850 KWIA

1 Tank

1 AFV

12 Artillery systems

1 MLRS

293 UAVs

56 Vehicles & Fuel tanks

1 Special equipment

https://bsky.app/profile/matsextrude.bsky.social/post/3m5xixzozfs2t

Slava Ukraini

Anyway, at the airport

Well formulated and unfortunately close to the truth about European politicians. I’m not familiar with Article 5 and different levels, but it certainly corresponds to the USA’s invocation of Article 5 after 9/11. And then George Bush added with ‘those who are not with U.S. are against us’. Perhaps something that Zelensky should clarify as well. In that case, one could also worry that Russia will exploit this if it is true about the different levels. For example, promise not to send drones to the country if one refrains from supporting the country that has been attacked and invoked Article 5.

Red lines are rarely set in stone, neither for us nor the Russians, we do not want a conflict that can escalate into something we cannot control. The Russians want control over their neighborhood, but are hesitant about a conflict with NATO.

What puts us at a disadvantage (initially) in conflicts like these is that the Russians are testing the waters, they do not care about any agreements, deny everything, and always lie. We, on the other hand, value honesty and following international rules, as we follow a rule-based order that is the foundation of the society we have, with trust in each other and our institutions.

Although it might be tempting, we cannot blow up Russian railways, burn their power stations, or sponsor terrorism in Russia, as long as we are not at war with them. Who will define when we are at war with them, is it when Article 5 is invoked by some country? As far as I understand, it is up to the member countries to decide how they assist the country in need, so for example, if Poland is attacked, maybe Hungary sends 2 million handkerchiefs, and Slovakia 50,000 aluminum water bottles.

Yes, have we learned anything since 1938 about escalation. Actually, we should have, but at the same time, those who were involved in that war are becoming quite few, so even if we know the history, it is not a firsthand experience for those in charge, it is too abstract. Their experiences are from the post-war period, the eternal peace, and they try to maintain the status quo for as long as possible, they do not want to be the politician who goes to war, and they hope they are not the politician who sleepwalks into a war.

Agree 100% and then some!!!

Trump clearly does not. He still refuses to sell missiles to Ukraine, hurting Ukraine, the West, and even the US defense industry.

Waiting for him is a losing strategy. Europe must act now!

Ukraine’s strike campaign works. It hits Russian refineries, cripples infrastructure, and drains air defense interceptors.

But Ukraine lacks enough drones and missiles to scale this up and put Russia on its knees

Ukraine is building its own systems and scaling production, but that takes time.

Even small US sales of Tomahawks, Barracudas, ATACMS, or JASSMs would help. Trump blocks that, so Europe must fill the gap

Step one: fund Ukraine’s drone and missile programs.

Seizing frozen Russian assets is the fastest way. Direct financial aid matters too.

Ukraine needs to produce more drones and missiles every day

Step two: supply European systems.

Storm Shadow production is restarting. European startups are building strike drones and cruise missiles. LPP’s MTS Narwhal is one example.

Place large long-term orders. This war will not end soon

Step three: buy from partners.

Countries like Turkey would likely sell cruise missiles for Ukraine if we paid.

Any option that accelerates strikes is worth pursuing

Every extra drone and missile shortens the war and saves lives.

Doing more now means lower human and financial costs later.

Europe has the means. It needs the will

By Joni Askola
Copied from X
https://x.com/joni_askola/status/1990791313810468903?t=AgPAVm7r7E7zUI0S5dXe5w&s=19

Yes, I haven’t thought about that, but that’s absolutely it!