Btw. There is a whole board dedicated to war discussion on this site, but okay.
>Trump rearms Ukraine
Not really. Probably the only time I agree with Kaja Kallas: the one who pays the bill does the thing, Europe buys arms from USA, and Europe pass it on to Ukraine. It's Europe who arms Ukraine.
Frankly not even rearms, it's just the continuation what's going on. EU's budget goes in cycles of 7 years or so, next starts in 2028. They are already discussing it for a while and one point is the war in Ukraine, they are counting on financing it... after 2028 still! It never was a question that peace will be made.
Anyway, Trump's plan is to sell arms to Europe. They forced them to raise their military budget to 2%, and just at the latest NATO summit, they raised that to 5%. That's a lot of money - what will they spend it on? Trump says: on American weapons. And they will.
>>344855
They should have mobilize ~500K at early 2023.
>>344884
>I don't think their strategy is to give Ukraine victory
I concur. Yes they think they are attriting Russia.
But what happens is that Ukraine attrited too, and in faster rate than Russia.
The point of the slow Russian advancement: they don't just grind soldiers, but the whole country. If a country fell quick, the population is willing to resist and a long asymmetric war follows - example like Afghanistan (both for Soviet Union and United States). But if a country is beaten to pulp, slowly, methodically, then they lose morale and will to fight, and can be forced to agree on anything, and won't be a problem when it comes under occupation. Breaking the people, breaking the country.
The arms they send quick: the Patriots, are fine but not much.
Tomahawks are nice but who will use them? And when those can actually enter the war?