> This weaker neighbor is aided and funded by a block of countries with a total population of 1b, 6 times that of Russia.

'Aided and funded' literally a fractional percent of their economies over five years.

> The same block is doing all it can to crash the Russian economy

I severely doubt about "all it can" part.

> Nevertheless, this union of a weak neighbor + 1b block is steadily loosing land.

Less than percent a year since 2023. This is a shockingly bad performance for a country to that considered themselves rival to China/Europe/US.

As to "+ 1b block" it's like that joke goes: "Russia v NATO war. Russian status: 1 mil casualties. NATO status: hasn't arrived yet."

1) Yes, extensively aided and funded, no matter how you try to avoid this fact 2) Russia has more sanctions applied that any country ever did. 3) Still it is Russia gaining land and NATO ally, which runs on NATO money and NATO weapons, retreating. 4) NATO has arrived indeed. NATO ally (or protectorate) has huge and obvious manpower loss.

> Yes, extensively aided and funded, no matter how you try to avoid this fact

I literally gave you the number, this is the fact: West has provided less than percent of their economies over 5 years.

> Russia has more sanctions applied that any country ever did.

That's what attacking your neighbour does, yes. And it's far, far from 'all it can' part.

> Still it is Russia gaining land and NATO ally, which runs on NATO money and NATO weapons, retreating.

Russia took less than percent of Ukrainian soil every year after initial shock gains. This is hilariously bad performance for the great power that fights against donated scraps. It's not even high end tech (F-35s, last gen Euro-fighters).

> NATO has arrived indeed. NATO ally (or protectorate) has huge and obvious manpower loss.

Does NATO know it has arrived?

You seem to believe the West is doing very little to help Ukraine. You say they only contribute a tiny fraction of their economy, but you ignore that that fraction is coming on top of their own budgets which are already quite constrained as well as increased spending on their own militaries due to the situation + pressure by the US, and that many countries, especially Germany, lost an enormous amount of money by becoming severely less competitive after rejecting Russian oil and gas , which had made energy prices much lower before the war. What do you think Europe can do more? Do you support tax hikes to allow more money to be sent? Do you want a direct military involvement and are you prepared to be drafted, or have your children be, to the front lines, even if that means direct attacks by drones/missiles on many of your cities in retaliation ? Most people answer no to those questions, otherwise they would be demanding that and in a democracy people do get what they want if the majority agrees, yet we don’t see anyone in Europe going to the streets or even signing major petitions or anything like that!

GP said Western block (+1bn people) are fighting with Ukrainians against Russians which is factually incorrect. Everything in your comment about my assumptions is just a figment of your imagination.

> Do you support tax hikes to allow more money to be sent? Do you want a direct military involvement and are you prepared to be drafted, or have your children be, to the front lines, even if that means direct attacks by drones/missiles on many of your cities in retaliation ? Most people answer no to those questions, otherwise they would be demanding that and in a democracy people do get what they want if the majority agrees, yet we don’t see anyone in Europe going to the streets or even signing major petitions or anything like that!

I see, another one. I must've rattled the hive with my comment, haha.

The Western block is indeed fighting with Russia using Ukraine as a proxy/protectorate. Whats more, the Western block also openly states that.

Grow up buddy, not everyone who disagrees with your contradictory, cartoonish view of the situation is a troll or whatever you choose to believe.

1) The West did all it could. As in any conflict. 2) The way you call Himars, ATACMS missiles, Storm Shadow/Scalp, Bradleys, SAM Patriot with PAC-3 'donated crap' is fun. These are the actual modern weapons. Not something old. Current and up to date. 4) Of course it knows. They've lost lots of modern weapons and lots of manpower. Your protectorate's manpower is your asset. It is not free.

Don’t feed the troll.

An easy way to dismiss an opinion you do not like. Why exactly are you calling me a troll?

Because your first comment is inflammatory, and wrong.

Ukraine is far from being a "weaker neighbor" – it's proven to have more of a backbone than all of NATO.

And that "loosing land" part which seems so compelling: those are strategic withdrawals, forcing russians to haemorrhage men and equipment for Pyrrhic advances. Right now, those advances are being reversed: AFU is making significant gains around Zaporizhzhia, and massing troops near Kharkiv for possibly another major offensive.

1. Ukraine is merely a manforce provider. NATO does everything else. 2. Loosing land is pure math. About 500 sq.km per month, often more. Ukrainian advances remain to be an illusion.

> Ukraine is merely a manforce provider. NATO does everything else.

So Soviet “heroes” were just a manforce and USSR was a manforce provider for lend lease, right?

I wish they were aided and funded properly - this war would have been over in 3 days had they been so, and not in Putin's favor.

They were aided and funded as much as the NATO block could and still can do that.

Not even close :) the US handed over equipment it was going to destroy. If the US put 20% into Ukraine as it did into Iraq the war would be over in Ukraine's favor

> Nevertheless, this union of a weak neighbor + 1b block is steadily loosing land.

Last I saw (this weekend), the union of Ukraine+friends, was losing land at about 50-75 metres a day. As well as bopping off 35,000 enemy combatants a month off the 2026 Christmas party list. And russia can't (or haven't) matched those losses with recruitment.

a single soldier, perhaps two, sent 20km into opposing territory (the advance, the territory gained) doesn't mean actually controlling the ground. Just ask Vlad.

If Russia looses 35000 a month, why does Ukraine: a) Loose land and cities constantly b) Mobilize people brutally on streets c) Keep its bordera closed for men

No, in such situation it should be reversed.

That's the type of stuff that happens when you're at war. Would you rather Ukraine fight this war with the intent to lose? Russia is fighting to win, why can't Ukraine?

So Russia has catastrophic losses yet there's no mobilization. Ukraine is said to loose very few men, yet they have to beat people on streets to mobilize them. Meanwhile, Russian borders are open.

Dude, I was always told that Russia could just roll to Berlin because of all the remaining might of the Soviet Union. I read books by authors like Tom Clancy that lionized Russian might.

And here we are in 2026. An inconsequential country like Ukraine only has to beat people up in the streets and close their borders for men and they can reduce the speed of the Russian bear to meters per day. Make sure all your nukes are working, cause clearly not much else is impressive in your military.

>only has to beat people up

Not just that. A 1b block has to supply it with a huge constant supply of weapons and money, and intelligence, and also some manpower as well.

Oh no, allies come to the aid of their allies! China, Iran, and North Korea are more than happy to supply your country, but they're not interested in doing it as loans and gifts. Funny how Russia's incapable of having true long-term allies. Like it's rotten or something.

You’re not even trying to troll properly, are you? Jesus, it takes like a second to find that Ukraine’s population pre war was ~40 mil, Russia’s population ~140 mil. Active personal in Ukraine was ~200k, in Russia ~900k. So ~3x population and ~4x military force. And that is ignoring weapon and turf superiority, huge advantage of first hit and the West dragging their feet.

Russian army is a complete joke. Russia is a raketeer with nukes.

Gaining land slower than the Germans were towards the end of ww1. Significantly slower.

So, the entire NATO is proud to loose land to Russia slowly?

NATO is not involved at all. If NATO got involved the conventional war in the Ukraine would be over in less than a year (and maybe a nuclear war would start …)

NATO is involved by both weapons and money. These are main things that let a war go on. Ukraine's role is a limited and minor one: providing manpower. (NATO also provides some manpower, BTW).

‘[weapons and money] these are the main things that let a war go.’ - your reply is not serious. Your reply did not include manpower as the main thing in war.

Manpower is no longer the main thing in war since invention of swords and shields. Money and weapons are crucial.

> Manpower is no longer the main thing in war since invention of swords and shields.

Must be true by how much “meat” Soviets and Chinese threw on their occupiers.

The fact that Russia's leadership has the same kind of borderline delusional take on Ukraine and its army is, ironically, a significant reason why Russia's army has been so hilariously bad on the battlefield against Ukrainians, considering the hugely lopsided advantage in resources. I'm all for it, keep it up!

Moreover, NATO is justified to do whatever it takes to keep Russia from auctioning its stockpile. That means protecting it from internal collapse, not winning too decisively, even benefitting Putin when necessary. With START falling apart, Russia lost a tool that was buying some time.