Russia, Ukraine, & NATO: Pres. Trump’s Ultimatum
Based on valid assumptions or wishful thinking?
President Trump's announcement
giving Russian President Vladimir Putin 50 days to finish his strategic military operations in Ukraine, and
thereafter imposing a 100% tariff rate to be executed against the Russian economy,
is prompting commentary from all sides. Since direct U.S. trade with Russia has been at a standstill, any tariffs would likely be applied toward any country purchasing any goods or resources from Russia (specifically India, China, Iran, etc.).
Cross-posted by Pat at Conservative Treehouse:
If Putin takes that ultimatum seriously, he will just ramp up the current offensive and complete the annihilation of Ukrainian armed forces as a credible force. The massive drone attacks that Russia has launched over the last few weeks will intensify. So will current ground operations that have stretched Ukrainian defenses to the limit already.
What new weapons does NATO have to give? More Patriots? They can’t intercept Russian hypersonic missiles, such as the Kinzhal and Iskander. They sure as hell won’t stop the Oreshnik if Russia unleashes that monster. They might take down Russian cruise missiles but the cost ratio is $3.4 million to $5.3 million per Patriot missile vs $100k to $1 million for a Russian cruise missile. More ATACMS systems? The batteries are already vulnerable to drone attacks and Iskander missile hits? More F16s? That’s like sending Sopwith Camels to fight P51 Mustangs. More tanks? The Abrams and German Leopards have failed in Ukraine. More artillery and shells? Russia is out producing NATO nations by 5:1. More drones would be good since it is drones that are keeping Ukraine in the fight, but NATO lags Russia in production and experience using them.
Perhaps Trump believed Rubio’s claim that Russia has suffered 100k KIA in the last six months. This claim is cited by the Economist and is based on the most dubious methodology imaginable. According to Simplicius, “In short, they claim their satellite data alerts them to where fighting happens to ‘intensify’, and from that they—by some incredible leap of logic—infer that Russian forces are experiencing massive losses. The baffling part is that this facile methodology should apply to the AFU in parallel as well, yet when it comes to Ukraine’s losses, the Economist’s staff are without even a hint of curiosity”. A more accurate count comes from MediaZona, which projects 9,849 confirmed Russian KIA from 1/1/2025 to 7/3/2025.
I always come back to basic ground war logic. Artillery inflicts 80% of casualties. Russia has a 5:1 to 10:1 advantage in artillery. If Russia had actually lost 100,000 KIA, then Ukraine would have lost 400,00 to 1 million KIA and the war would be over.
Russia supplies oil and gas to Europe, China and India. China may be even more reliant with Iranian production reduced by recent attacks on Iran. Does President Trump really expect to be able to impose 100% tariffs on major trade blocs without repercussions?
Basing policy on bad assumptions leads to bad outcomes.