In reply to Mr_Asa :
Oh Yeah? Well, Russia is saying it shot it self down. So there! 
Also, there are some reports on the Alaska summit coming out. Apparently Putin really irritated Trump. This at least gives me some hope that there is some realization of what Putin is actually doing (which seems to mostly be stalling to avoid more weapons / sanctions):
Putin's history rant in Alaska prompted Trump to raise his voice and cancel lunch
During his meeting with Donald Trump in Alaska on 15 August, Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin launched into a lengthy historical monologue that angered the US president, forcing him to raise his voice and even threaten to leave.
Source: Financial Times, citing Western and Russian officials and diplomats familiar with the matter
Details: The FT says Putin began recalling medieval rulers such as Rurik of Novgorod and Yaroslav the Wise, as well as the 17th-century Cossack chieftain Bohdan Khmelnytskyi – figures he frequently invokes to argue that Ukraine and Russia are supposedly "one nation".
A visibly unsettled Trump raised his voice several times and at one point threatened to walk out. He eventually cut the meeting short and cancelled a planned working lunch, during which broader delegations were expected to discuss economic cooperation and trade ties.
The confrontation reportedly followed a proposal by Trump for a deal to end the war in Ukraine, suggesting the lifting of sanctions on Russia in exchange for a ceasefire. Putin rejected the idea, insisting that the war would only end if Ukraine capitulated and ceded more territory in Donbas.
Background: Recent reports indicate that Trump was infuriated by media portrayals of the Alaska summit as a "Putin triumph".
I'm slightly confused about the tomahawk missiles. It looks like the US has manufactured about 9k of these things since the 1980's, and they have a 1.5k mile range, and cost about $2M to produce. We don't know how many we have on hand, but would need them in a conflict with China (taken from Washington Post).
The two main ranged weapons that Ukraine is currently using to attack oil refineries are the Liutyi and FP-1 drones (range greater than 600miles, costs about $50k to produce) and the Flamingo cruise missile, which has 1.8k mile range and costs about $500k to produce. Ukraine planned to produce 30k long range drones in 2025, is currently producing 1 flamingo per day and hopes to ramp that up to 7/day, or 2.5k per year by the end of October. (Info taken from Reuters and IISS)
Estimations of how many Tomahawks we could give to Ukraine vary, but it would have to be on the order of hundreds to make a brief impact in the context of 30k drones and 2.5k cruise missiles that Ukraine expects to produce domestically in a year. It's possible that they do something special that the other weapons don't, but that doesn't seem to be the case according to that WP article.
I don't think the threat of Tomahawks brought Putin to the table, but it's possible that Ukraine's destruction of its oil refining capacity has.
In reply to CrustyRedXpress :
I believe that the Tomahawks have a very elaborate launching system that needs to be part of the package as well.
The Tomahawks may not be absolutely devastating to Russia, but (and maybe a mistake on their part) they are certainly playing it like they are. They really, really don't want them deployed (by their statements)
I suspect the primary usefulness of Tomahawks is that they would allow Ukraine to have a very high probability of hitting well defended very precision targets. E.g. air defense. Ukraine has hit air defense systems near the front with FPV style drones, but I don't think they have hit any away from the front (e.g. along drone routes or around critical targets)
The current Ukrainian drones have good range, but are either smaller warheads or not terribly hard to shoot down (if spotted). Combining Tomahawks with the current drone set Ukraine has, only increases their lethality (e.g. distracting defenses with other drones).
In reply to aircooled :
Use them to take out the Crimean bridge once and for all at the main span.
02Pilot
PowerDork
10/17/25 4:08 p.m.
In reply to CrustyRedXpress :
We don't exactly have a surplus of the things, but they are quite handy. Block IV are currently in production, with Block V, Va, and Vb planned as upgrades. The key thing that Tomahawk has over other cruise missiles are the Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC) and the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS) - you can read a little about them here. They're heavily classified, but basically they allow the missile to transit defended airspace very effectively. Not that Russia has done a very good job of defending its airspace lately, but if Ukraine gets Tomahawks, they will usually get to what they're aimed at regardless of what Russia does.
I am wondering if Putin is willing to talk because he is getting reports on the offensive going on near Shakhove. I suspect his generals are telling him about the massive waves of Russians charging forward.... well... charge they do, and then blow up! The Ukrainians have been having bit of a minor turkey shoot with Russian vehicles determined to run the drone gauntlet south of Shakhove, with little success. Compare this update to the previous posted one an notice how many more vehicles have been destroyed (mostly BMP types, but a few tanks also). It stinks of desperation. Note that these are just looses that can be confirmed with open source evidence.
In reply to aircooled :
I know that I'm a little/lot bit of a map shiny happy person lately but is there a key to the symbols used?
In reply to Stampie :
I am not sure there is. The blues are for Ukraine doing something (airplane ones are FPV drone, quadcopter ones are drone drops), the missile is a HIMARS stike, explosions are artillery.
Reds are for something Russia is doing, or is happening to them. Bombs are glide bombs, wheels are motorcycles, tanks, the smaller IFV's are MTLB's (which are not technically for combat for for towing thing etc, but Russia is desperate) and the other IFV icons are for BMP variants (actually armored a bit)
Sounds like we are back to plan A. Freeze lines, everyone is happy... except... no one has ever agreed to that, or even come close to that, and only one side even thought a cease fire was reasonable. The Tomahawks I am sure are intended as the "stick" in these negotiations, but it's questionable if that is a credible threat (e.g. there have never been consequences implemented previously).
Trump told Zelensky during the meeting that he does not intend to supply Ukraine with long-range "Tomahawk" missiles, at least for now, — Axios citing sources
The fear apparently is that adding Tomahawks just prolongs the war. Of course, adding Tomahawks could also shorten the war. This seems to assume that things will eventually get bad enough for Ukraine they will come to a deal, so, sort of pushing from the Ukrainian side, rather than the Russian side (which seems more appropriate to me since they won't even agree to a cease fire).
02Pilot
PowerDork
10/18/25 3:14 p.m.
In reply to aircooled :
What differentiates this situation from Gaza is that there's no real way for the US to triangulate pressure on Russia as they did on Hamas. No matter what the US and/or Israel did, Hamas wasn't going to budge; it was only when the US leveraged Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey into making it clear that this was the last chance for a deal of any sort, and that failure to sign would leave them completely isolated, that Hamas signed on. There's no way to do this with Russia, as the only country that might have any pull with Putin is China, and there's zero chance that Xi wants to help the US administration achieve anything positive unless it benefits him.
Tomahawks are just a tool to try to get Putin's attention. It worked, now there's supposedly a meeting scheduled in Hungary, a meeting that will likely not result in much of anything. Trump may get frustrated again as he did in Alaska, which would do more toward getting Tomahawks to Ukraine than anything Zelensky could say, but Putin is already planning how to deal with that eventuality, figuring out likely target sets and how to defend them. Both sides are now going after logistics targets in rear areas, which probably favors Ukraine in the long run, Tomahawks or no. But if it gets too bad for Russia, expect Putin to try to spread the pain around (hybrid warfare against Western energy targets in the winter would be a good place to start) rather than fold up.
02Pilot
PowerDork
10/20/25 7:18 a.m.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
Putting aside the fact that I'm a little suspect of the sources reporting the more extreme version of this encounter (I've never heard of them, and they're all written in the same sort of tone and cadence, which smells like something straight out of the Russian influence operations playbook, and they are known to create false media accounts to post just this sort of thing), let's just assume it to be true for a moment. As I noted earlier, the problem here is that Trump has no leverage with Putin, and only negative leverage (i.e., withholding support) with Zelensky. It also shows the limitations in Trump's approach, which projects his priorities onto other parties, assuming that they should want what he wants. His lack of foreign policy experience and inability or unwillingness to consider other sets of interests means that all parties are talking past one another to some extent.
All that said, the fundamental conditions for terminating the conflict have not been met yet. Whereas in Gaza, Israel had largely achieved their objectives - Hamas badly damaged, Hezbollah and Iran wounded, and the direct threat to Israel significantly reduced - neither Ukraine nor Russia are anywhere near getting what they want. Combine that with the sunk costs of the war to date and the domestic political questions that arise from it, Zelensky and Putin are not ready to want to stop, nor are they sufficiently damaged to have to stop. Trump cannot understand why they keep fighting in a bloody stalemate, but objectively speaking, there's no reason to think they would want anything other than to keep going until they had achieved the greatest proportion of their objectives possible.
It’s hard to imagine someone with zero empathy being an effective mediator.
02Pilot
PowerDork
10/20/25 9:24 a.m.
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
Only if you define "mediator" narrowly. In international relations, it tends to be looked at more broadly, perhaps more like a facilitator, as primary questions tend to be those of interests, not feelings; empathy is useful but not always necessary. Issues tend to arise when the tools available to facilitate are limited, as they are in the case of Russia and Ukraine.
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
I disagree completely. At their core, the terms being negotiated are business, military, and influence transactions. These are the balance of power.
The key players in wartime negotiations are often megalomaniacs with no empathy for their own peoples who they send to their deaths, no empathy for enemy civilians, no empathy for anyone that opposes their ambitions.
Empathy is a natural and essential response for every human being who witnesses the horrors of war, whether first-hand or vicariously. But empathy has little place when trying to mediate with warmongers who lack that trait themselves.
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
I think I could rather easily, in terms of negotiations between countries, argue that having a more rational person as the mediator would be more useful. Obviously, you really need to considered the needs and wants of the two sides, and you could say that is "empathy" for their position, but I think that would be a bit of a misuse of that word.
I could also argue that too much empathy might be one of the issues here. There seems to be a concern to "just stop the killing", which seems empathetic to me, but can also (as argued before) lead to more killing in the future since you are stopping the war, but not addressing the conflicts / issues.
In terms of a marriage councilor, absolutely. For world leaders, likely less so.
To create a rather absurd (e.g. do not mean to imply this is what you are mean) and over stated scenario:
Moderator: "Now look, you have upset Mr. Putin. It looks like he might cry. I mean, you don't really NEED the Donbass, do you? Why don't you just give it to him, I think it would really cheer him up." "See now, even mentioning it brings a bit of a sparkle to his eyes! Doesn't that make you feel better?"
(hmmm... that sparkle... seems a bit... I think I need to check what floor we are in this building and make sure none of the windows can be opened)
Some more info on the talks (I love how the parts of Zaporishia they will "give back" are the areas they have never occupied!):
Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly reiterated his demand that Ukraine cede all of Donetsk Oblast as a condition for ending the war, and suggested that Russia would be willing to “surrender parts” of occupied southern Ukraine. Ceding Donetsk Oblast to Russia would set conditions for Russia to renew its aggression against Ukraine from more advantageous positions at a time of its choosing. Two senior officials told The Washington Post in an article published on October 18 that Putin told US President Trump on October 16 that Ukraine must cede the remainder of unoccupied Donetsk Oblast to Russia “as a condition for ending the war” and that he “would be willing to surrender parts” of occupied Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts in exchange.[1] The exact terms of Putin’s reported offer are unclear. It is possible that Putin may have been referring to Ukrainian-controlled parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts that Russia illegally annexed and does not occupy. Putin previously demanded the remainder of Donetsk Oblast in exchange for a ceasefire in August 2025, and ISW has continuously assessed that ceding the remainder of Donetsk Oblast disproportionately favors Russia.[2] Donetsk Oblast contains territory that is strategically vital for Ukraine’s defense and defense industrial base (DIB), including the fortress belt — Ukraine’s main defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014, which Ukraine has developed into a significant logistical and defense industrial hub.[3] Russian forces currently have no available means of rapidly enveloping or penetrating the fortress belt, which would likely take several years to seize at their current rate of advance.
In case you were wondering (not a lot of info on this is shared of course) what the Ukrainians are doing to try and protect their energy infrastructure:
Another interesting picture (if you don't know, they set those planes up as large drones, and put the bombs in them and send them off to Russia):
02Pilot
PowerDork
10/20/25 12:55 p.m.
An interesting hybrid (human/AI) analysis from CSIS of what sort of peace agreement is likely to be most durable. In short, it is sure to please no one but might be marginally acceptable to all, depending on circumstances.
Some typical unchanging and mixed messaging, external vs internal (consistently inconsistent), coming out of Russia:
US President Donald Trump’s October 17 meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly ended with Trump supporting a ceasefire on the current frontlines and not Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands that Ukraine cede territory in Donetsk Oblast to Russia.
Kremlin voices clarified Russia’s position on negotiations following Western reporting about the October 17 Trump-Zelensky meeting in order to reiterate that Russia remains committed to addressing the alleged “root causes” of the war and is unwilling to agree to a ceasefire.
The Kremlin is priming the Russian people for a full victory in Ukraine whatever the cost — a domestic effort that is at odds with Putin’s reported willingness to make territorial concessions. The Kremlin has consistently reiterated throughout the war that Russia’s war demands remain unchanged and has communicated to the Russian people that Russia will achieve all these goals in Ukraine, whether militarily or diplomatically.[13] The Kremlin has not prepared Russian society to accept anything less than these demands...
The Kremlin is leaning into its cognitive warfare effort to portray Russian forces as relentlessly advancing and a Russian victory as inevitable. This effort aims to obscure the reality that Russian forces are only making minimal gains at disproportionately high manpower costs and that Russia is unlikely to obtain its strategic objectives by force in the short- or medium-term. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha stated on October 20 that Russia is increasing its federal spending on propaganda in the 2026 budget by 54 percent compared to the 2025 federal budget.
It sounds like the Ukrainians would support this? I mean, it says they are preparing it. And yes, there is that whole "Russia needs to agree to it also" thing.
A 12-point plan to end the war is being prepared by Ukraine for the European Union, — Bloomberg
- A ceasefire must be implemented.
- Both sides will simultaneously stop advancing on enemy territory.
- A prisoner exchange will begin.
- Russia will return deported children.
- Ukraine will receive security guarantees and funding for the restoration of destroyed infrastructure.
- Ukraine will receive a path to accelerated EU membership.
- Sanctions against Russia will be gradually lifted.
- About $300 billion of frozen reserves of the Russian Central Bank will be returned only on the condition of Moscow's participation in reconstruction.
- In case of a new offensive — restrictions will be reintroduced.
- Negotiations on the administration of occupied territories should begin with the participation of all interested parties.
- None of the occupied lands will be formally (legally) recognized as part of Russia.
- The plan provides that its implementation will be overseen by a commission chaired by Donald Trump.
Europe, Ukraine prepare 12-point proposal to end Russia's war, Bloomberg News reports
Oct 21 (Reuters) - European nations are working with Ukraine on a 12-point proposal to end Russia's war along current battle lines, Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday....
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/europe-ukraine-prepare-12-point-proposal-end-russias-war-bloomberg-news-reports-2025-10-21/
An update from our favorite Austrian. For some reason Youtube wants to translate this to English, even though he is speaking english. Use the gear icon to select German, which is English (!). As you can tell by the title slide, he is less than impressed with the Russian summer offensive.
Here are a few screen shots that I took that are particularly interesting:
Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries (with what I think is losses in tons?):
Here is a map of Russian glide bomb attacks in a 3 week period (this is the area Russia is trying to rescue its surrounded troop):
OK... we might be back to plan B. It looks like the Budapest meeting (in about 2 weeks) is off? It kind of sounds like there is a realization that it would result in little. Seems like the European / Ukraine plan is the next step?
There are no plans for President Donald Trump to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin “in the immediate future,” despite Trump’s recent claim that the two would hold talks in Budapest, a senior White House official told Reuters on Tuesday....
....“As soon as the pressure eased a little, the Russians began to try to drop diplomacy, postpone the dialogue,” Zelensky said Tuesday in a Telegram post....
...A meeting of the Coalition of the Willing, a group of 35 countries that support Ukraine, is scheduled to take place in London on Friday.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-putin-meeting-russia-ukraine-white-house-10913776
