《泰晤士報》：烏克蘭如果失去美國的支持，歐洲每年將需至少增加30萬士兵和超過二千英鎊的開支 在軍力及財政上均不能維持

Can Ukraine survive without US aid? The reality of going it alone



The row in the Oval Office between President Zelensky and President Trump has brought the geopolitical nightmare scenarios conjured during last month’s Munich Security Conference closer to reality: an American withdrawal from Europe, a breakup of Nato, even a closer ideological affinity between Washington and Moscow than with its traditional allies. The question of whether Ukraine can continue to defend itself against Russia’s invasion without US support is now an immediate concern.

What will the US do?

Whether this was a deliberate ambush in the White House or Zelensky mishandling a thin-skinned president does not, in this specific context, matter. President Trump is not a person likely to allow this defiance to pass unpunished.

There are reports that he is contemplating a halt to military aid; recent shipments were initiated under his predecessor, Joe Biden. There is $3.85 billion allocated for weapons that can be transferred from existing US stockpiles and another $1.5 billion in Department of State military financing, currently frozen along with most of the rest of foreign aid as the new administration revisits old commitments. The president has announced no new support packages, and can choose not to use the remaining funding.

How much aid has Ukraine received?

Predicting Trump’s moves is a thankless task, but the consensus seems to be that he may maintain existing commitments but pledge no more, in effect giving Ukraine only six months’ more support. This would give him a window of opportunity both to reopen the question of US access to Ukrainian minerals — perhaps reverting to something closer to his earlier, more outrageous demands for $500 billion in returns — and also draw up a take-it-or-leave it ceasefire proposal. As Trump openly warned Zelensky: “Make a deal or we are out.”

What can Europe do?

Since the disastrous meeting, European leaders have been sending Zelensky a stream of supportive messages. This is all very well, but when Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, takes to social media to reassure him that he is "never alone" and that "we will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace",what does this mean?

Europe can and will try to salvage something from this crisis, although there is a sense that any good done by the visits of President Macron of France and Sir Keir Starmer earlier in the week has been swept away, and Sunday's summit of European leaders in London becomes all the more important.

The key strategic question is whether, if Trump cannot be budged from his apparent determination to impose a deal on Ukraine, they focus on trying to make the best of it and press the White House to provide meaningful security guarantees, or instead look to creating European-only alternatives.

What is unspoken is that there are limits to how far Europe can go beyond supportive social media posts.
Considering estimates predict that Europe would need 300,000 more troops and more than £200 billion in annual defence spending at a minimum to secure itself without US support, one European Commission official admitted: "Ukraine is important to us, but not all-important."

Europe as a guarantor?

If the priority is providing guarantees to Kyiv, can this be done outside of Nato? President Putin clearly does not fear Europe, believing that it lacks the will and unity to stand up to military intimidation. It is hard to disagree when even countries which have demonstrated a clear will to rearm, such as Poland, have also made it clear that their own national security takes precedence.
Europe's hollowed-out armies cannot field the 100,000 to 150,000 troops that Zelensky has suggested would be necessary to deter the Russian leader. Even a 30,000 to 40,000-strong so-called "reassurance force" might be a stretch too far without American assistance.

Is money enough?

Together, European countries provide significantly more financial and military aid for Ukraine than the United States. They could spend even more, but do not have the productive capacity to easily and quickly turn cash into military capacity. Europe's own arms stocks are running low and less than a quarter of the weapons it provides Ukraine are actually produced by the continent. Most of the rest comes from the US, but is also sourced everywhere from South Korea to Israel.
Europe does now produce 2 million artillery rounds a year, but this is not enough to meet the war's needs, let alone top up European armies' stockpiles as well.
Already, it has had to scour the global arms markets.

Last year the Czechs set up an initiative to secure 500,000 155mm artillery rounds for Ukraine. This target was met, but issues ranged from the logistical challenges of shipping them around the world to fears that substandard ammunition would explode prematurely.

Trump may well be very happy to see Europe buying American stock to support Ukraine, but this would leave countries at the mercy of the market, potentially competing with other buyers and facing delays and rising prices.

Can Zelensky fix his relationship with Trump?

It seems difficult to imagine Zelensky's relationship with the White House can be repaired. Trump's attitudes to Ukraine are clearly shaped by his longstanding personal grudge against the Ukrainian leader, who he feels has supported his political rivals at every turn.

Zelensky has in the past said that he would step down if that were the price for real peace and Nato membership.
Although immediately after the White House row he told Fox News he would not resign, he could conceivably fall on his sword if he feels his presence is too problematic for his country.

While the current state of martial law in Ukraine precludes elections — and the millions of citizens in occupied territories would be effectively disenfranchised - a resignation and the temporary elevation of the speaker of the parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk, could be managed.

If elections were held, the former commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny, now in virtual exile as ambassador to the UK, would be a strong contender (should he choose to stand). A bluff former general with great authority at home, Zaluzhny could be the kind of figure Trump would want to court — and would at least come to power with a clean political slate.

Can Ukraine keep fighting?

Ukraine still has reserves, not least if it does what Trump has been demanding and lowers the conscription age from 25 to 18. However, there is growing war-weariness — a survey by Lord Ashcroft Polls found the proportion of Ukrainians believing the defence of their country was progressing successfully has declined from 85 per cent two years ago to just 23 per cent now. Yet this does not mean a willingness to surrender.

Nonetheless, the loss of US assistance would be a serious blow. It is not just a lack of new systems and ammunition such as Patriot missiles, currently only produced in the US, but also spares for existing systems such as Abrams tanks and Bradley personnel carriers.

Some European countries, no matter their current public positions, may treat such a development as an opportunity to retreat themselves. "I'm worried about the whole 'throwing good money after bad' excuse," a British official said before the White House row, reflecting on the Munich conference.

Ukraine can and presumably would still fight, but at an increasing disadvantage. Putin, seeing the opportunity to form a kind of entente with Trump, may decide to seize the opportunity to freeze the conflict while in control of 20 per cent of Ukraine and push to ease sanctions for the benefit of his increasingly strained economy.

He may even see this (over-optimistically) as a chance to establish some kind of US-Russian co-dominion over Europe. Or he could just as easily see it as the right moment to push even harder.

It is difficult not to see Putin as the greatest beneficiary of recent events — yet he is not necessarily the only one. The US's increasingly personalistic and transactional foreign policy also empowers other strongmen around the world to try their hand, knowing that Washington is unlikely to stand up for international law. From Turkey to Israel, countries able to count on Trump are already acting as if that grants them a certain impunity. If he abandons Zelensky for Putin, then Trump will be truly be overturning the existing geopolitical order.

Professor Mark Galeotti's latest book, Forged in War:
A Military History of Russia from its Beginnings to Today, is published by Osprey/Bloomsbury

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/aid-ukraine-us-trump-zelensky-bbm899rln

歐洲繼續咀炮Stand with Ukraine
然後買俄羅斯天然氣

平均由各位歐猪分擔，都唔係好貴
諗下以後仲用唔用俄氣仲好啦
用就資敵，唔用就傷身，兩頭唔到岸

歐洲只有英法有核武唔夠，起碼德國 烏克蘭 波蘭都要幾年內完成擁有核武
甚至日本 加拿大 澳洲 都要立即發展

加拿小就算鳩數啦

二千英鎊好少咋喎

二萬億

侵同vance 擺明揸住你班歐豬春袋
澤仔喺人地主場發難之前冇睇清楚盤數先嘅咩

二千億英鎊

二萬億英鎊
越玩越大

二千英磅 ， 抵

所以其實班歐豬仲心急過澤仔，快撚啲同美國佬簽喇仆街

士兵可以靠移英手Joke 仔女，
錢可以靠移英手Joke 交稅。

其實望下對家普京，一樣係死頂。
進入拉鋸戰情況，勝負就取決於意志力。

終於逼到班攞彩撚計下數

人口多過美俄, 點解會咁廢?

俄羅斯點死頂都有歐豬買天然氣條數幫補

用咁多字講其實就係齋靠歐盟+歐洲國家唔夠 要美國繼續俾資金武器先夠抗衡