So, is the West basically over? 

I mean, yes, it still exists. But nothing is working as intended, is it?

- disinformation amplified by foreign agents enthralling 20% to 50% of the population, depending on the country, who have become completely disconnected from reality unable to be reached effectively with conventional information lanes

- nations basically unable to defend their allies or themselves in a larger military conflict 

- international institutions formed in the Cold War era or shortly after either useless,or dominated or hamstringed by authocracies within them

- huge problem with political apathy or inability in the non-neofascist parts of the population and its politicians; they are doing and saying the same things they did and said before we got here and have been losing ground ever since 

Almost feels as if Putin is basically right with believing that democracies are unsustainable systems.

Did we lose the hybrid war in the 2010s and never noticed until now, because only after Feb 22 the cockroaches came out of their prepared holes in force?

Edited November 17, 2023 by Carolus

[danfrodo]

When I need a little pick-me-up.... I like to watch RU stuff blowing up.  Lots of it here.  UKR says huge losses today for RU, including 1300 troops.  Cutting that in half to account for UKR bias still yields 650, which is a horrific day by any standards for RU.   And lots of videos of RU stuff blowing up.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/11/16/2206185/-More-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Russia-s-losses-continue-to-mount?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

 

[sross112]

6 hours ago, Twisk said:

 

My expectation isn't that a predictable trickle will break the deadlock but that a predictable trickle on top of these packets would give Ukraine a somewhat rational way of making decisions with their equipment that they lack right now. They received ~100 some BFVs in January of this year. If you extend that rate out they would have +55 BFVs today backfilling losses over 50% and guaranteeing that some of these units trained on the damned vehicles would be able to apply that training and experience on the same vehicles.

 

 

 

I'm thinking that European countries looked at the long game and have seen that the reserves of everyone but the US are pretty small. They gave a lot of former Soviet equipment right away and then have given what they can out of their stocks as well as providing money to buy it from other country's stocks. But I think they knew that wouldn't be enough in the long run. So we've seen Rheinmetal building a tank/AFV factory in Ukraine, Poland making deals wit the S Korean company for production licenses of SP Arty and now an IFV factory, I think Romania and maybe another Balkan country or two ramping up ammo factories, and who knows what some of the quieter countries are doing. Looks like they are setting up for the long game with new production instead of trying to further rely on legacy equipment or existing (probably sub optimal) production options. 

Put that together with the expansions in ammo production in the west and US. Then what don't we see or know? Has BAE or any of the other manufacturers expanded lines and signed contracts out of the news? How about the countries like Sweden and Finland that send stuff but don't advertise and also have a good manufacturing base? 

If there is that much that we have seen in the news, what else is going on? I think the people in charge are trying to get the pipeline in place for Ukraine, but it isn't overnight and I'd bet a lot of it isn't real public. Certainly could be wrong, but with the amount of money to be made I would be seriously surprised if there wasn't a lot going on behind the scenes by the western MIC. 

I certainly agree with what you are saying though, and in the meantime it would help the UA if they knew they had a steady flow instead of batches now and then. Personally, I thought from the beginning that the US should have stripped everything short of socks and skivies from all the National Guard units and sent it all over. With the focus on the Pacific I really doubt the commitment of heavy land forces in that arena and plenty of the reserve stocks could go as well. Especially looking at what we see here as the future of war, a lot of it is probably already obsolete and they just don't know it yet. Might as well send it over and get some use out of it.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Carolus said:

So, is the West basically over? 

It certainly seems like it's headed in that direction.  Look at what the previous US President tried to do.  He tried to end NATO and military support against China and North Korea, though as with most things it was ham fisted and half arsed enough that it only shook confidence rather than creating irreversible damage.  However, what is missed by pinning this all on one person in one position of power is that a huge chunk of the US population thought it was a great idea to abandon allies and go it alone.  They surely would support another chance at it and that chance might come in the form of a less distractable future President.  Imagine if the US wasn't in NATO at the moment what that would mean for Ukraine and Eastern Europe.  Not good, right?

Then there are the host of problems that the Boomers (sorry guys, I know that includes some of you!) piled up for future generations to ignore in a losing attempt to have similar lifestyles as the Boomers did. 

At the very root of this is a lack of a common sense of purpose.  The Cold War, for all of its negatives, did have a unifying effect for a large part of the population of the West. Not only between nations, but within each nation.  I do not believe it is coincidental that divisiveness and support for autocratic solutions have been on the rise since the mid 1990s.

Now, this does not mean I think that the West is facing some sort of extinction level event.  Instead, it seems at the very least major concepts that the West has taken for granted are likely in decline. .

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, Tux said:

Are we sure that the distinction between late-19th century Europe/today’s West and any other human society really stands up to scrutiny, in this respect?  Sure, Ukraine are sacrificing but they have no choice.  Russia are sacrificing but we are repeatedly reminded that the people there very much believe they have no choice - as far as they’re concerned the government has taken them to war (incidentally fully intending to be done within 3 days, let alone by Xmas) so, like bad weather, they’d better just deal with it.

The entire planet refused countless, relatively cheap and painless opportunities to prevent climate change from becoming an existential problem.  It may not quite be a truly existential threat just yet but we are very much already at the point of being forced to choose between bad options to deal with it.

Perhaps I’m speaking out of turn here and what you describe is an established, well-demonstrated phenomenon but I’m honestly struggling to think of any society which has ever voluntarily made this kind of sacrifice without either being forced to, believing the sacrifice would be far smaller than it turned out to be (“home by Xmas”) or believing they had no other choice.

I think you have this all correct and you are in fact proving The_Capt's point, as he just stated.  The issue he's pointing out is that it doesn't matter if your side has all sorts of theoretical power if it's not willing to use it against a foe who is able to put everything into the fight.  This happens from time to time in world history and it appears we are now in one of them.

The_Capt used the decades that led up to WW1 as a good example, but I have a better one.  Think France 1920s and 1930s.  They wanted to make sure Germany never again invaded its territory, but by 1940 they had all but forgotten this in practice.  The result was a divided France backed up by divided allies (and not explicitly allies either) against a Germany united in purpose with conquering France at the top of its agenda. 

The matchup on paper did not favor Germany (and senior German military commanders pointed this out), however in reality it had what it needed to do a ton of damage before ultimately being defeated once the Allies go themselves a unified purpose.  It would be super nice if today's leaders in the West paid a little more attention to the lessons of history.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Look back at each previous generation. Once people hit a 'certain age' the opinion gets expressed that everything's going to hell in a handbasket. The young think for one reason, the old for another. You can go back to Greek literature for examples. The hot-blooded youths  think the top-down system is corrupt, the oldster oligarchs think the nihilism rabble threaten stability at the base. Only the details change over time. Granted, sometimes things do indeed go to hell, but the pendulum appears to swings from one culprit to the other. Che Guevara had different motives from Francisco Franco, who had different motives from Pol Pot, who had different motives from Tojo who had different motives from Lenin. Regardless, the result was still things going to hell.

[G.I. Joe]

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Look back at each previous generation. Once people hit a 'certain age' the opinion gets expressed that everything's going to hell in a handbasket. The young think for one reason, the old for another. You can go back to Greek literature for examples. The hot-blooded youths  think the top-down system is corrupt, the oldster oligarchs think the nihilism rabble threaten stability at the base. Only the details change over time. Granted, sometimes things do indeed go to hell, but the pendulum appears to swings from one culprit to the other. Che Guevara had different motives from Francisco Franco, who had different motives from Pol Pot, who had different motives from Tojo who had different motives from Lenin. Regardless, the result was still things going to hell.

"More harm has been done by people panicked over societal decline than societal decline ever did."

-Randall Munroe (xkcd)

[Tux]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think you have this all correct and you are in fact proving The_Capt's point, as he just stated.  The issue he's pointing out is that it doesn't matter if your side has all sorts of theoretical power if it's not willing to use it against a foe who is able to put everything into the fight.  This happens from time to time in world history and it appears we are now in one of them.

The_Capt used the decades that led up to WW1 as a good example, but I have a better one.  Think France 1920s and 1930s.  They wanted to make sure Germany never again invaded its territory, but by 1940 they had all but forgotten this in practice.  The result was a divided France backed up by divided allies (and not explicitly allies either) against a Germany united in purpose with conquering France at the top of its agenda. 

The matchup on paper did not favor Germany (and senior German military commanders pointed this out), however in reality it had what it needed to do a ton of damage before ultimately being defeated once the Allies go themselves a unified purpose.  It would be super nice if today's leaders in the West paid a little more attention to the lessons of history.

Steve

Yeah I've got you both and I think we are basically agreeing with each other.  Perhaps where we might differ is that I look at certain societies' ability to generate and accept sacrifice as a sign of their overall weakness:  I think most, if not all human beings will avoid sacrifice as long as that makes them feel more secure.  They/we will then choose sacrifice once we hit a certain threshold of insecurity or at least once we believe said sacrifice will offer us significantly more security.

Some social systems are better at offering and generating a sense of security to their citizens, which results in a relative reticence to make sacrifices.  In the context of whether that's suitable for winning wars it can be seen as a weakness but overall it's a good thing.  Living in a society which can be slow to react to wars is better than living in a society which is so angst-ridden that it starts the things.  At worst history seems to demonstrate that, even though relatively secure populations (e.g. today's western democracies) are slow to commit to warfare, they tend to do quite well once they do get there.  Small sample size maybe, but it is what it is.

Which circles back to this:

11 hours ago, The_Capt said:

As to Ukraine, we are invested but trust me, we are not totally invested.  If we were we would have risked no-fly zones and western troops.  The original post was in response to Steve posting that the EU is finally getting around to sanctioning precision machinery...21 months into this thing.  More bluntly, to the average westerner the plight of Ukraine is on a long list of "crappy stuff that happens elsewhere, let's change the channel". 

The risk/cost/calculus for us is very different.  We had a chance in 2014 and basically did nothing.  It is 2023 and we are doing a lot but I am still not sure whose resolve is going to fail first at this point.  Russia's or the Wests.  Much in the same way I am concerned about western resolve - which is basically the resolve of our people - with respect to China or any other threatening nation.

We faced hard decisions too.  Ones that we really had no choice not to make...but we did choose not to make them.

I fully agree with every word here, except the concern about western resolve.  I think that, when it matters enough to 'the West' the resolve will be there.

 

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

it is perfectly normal.  So is having people who see it coming and get ignored. 

On a personal level it grieves me that Ukraine's pain doesn't hit our threshold for full commitment more readily but we are not dealing in personal dynamics here, we are talking about populations.  Rational persuasion takes generations to move populations (if it does so at all), that's why those who see these things coming appear to be 'ignored'.  I know that's not new to anybody here but I think remembering such important context might help us not become those "panicked over societal decline" that Randall Munroe warns about.

We will pay heavily for our slowness and we will retrospectively castigate whichever Chamberlain-figure we decide to scapegoat after the fact but ultimately I don't think it will be the West who come out worst.

[kimbosbread]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

At the very root of this is a lack of a common sense of purpose.  The Cold War, for all of its negatives, did have a unifying effect for a large part of the population of the West. Not only between nations, but within each nation.  I do not believe it is coincidental that divisiveness and support for autocratic solutions have been on the rise since the mid 1990s.

I think there’s a complementary argument one could make: Since the 90s, in the US at least we’ve seen the erosion of the middle class, between offshoring, automation and massive asset inflation. Meanwhile the US has become significantly more economically powerful, leading the charge for each major new industry (software, internet, newspace, electric cars, AI, etc.) There are a lot of people who are extremely upset (across the political spectrum) about the fact that they get to enjoy an ever smaller piece of the pie, and this exacerbates the US’ natural isolationist tendencies. Add to that the fact that the government is unable to address illegal immigration or homelessness or crime (in liberal cities, ironically), which affect the middle class and down mostly, and you have a recipe for real social problems.

As for purpose, Bush + Obama destroyed “Team America” for a generation or two with Afghanistan. So that’s out, despite Ukraine and Taiwan being very worthy causes. I posit that a different purpose could be “Build the Future” and that Elon Musk, despite saying stupid things relatively frequently, needs to praised more in media, and maybe we focus attention of these efforts and how things are getting better. We have roughnecks building giant mars rockets in Texas, and meanwhile we have practical, rather nice electric cars being commonplace (at least in places where people can afford them). If someone could just drunk mail him and get him to build the 10km x 10km solar plant he’s talked about… Unfortunately, the future can take a while to arrive, and Elon cannot solve our social problems with technology. We need to build a healthier society first and promote civic engagement at the lowest level somehow (I say this as someone who is not engaged much, due to my city being a one party city like many across the country).

EDIT: Social media and the news show only the best or worst things, so these obviously amplify problems. Moreover the internet in some ways functions as a “Total Perspective Vortex” where people feel insignificant and powerless in relation to the world. If people felt like they contributed more, they might be more involved.

Edited November 17, 2023 by kimbosbread

[cesmonkey]

 

[Harmon Rabb]

The Netherlands continues to impress.

Quote

The Dutch government has earmarked an additional €2 billion ($2.2 billion) in military aid for Ukraine in 2024, in what the country’s defense minister Kajsa Ollongren said was a sign of unwavering support for Kyiv’s war against Russia, Reuters reports.

This funding is part of the Netherlands’ broader support plan for Ukraine next year, which starts with €102 million allocated for reconstruction and humanitarian aid, with provisions for additional funds if required. Ollongren confirmed that with this latest package, Dutch aid to Ukraine amidst the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war will reach approximately €7.5 billion.

“This will safeguard our support for Ukraine and ensure continuity, which is critical for Ukraine,” Ollongren said.

A general election is scheduled in the Netherlands for 22 November, which is expected to alter the makeup of the current governing coalition.

According to Ollongren, support for Ukraine will be tailored to its evolving needs and could include advanced drone technology. Priorities will continue to focus on air defense, ammunition, and air force assistance, following the establishment of an F-16 training center for Ukrainian pilots by the Dutch, Danish, and other NATO allies.

Source: Netherlands to provide extra €2 bn in military aid for Ukraine in 2024 (EuromaidanPress)

Edited November 17, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[cesmonkey]

Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Ms. Sabrina Singh Holds a Press Briefing
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3591847/deputy-pentagon-press-secretary-ms-sabrina-singh-holds-a-press-briefing/
 

Quote

Tony:

PDA Issue? Just to clarify for the record for those watching? Don't doesn't the Pentagon have about $4.9 billion of authority left? For PDAs? They just don't have they got like a billion dollar stuff to replace the equipment, but they give like 4 point 9 billion and PDAs going forward?

Sabrina Singh 

Yeah, I'm not I'm not trying to minimize it. I'm just trying to tell you that. Yes, we do have $4.9 billion in from the recalculated PDA funds that we continue to draw down on that's that's what we're using. But we only have 1.1, I believe, left to restock our own inventories. And so again, we know Ukraine is going to need more than that. And so that's why we did submit that supplemental request. And a lot of that supplemental will be used also to replenish our own stocks.