Zelo trezen komentar iz ukrajinskega vira (Tatarigami je najbrž najbolj objektivni ukrajinski spletni vir glede spremljanja vojne v Ukrajini). Ugotovitve so zelo trezne:

• Če Trump pravi, da mora varnostna zagotovila Ukrajini zagotoviti Evropa in da noben ameriški vojak ne bo stopil na ukrajinsko ozemlje, zakaj potem ZDA “plačati” tistih absurdnih 500 milijard dolarjev v naturalijah (nahajališčih mineralov redke zemlje, ki jih ukrajinska država nima pod konrolo)?
• In če Evropa ne more zagotoviti varnostnih zagotovil (ker nima s čim), zakaj potem sploh komu kaj plačati?

In potem logično vprašanje: Če niti ZDA niti EU nista sposobni zagotoviti varnostnih zagotovil, kaj potem preostane ukrajinskemu vodstvu? Nadaljevanje vojne? S čim? In kdo se bo boril? Pogajanja o miru pod ruskimi pogoji?

Ukrajinsko vodstvo ima pred seboj same slabe možnosti. Priložnost za mirno rešitev je zavrnilo marca 2022. Ker je naivno verjelo, da horizont podpore “as long as it takes” pomeni neskončnost.

No, skrajno naivno s strani ukrajinskega vodstva in ukrajinskega ljudstva je bilo tudi, da je zahodna pomoč zastonj. Niti ena puška, poslana v Ukrajino, ni bila zastonj. Ukrajinci so z življenji “plačevali”, da namesto zahodnih držav “šibijo” Rusijo. Ko je postalo jasno, da tudi 300 milijard dolarjev in skoraj milijon mrtvih in ranjenih ukrajinskih vojakov kasneje padli Ukrajinci niso niti za las ošibili Rusije, so zahodnjaki začeli javno izstavljati račune Ukrajini.

Dobro so zahodnjaki nategnili Ukrajince. Perverzno in skrajno pokvarjeno.

_____________

Based on direct statements from President Trump, Ukraine would be expected to “pay back” $500 billion in resources. This was not framed as a trade of new weapons for resources, but rather, as Trump put it, “We are going to have all this money, and I want it back.” Meanwhile, National Security Advisor Waltz has stated that Europe will be fully responsible for Ukraine’s security, saying security guarantees are “squarely” a European issue. Additionally, Pete Hegseth confirmed there will be no U.S. boots on the ground.

Ukraine’s main problems right now are:

• A shortage of infantry
• Organizational inefficiencies

The leading cause of casualties on both sides in 2024 and 2025 were drones: “bomb-dropping drones” and FPV kamikaze drones – which the U.S. does not supply. Most drones are acquired through donations, direct unit purchases, Ukrainian funds, or foreign loans and investments. The U.S. does not directly provide these drones. For the cost of one U.S.-supplied Switchblade 300 loitering munition, Ukraine could buy approximately 55–80 FPV drones, which would be far more effective.

For months, our team has received reports of personnel transfers from air defense, electronic warfare, anti-tank, artillery reconnaissance, and drone units into infantry roles. Some units have been ordered to transfer 50% of their personnel into infantry. In certain cases, Western-supplied equipment is not being fully utilized because trained personnel have been reassigned. In this context, adding more overpriced Abrams tanks or Switchblades does little to solve the problem.

Yes, Ukraine still needs key systems like HIMARS missiles, artillery shells, intelligence data, Starlink, and other critical assets. But none of this justifies a $500 billion “payback,” making the proposed deal a terrible one for Ukraine. Without solid security guarantees, like NATO or U.S. boots on the ground – the war cannot be stopped.

Paper guarantees from the U.S. hold little value, as the Budapest Memorandum has already shown. If Europe is expected to provide Ukraine’s security, why should Ukraine make a deal with the U.S. at all? Why not deal directly with Europe on security and resources instead of involving an overpriced middleman? Right now, there are far more questions than answers, but one thing is clear: Washington has no real plan. The current proposals don’t position the U.S. as a strategic counter to Russia – instead, they suggest Russia will retain occupied territories, and get sanctions relief, while Ukraine gets pillaged by Trump.

The US hasn’t provided any security guarantees either. Framing this as an “either-or” situation is misleading because there is no security offer from the US. In fact, this directly contradicts your point: Waltz stated that security of Ukraine is Europe’s responsibility, not US.

That’s exactly why this approach seems doomed. Zelensky is unlikely to agree to a deal that essentially forces Ukraine to pay back an absurd sum while receiving no real security guarantees in return.

Vir: Tatarigami via X