Thank you both. I read in the news occasional announcements that Europe is starting to prepare for a possible future war with Russia. In the eventuality of such a war, where Russia decides to throw its army at a European state, which other current European army would you most like to have come to your immediate aid? I would say Ukraine’s. Who would I like to train my soldiers on how to fight the Russians and now North Koreans. Who would I like to train my UAV force and consult on my UAV production and innovation. Ukraine is currently surely the most valuable potential military and economic ally for Europe and especially in the face of incessant Russian aggression, corruption and population level lies. We need to stop looking at what we are doing for Ukraine and start recognising that they are the only ones actively protecting Europe from Russia.
Mykola's voice comes through clearly on this podcast - thanks! Trump's tariff madness seems to have scrambled the nascent European plans for getting its collective act together to provide support and aid to compensate for the support being withdrawn from the US. I do have to wonder - a coincidence? Or perhaps a motive. There's no doubt in my mind about one thing: Putin is Trump's whisperer.
Another week of complete indifference to the number of AFU casualties. When are they going to factor into your considerations Professor? You seem to assume they've an endless supply of conscripts available - I'm not so sure - prove me wrong. Meanwhile you say 'Of course [Europe] can send troops to Ukraine'.
Also, you do remember you just wrote a piece about how US will need to be able to act in the South China Sea don’t you? Could you point me to your analysis of whether US stocks and manufacturing rates are sufficient to support both that (thankfully just potential) theatre of conflict and Ukraine? You could throw in the Red Sea and the Gulf too if you like, but I don’t think the West could manage the first two. That used to be something you were quite good at.
Also I’m interested again to see you make no mention of the weather conditions out there? This has been a very mild winter (with record high temperatures in Kherson in January) meaning that the ground conditions have been extremely difficult to plan for. Also means that thaw and mud-season may be shorter than normal given the lower mass of snow. The pace could step up now, but I expect it still to be slow – the Donbas terrain of settlements of all sizes in relatively quick succession is one that has always leant itself to defence. The AFU are good at it, they’ve had a decade of practice now – so advances wil continue to be slow, but very costly for both sides.
The Ukrainian casualties seem to be about one third of the Russian ones, and I think you know this, since you are well informed. So why are you delivering the question over and again? Looks like you want to push the Putin narrative, that Russia can't be defeated - what is obviously completely wrong. Kremlin's forces control less territory than they did about two and a half year ago, not a sign of invincibility.
Ukraine seems to maintain their troop numbers better than the Russian, the lowering of the conscription age is probably one reason. It's very boring with your provocations, we all know that's what it is - Russian propaganda, repeated ad nauseam.
No, I don't believe that. It would be the first conflict since the invention of the exploding shell that casualties were in inverse proportion to the level of firepower deployed. That the Ukrainians are losing fewer casualties when they're exposed to FAB bombs, at least 5 and possibly 10 or more times as many shells and Russian deep strikes is just wishful thinking on your behalf.
Thanks for the podcast Phillips. It’s always nice to hear Mykola’s calm and reasonable voice. I made note of ‘Come Back Alive’s added appeal. I look forward to the podcast next month.
As a Canadian, I am not proud of our anemic response to NATO and also to the struggle of Ukraine.
Couldn't this Podcast maintain and publish statistics by country of donations of cash or materiel for armaments. In your latest podcast, Canada was not mentioned at all even though we have a very large Ukranian expatriate community.
We are in the midst of a Federal election and there have been various declarations of support for Ukraine by the candidates. It would be helpful to see how much the talk is being matched by action.
I also have a specific question: I believe Canada had pledged to purchase some munitions and anti-aircraft systems from the US and also to provide some older outdated munitions from existing Canadian stock (which I read that Ukraine would accept) . Are basic munitions still required and has Canada ever provided any munitions to Ukraine?
It's time for Canada to stand up and be counted and a little light shed on our contribution (or lack thereof) would be welcome.
Thank you both. I read in the news occasional announcements that Europe is starting to prepare for a possible future war with Russia. In the eventuality of such a war, where Russia decides to throw its army at a European state, which other current European army would you most like to have come to your immediate aid? I would say Ukraine’s. Who would I like to train my soldiers on how to fight the Russians and now North Koreans. Who would I like to train my UAV force and consult on my UAV production and innovation. Ukraine is currently surely the most valuable potential military and economic ally for Europe and especially in the face of incessant Russian aggression, corruption and population level lies. We need to stop looking at what we are doing for Ukraine and start recognising that they are the only ones actively protecting Europe from Russia.
Mykola's voice comes through clearly on this podcast - thanks! Trump's tariff madness seems to have scrambled the nascent European plans for getting its collective act together to provide support and aid to compensate for the support being withdrawn from the US. I do have to wonder - a coincidence? Or perhaps a motive. There's no doubt in my mind about one thing: Putin is Trump's whisperer.
Another week of complete indifference to the number of AFU casualties. When are they going to factor into your considerations Professor? You seem to assume they've an endless supply of conscripts available - I'm not so sure - prove me wrong. Meanwhile you say 'Of course [Europe] can send troops to Ukraine'.
Also, you do remember you just wrote a piece about how US will need to be able to act in the South China Sea don’t you? Could you point me to your analysis of whether US stocks and manufacturing rates are sufficient to support both that (thankfully just potential) theatre of conflict and Ukraine? You could throw in the Red Sea and the Gulf too if you like, but I don’t think the West could manage the first two. That used to be something you were quite good at.
Also I’m interested again to see you make no mention of the weather conditions out there? This has been a very mild winter (with record high temperatures in Kherson in January) meaning that the ground conditions have been extremely difficult to plan for. Also means that thaw and mud-season may be shorter than normal given the lower mass of snow. The pace could step up now, but I expect it still to be slow – the Donbas terrain of settlements of all sizes in relatively quick succession is one that has always leant itself to defence. The AFU are good at it, they’ve had a decade of practice now – so advances wil continue to be slow, but very costly for both sides.
The Ukrainian casualties seem to be about one third of the Russian ones, and I think you know this, since you are well informed. So why are you delivering the question over and again? Looks like you want to push the Putin narrative, that Russia can't be defeated - what is obviously completely wrong. Kremlin's forces control less territory than they did about two and a half year ago, not a sign of invincibility.
Ukraine seems to maintain their troop numbers better than the Russian, the lowering of the conscription age is probably one reason. It's very boring with your provocations, we all know that's what it is - Russian propaganda, repeated ad nauseam.
No, I don't believe that. It would be the first conflict since the invention of the exploding shell that casualties were in inverse proportion to the level of firepower deployed. That the Ukrainians are losing fewer casualties when they're exposed to FAB bombs, at least 5 and possibly 10 or more times as many shells and Russian deep strikes is just wishful thinking on your behalf.
Thanks for the podcast Phillips. It’s always nice to hear Mykola’s calm and reasonable voice. I made note of ‘Come Back Alive’s added appeal. I look forward to the podcast next month.
As a Canadian, I am not proud of our anemic response to NATO and also to the struggle of Ukraine.
Couldn't this Podcast maintain and publish statistics by country of donations of cash or materiel for armaments. In your latest podcast, Canada was not mentioned at all even though we have a very large Ukranian expatriate community.
We are in the midst of a Federal election and there have been various declarations of support for Ukraine by the candidates. It would be helpful to see how much the talk is being matched by action.
I also have a specific question: I believe Canada had pledged to purchase some munitions and anti-aircraft systems from the US and also to provide some older outdated munitions from existing Canadian stock (which I read that Ukraine would accept) . Are basic munitions still required and has Canada ever provided any munitions to Ukraine?
It's time for Canada to stand up and be counted and a little light shed on our contribution (or lack thereof) would be welcome.