We are in Cold War 2 not close to WW3
In an unexpected twist, Lord Trump rearms Ukraine with high technology. Ukraine has strongly resisted the Russian advance (this war began in February 2022, and to this day, Russia has not managed to occupy most of Ukraine's territory. This is radically different from what happened, for example, with the war in Iraq or even what is happening in Iran).
Is this a strategy to twist Russia's arm at the negotiating table?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/14/trump-does-deal-with-nato-allies-to-arm-ukraine-and-warns-russia-of-severe-sanctions
I don't think their strategy is to give Ukraine victory, but rather to exhaust Russia so that it withdraws in the worst possible negotiation scenario.
I think the bottom line is:
>Russia has failed to dominate Ukraine (this year has already gone four years - 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025).
>Russia is indirectly submitting to China because of the war (China is taking advantage of the situation to buy gas at low prices. Gas is a strategic resource).
>The Russian state is wearing itself out economically and militarily by directing its resources toward a protracted war.
I think the strategy is to create an Afghanistan 2.0
I'd like to disagree, not because I don't find merit in what you're saying, but because I think Russia is no longer on the same level as the US and China, but rather on the same level as the European powers.
Personally, I think this is just an accident. The real thing will begin when China can no longer maintain the formality of diplomacy and the debt strategy.
>So what will be the result of a Ukrainian rearmament?
In my opinion, what it will do is accelerate Russia's defeat by forcing it into negotiations. It won't be a military defeat, but a political one. And that's what the Trump administration wants (which is why I'm talking about Afghanistan 2.0).
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.
They should have mobilize ~500K at early 2023.
>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?