Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Trump's Ukraine Peace Plan Explained" video.

@panzerbanz7296 They are holding their own rather well considering they are heavily outgunned currently. Just parity with Russia in terms of artillery systems and shell supply could prevent current Russian gains or even push them back at some points. Eitherway, your statement doesn't make sense.
2
I don't see how Trump can succeed here. He has leverage on Ukraine, but only as long as European nations don't pitch in more (they provided most aid so far collectively) and maybe even nations like South Korea might take up some of the bill after NK is proven to support Russia even more openly. Moreover if Trump gives Putin too much (like forcing Ukraine to give up land they still control), it will be seen as weakness (on a personal and national level) by everyone: US allies, US enemies and internally. So the best he could do is offer a status quo and neutrality. Russia likely won't agree to a status quo while they are making small gains and Trump can't guarantee Ukraine remaining neutral with its EU ascension plans. Thus he'd also have to convince EU leaders to stop this. After berating them for being too Russia friendly, that would be pretty embarrasing. Putin also can't just give in to Trump's demands, it would weaken him too much internally, especially after the cost of the war so far. He'd need big concessions from Trump, which Trump can't really afford to give Moreover while a large part of the Republicans want less support for Ukraine, a large part also wouldn't want to just give in to Russia. Many republican politicians also played hardball with Ukraine support to not support the democrats, with republicans in full control now, this could also change. It might sound weird, but I wouldn't be surprised if the US actually will increase support for Ukraine to force Russia to the peace table on or close to US proposed terms (and pushing its allies to do the same), even if just removing limitations on already provided equipment and (US made) equipment coming from allies. It really is difficult to say, since we're talking about Trump. But he also often followed the military/establishment advice/views after last time even if it wasn't in line with what he said in his campaign.
1
@fahey5719 All of those still serve a function. While tanks are more vulnerable than in the past, they will somewhat adapt in protection (anti-drone protection) and in role, but they so far still aren't useless if used right. Aircraft carriers still serve their original function and so far none have been sunk since WW2 under war/active conditions. They are expensive and take a lot of resources, but if a nation is willing to spend it, they still can fullfill their intended purpose. Maybe future wars will proof their vulnerability, but so far that is nothing but speculation. The latest gen planes haven't seen real use yet and can proof to be devastating to hostile AA installations, allowing older aircraft to also still fullfill their roles. Even now planes are still important in the Russian-Ukraine war, neither side just have been able to assert real dominance due to the opponents planes and AA.
1
@sleepyjoe7843 Not sure where you get the 5x number from. Accounting for PPP Russia's defence budget in 2024 was projected to be around $225B. They won't be spending more on procurement than the US, especially not considering the higher bonus and pay they now need to offer to get enough new recruits without a new round of mobilization, which diminishes their PPP advantage in regards to personnel. The only reason the EU or US doesn't outproduce Russia in terms of ammunition is because they weren't focus on it and unlike Russia, they didn't transform to a war economy and thus also can't increase production as fast. However it is expected both the US and EU will start outproducing Russia in the next few years once investments into new production start giving tangible effects. TLDR; Russia ramped up production fast out of necessity, while the EU and US take a longer less costly approach since they don't it see it as existential as Russia does. However overtime the EU and US will start outproducing Russia if they want/need to.
1
@sleepyjoe7843 The official PPP for Russia is around times 3, taking single items as a benchmark is stupid, there is a reason PPP is calculated using nearly a thousand or so items. And this isn't entirely representative for the military budget either since that tends to have more high tech/complex items, which generally decreases the advantage of PPP. Yes, the US military complex is expensive and a lot of fat could be cut there and Russia doesn't have to deal with that. However Russia has another major comparable problem: large scale ingrained corruption. In fact depending on the source it could be worse financially than the MIC in the US, though impossible to know for certain. What we do know is that this has impacted Russian effectiveness in the field (and equipment wise) negatively especially at the start of the invasion.
1