Things are coming to a head in Ukraine. You’ve probably heard that Trump gave Ukraine a 28-point “peace plan” and warned that if Ukraine didn’t accept, the U.S. would withdraw all support. I’ve been looking at this “plan,” and it’s a bad joke. It was “negotiated” by Trump’s real-estate buddy Steve Witkoff, with input from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. [See update below — Marco Rubio is telling people it was entirely proposed by Russia.] No one in Europe or in the U.S. Congress was consulted about this. And also note that today Trump is saying that the plan isn’t necessarily the “final offer,” which probably means the rest of the world got back to him with a big HELL NO.
I’m going to quote a lot of people here, starting with Heather Cox Richardson.
The plan appears to have been leaked to Barak Ravid of Axios by Kirill Dmitriev, a top ally of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, and reports say it was worked out by Dmitriev and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff. Ukrainian representatives and representatives from Europe were not included. Laura Kelly of The Hill reported on Wednesday that Congress was blindsided by the proposal, …
…The plan gives Crimea and most of the territory in Ukraine’s four eastern oblasts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk to Russia, and it limits the size of the Ukrainian military.
It erases any and all accountability for the Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians, including well-documented rape, torture, and murder. It says: “All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.”
It calls for $100 billion in frozen Russian assets to be invested in rebuilding and developing Ukraine. Since the regions that need reconstruction are the ones Russia would be taking, this means that Russian assets would go back to Russia. The deal says that Europe, which was not consulted, will unfreeze Russian assets and itself add another $100 billion to the reconstruction fund. The plan says the U.S. “will receive 50 percent of the profits from this venture,” which appears to mean that Europe will foot the bill for the reconstruction of Ukraine—Russia, if the plan goes through—and the U.S. and Russia will split the proceeds.
The plan asserts that “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy,” with sanctions lifted and an invitation to rejoin the Group of Seven (G7), an informal group of countries with advanced economies—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, along with the European Union—that meets every year to discuss global issues. Russia was excluded from the group after it invaded Ukraine in 2014, and Putin has wanted back in.
According to the plan, Russia and “[t]he US will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.”
The plan requires Ukraine to amend its constitution to reject membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It says “[a] dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the US, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.”
Not only does this agreement sell out Ukraine and Europe for the benefit of Russia—which attacked Ukraine—it explicitly separates the U.S. from NATO, a long-time goal of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.
Sorry for the long quote, but that’s as good a summation as I could find. I especially like the part about Europe paying for reconstruction and Russia and the U.S. splitting the proceeds.
Now, let’s go to Anne Applebaum at The Atlantic.
The 28-point peace plan that the United States and Russia want to impose on Ukraine and Europe is misnamed. It is not a peace plan. It is a proposal that weakens Ukraine and divides America from Europe, preparing the way for a larger war in the future. In the meantime, it benefits unnamed Russian and American investors, at the expense of everyone else.
The plan was negotiated by Steve Witkoff, a real-estate developer with no historical, geographical, or cultural knowledge of Russia or Ukraine, and Kirill Dmitriev, who heads Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund and spends most of his time making business deals. The revelation of their plan this week shocked European leaders, who are now paying almost all of the military costs of the war, as well as the Ukrainians, who were not sure whether to take this latest plan seriously until they were told to agree to it by Thanksgiving or lose all further U.S. support. Even if the plan falls apart, this arrogant and confusing ultimatum, coming only days after the State Department authorized the sale of anti-missile technology to Ukraine, will do permanent damage to America’s reputation as a reliable ally, not only in Europe but around the world.
Again, TACO Trump today announced this plan wasn’t necessarily the final offer. He must have felt some scorching blowback from Europe.
Applebaum goes on to describe how the details of the plan would leave Ukraine vulnerable to another Russian invasion in the future. The plan mentions “security guarantees” without spelling out what they are. And, of course, there is no reason to believe Trump would abide by them, anyway.
Why is the Trump White House pushing Ukraine to accept a Russian plan that paves the way for another war? The document offers some hints, declaring that the U.S. would also somehow take charge of the $100 billion in frozen Russian assets, for example, supposedly to invest this money in Ukraine and receive “50% of the profits from this venture.” Europeans, whose banks actually hold most of these assets, would receive nothing. European taxpayers, who currently provide almost all of the military and humanitarian support to Ukraine, are nevertheless expected to contribute $100 billion to Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Yep, sounds like a deal Trump’s people would think up. The plan also vaguely describes future business ventures between the U.S. and Russia.
Other details of the business negotiations carried out by Witkoff and Dmitriev remain secret. Ukrainians and Europeans, who would pay the military and economic price for this plan, deserve to know them. Above all, American citizens should be asking for the details of any business negotiations now under way. This plan has been proposed, in our name, as a part of U.S. foreign policy. But it would not serve our economic or security interests. So whose interests would it serve? Which U.S. companies and which oligarchs would benefit? Are Trump’s family members and political supporters among them? The arrangements on offer should be public knowledge before any kind of deal is signed.
I’m sure the Trump family has already worked out a plan for steering a lot of those “proceeds” into Trump family pockets. Otherwise, what’s the point? See also A DMZ for Ukraine by Simon Shuster and Jonathan Lamire at The Atlantic. Setting up a DMZ between east and west Ukraine is part of the plan, too.
My impression is that Europe is scrambling to be sure this plan is, um, seriously amended. See G20 Leaders Push Back on U.S. Peace Plan for Ukraine by John Eligon and Michael Schwirtz in The New York Times.
In a joint statement adopted Saturday the leaders of 11 nations — including Germany, France, Britain, Japan and Canada — and the European Union said the 28-point plan included “important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace.”
But they also made clear that they took issue with provisions of the plan that would strip Ukraine of territory and limit the size of its armed forces.
“What is at stake is Ukrainian sovereignty and European security,” President Emmanuel Macron of France said on Saturday, adding that European countries would work with the Ukrainians over the next two days to create a plan for the way forward.
This is setting up a contest with the U.S. and Russia on one side and all of America’s allies on the other. What could go wrong? And what would happen if Ukraine just says no?
Considering also Trump’s lame duck status, IMO there’s a possibility that if this mess were signed, the Senate might refuse to ratify it (per the Constitution, Article II. Section 2. paragraph 2). Actually, it says here “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Following consideration by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate either approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).” Okay.
The “ranking members” on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have already put out a statement expressing disagreement with the plan. As for the Republicans, some of the Senate’s GOP Russia hawks are not happy with this plan. But those Russia hawks are somehow not on the Senate foreign relations committee. So perhaps that’s a long shot.
It’s been a while since I’ve read Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. Friedman says that Trump is now the winner of a peace prize — the Neville Chamberlain peace prize.
To all the gentlemen who delivered this turkey to Moscow, I can offer only one piece of advice: Be under no illusions. Neither Fox News nor the White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt will be writing the history of this deal. If you force it upon Ukraine as it is, every one of your names will live in infamy alongside that of Chamberlain, who is remembered today for only one thing.
I say this is a disservice to Chamberlain. Chamberlain may have been naive and misguided, but his failed bid for “peace in our time” at least didn’t attempt to make a financial profit from the “peace.”
… if this plan is forced on Ukraine as is, we will need to add a new verb to the diplomatic lexicon: “Trumped” — to be sold out by an American president, for reasons none of his citizens understand (but surely there are reasons). And history will never forget the men who did it — Donald Trump, Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, Dan Driscoll — for their shame will be everlasting.
I think Friedman is against it.
Anyway– this plan is awful. There’s nothing more to say about it. I hope it falls through.
Update: This is interesting. From Politico —
U.S. lawmakers attempted Saturday to reverse days of confusion around a leaked peace plan for Ukraine, saying Secretary of State Marco Rubio assured them the document does not represent the Trump administration’s position.
Rubio called the bipartisan delegation to the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday afternoon, they said, while en route to Geneva for talks with Ukrainian officials. He described the plan as a Russian proposal, they said, and not a U.S. initiative.
“He made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). “It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received, and as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it — and we did not release it. It was leaked.”’
Sounds like Little Marco is trying to wash his hands of this mess. I did read somewhere that the text of the agreement clearly was originally written in Russian and translated into English. So Rubio might be telling the truth here. But Trump smacked Ukraine with this plan as if it were his.
Didn’t already do this. Seems like few months ago diaper Don sold Ukraine out and said if they didn't accept the deal we would walk away. Ukraine and Europe said no and European countries agreed to step up support. Stump eventually came back around and even talked about supplying long range missiles. My point is once again nothing that this administration proposes means a God damn thing, they change their fucking minds like the wind. I'm pretty sure Zelensky has figured this out by now and has a plan to deal with Stump once again.
Uncledad makes a good point about TACO Trump. He can't walk away unless he's the hero. Trump will get nothing from Europe for this suggestion, especially a Nobel Prize. Putin won't be impressed if Trump fails. Historically, the US and DJT personally will get the blame if Ukraine falls. Trump's Russian handlers told Trump this was a winning hand, but it's a stinker.
Europe united against Russia militarily and the US economically is also a proposition with no upside. At best, we are on the outside. At worst, we get blamed for being de facto allies of Putin. In neither instance can Trump swagger like John Wayne.
Just reading the update from Politico, that smells to me like Rubio is trying to save Trump from himself. My previous cynical comment about "Trump's Russian handlers" is confirmed by Rubio. This POS was released by Trump with an ultimatum, which Trump has walked back. Rubio was never in the loop – he might be miffed.
If is the biggest two-letter word in the English language. IF – hawks in Congress are alarmed at this betrayal of US interests and capitulation to Russia…. If Republican members of the Senate get an earful from their counterparts in Europe… If Rubio lets Trump know that he's not gonna keep cleaning up the messes from Trump's unilateral cowboy diplomacy from the WH….
I predict Trump will not change. In his mind, everyone must march to the tune he hums. Trump is never wrong. The endgame, if Trump is not removed, will be a coup attempt when Team Trump loses the election, which could land some members of Congress in prison if they offer aid and support. And the worst political setback for the GOP since they created the Great Depression,
Nothing in our country's interest seems helped by the proposed Ukraine/Russia plan. Some other agenda must be in play here. A wise guess is we would get an explanation of how it was a good deal for our county if it was one.
It does seem like quite a good deal for Russia. At least a few powerful people must think that is a good deal for them too. The rest of us are not in the loop for a reason.
Usually, that is done because the deal is a bad one for the ones not in the loop. Those who made this proposal have a lot of explaining to do. It looks really bad deal so far. Trust in this government is at an all-time low.
If you read some of those proposals from the Russian point of view they are risible.
Territories: a. Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian
Under the Russian constitution these oblasts (Crimea may be a republic) are constituent elements of the Russian Federation. Proposing them as "de facto recognised" in about the same as proposing Texas as a de facto part of the USA.
That $100 billion comes from frozen Russian funds so the proposal seems to be that the USA will steal $100B and use it to loot Ukraine. BTW, my assumption was that those funds would only be spent in Ukrainian sovereign territory so it would exclude the oblasts above as they would be viewed as Russian.
The limits proposed for the Ukrainian army are roughly twice the size of that army at the beginning of the conflict. I am sure Russia will love that.
The 28 Points seems to have been written by someone with no diplomatic knowledge or experience, no idea of the history or issues in the conflict, and a very pronounced bias towards the USA.
I find it very hard to believe that Kirill Dmitriev had much, if any, input into that piece of $%$#. He is not stupid.
I wonder if this thing was written under the influence of fine potables or recreational drugs?
I’m sure that’s what got Trump on board.
Thanks for the update. Our government is speaking with forked tongue perhaps or some sort of premature peace emanation.
From the NYT one gets the impression the Senate, President, and perhaps the State Department are all on different pages.
In the meantime, the NYT writes about AI in a very unfavorable way. My recent bouts with its "help" have me spending much time fighting its supposed help. According to the NYT models of AI have "goals" to increase your time spent with them. So far that is the problem I am having. Spending way more time getting less done. Distressing.
What OpenAI Did When ChatGPT Users Lost Touch With Reality – The New York Times
This from the NYT update which gives quite the confusing read:
So really who's responsible or irresponsible for this mess?
"Premature emanation" may be the best description for the document and how it came into existence that I've heard. Especially if you mispronounce "ajacu-" before you correct yourself.
Who is responsible? Grandpa Puddin' Brains!! I mean, I know you know that, but ol' Puddin' Brains' super power is to skirt responsibility for everything. I suspect that this "proposal" got to his desk directly from Putin and he ordered his cronies to make it happen after not even reading it, just on the fact that he wants to be liked by Putin. Liek, look at the videos of him and Epstein… Jeffy is standing like a cross-armed monolith and little Puddin' Brains is there like a little puppy pleading for his approval (like he is pleading for pedo opportunities). I am surprised that this aspect of Puddin' Brains is mistaken for tough deal-making… he craves approval so much that he would totally have pictures of him and Bubba in a compromising position. Sheesh, he was fluffing Mamdani like a crackhead sex worker.
Who knows?
Rubio seems to be flipflopping and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs say they have not seen it or even heard about it (I assume other than the press).
At best it looks like a bunch of incompetents around the Witkof/Kirill Dmitriev talks dreamed up this weird this.
Yes, there's some really silly stuff in the 28-point 'Plan', especially the stuff that "sounds like a deal Trump’s people would think up" (US gets 50% profit from investment of 'impounded' Russian money, and "…implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump").
OTOH, there is some stuff in there which really needs to be taken seriously – most obviously, the territorial changes. As someone who considers the lives of Ukrainians, Russians, and others far more important than lines on the map, I view the proposed borders as (1) the best that Ukraine can hope for at this point and (2) reasonable for Russia.
I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for saying this, but plz hear me out.
1. Russia considers its Navy Base at Sevastopol to be a strategic asset worth fighting for, big time; that's why they annexed Crimea in 2014.
2. Russia built the Kerch Bridge to supply Crimea; Ukrainian (and British/NATO?) attacks on that bridge convinced Russia that it had to take the entire Azov coastline to be able to reliably defend and supply Crimea. Again, Russia has proved that they were willing – and able – to fight for that.
3. The current military situation in Eastern Ukraine is not at all favorable to Ukraine. They just do not have the forces to defend their lines, much less take back territory already conquered by Russia. Russia is slowly – but inexorably – pushing the line, taking more territory, and grinding up Ukraine's army. No infusion of US or European weapons can reverse that; most new weapons recently are more strategic than tactical (blowing up things inside Russia will hurt Russia, but won't really help Ukraine). Bottom line: the longer this war grinds on, the smaller Ukraine gets. The boundaries proposed in the new 28-point 'plan' are now the best that Ukraine can hope for.
4. Those proposed boundaries also make sense for Russia. Any territory they take West of the Dnieper River would be costly to hold, likely involving decades of military occupation. They tried that in Poland, etc, from 1945-1990, and I believe that they learned an expensive lesson: it's just not worth the cost, in lives or money.
Bottom line: the boundaries proposed in this new 'plan' actually make sense, for both sides.
"They tried that in Poland, etc, from 1945-1990, and I believe that they learned an expensive lesson: it's just not worth the cost, in lives or money."
Are you fucking serious? They invaded Ukraine and have lost upwards of 300,000 soldiers and untold billions of dollars, their economy is in shambles, they are a pariah on the world stage. They haven't learned a fucking thing except that there are plenty of people in this country (diaper don and apparently you) that are willing to reward them for their aggression.
At best estimate, Russian losses, killed and seriously wounded are probably in the 500,000 range. It could be as high as 600K.
The CIA, of all people, ranks the Russian economy No. 4 in "Real GDP" purchasing power parity in the world and reports a "Real GDP" growth rate of 4.3% for 2024.
The last figures I have seen give an unemployment rate of 3.4%. The economic worry is labour shortage. Some of this is due, of course, to the expansion of the military but much in due to a booming economy. The Bank of Russia is actually trying to slow down the growth rate to cool an overheated economy.
Russia may be a pariah in Europe, the USA and a few other countries. The rest of the world sees it as a reasonable trading partner. I believe the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2025 had about 10,000 attendees from roughly 100 countries.
Don’t trust any data comin from a U.S. government institution, including the CIA. It may be true, but a lot of government websites are either not updating or reporting things that Trump wants to be true but ain’t necessarily so.
I have to agree with uncledad on this one. It's been widely reported that Putin deeply wants to restore the Soviet Empire, and that means he won't stop with parts of Ukraine. Or with all of Ukraine, for that matter.
Putin's comments on the Soviet Union
'"Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains".
Who outside Putin and his supporters wants the Soviet Union restored?
Putin does not. He may feel nostalgia for the country of his boyhood but he knows that the restoration of the USSR is impossible in political terms and far too expensive.
The Central Asian 'stans like being independent and some are doing quite well economically but overall would cost a fortune to bring them up to Russian standards, from infrastructure to education and health care.
Crimea, alone, was a massive drain on resources. Ukraine since 1991 has been famous for corruption rather than building infrastructure. Rumour has it that Crimea was in last place for any funding.
Some of the more reactionary, conservative Russian politicians might want the USSR restored.
You are ill-informed. Inflation in Russia is over 8%. Things are getting worse.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russias-slowing-wartime-economy-pushes-kremlin-to-increase-taxes-and-fees
Here's the conclusion from an article with plenty of stats.
“For the coming 12 or 14 months, Putin has enough money to maintain the current war effort and the current level of expenditures.”
After that, she said, “he will need to make tough choices, trade-offs between maintaining military effort or, for example, maintaining consumer abundance so people won’t feel 100% that the war is going on.”
Bottom line. Ukraine will win the war by hanging on if the EU and the US back Ukraine up economically and militarily.
"Bottom line. Ukraine will win the war by hanging on if the EU and the US back Ukraine up economically and militarily. "
100% correct, Putin isn't trying to get a deal because he thinks he can just steamroll Ukraine like he thought in 2022. He is looking for a deal because the costs of the war will eventually chip away at his power.
If Putin has a hole card time may be running out for him to play it.
Count me a someone who thinks any outcome is unjust if it doesn't return to Ukraine all Ukranian territory that was stolen militarily by Russia. I'll freely admit that I'm not good at realpolitik. Ethics, instead. Right and wrong.
I sympathize with your preference for 'just' solutions, but frankly, I doubt that there are *any* territories on Earth that have never been 'stolen militarily'. Sadly, the world doesn't work that way; even sadder, we – the USA – are in no position to lecture anyone on 'justice' or peaceful resolution of territorial disputes.
I don't care whether or not territories have been stolen in the significant past (let's say more than something like 25 or 50 years ago), Throughout history, humans have done evil things, and that doesn't justify doing any other than try our best to not repeat that going forward.
The US fought in WWII to stop and reverse the evils of the third reich. We had allies, but what I'm going to say applies to both the US and the other Allies. The US fought in major military campaigns in which military forces gained military control over territory that was at the time of the war controlled by the Axis. And the Axis, over the course of the war was attempting to gain military control over more territory with each passing month. We gained military control over parts of Italy, France, the Balkans, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Similarly in the South Pacific region. When WWII ended in Allied miltary victory, the victors did not claim and annex any of those regions. Those geographical territories were returned to their prior governmental control. That marked a HUGE change from prior handling of military "conquest".
I'd argue that ever since 1945 and the end of WWII, the world changed. I'm not aware of any significant case where one country has invaded a neighboring country for the purpose of conquest and acquisition of territory.
You can argue that major powers have continued to behave imperialistically post WWI, but those efforts have been economic, political and diplomatic. Enlighten me if you can, but I think the conflicts post WWII have been mostly civil wars/governmental genocide within the state/small potatoes border disputes. (Let's leave the middle east out of this for now, as my opinions are a but different regarding that region).
Well, I hope we can all agree that I was right about one thing, at least ("…I'm gonna take a lot of heat for saying this"). Thx, all, for keeping it civil, and thx, Maha, for hosting a site where that is expected and normal!
As for the objections to my comment that claim that I'm misinformed (or disinformed) – I guess we'll see. The BS preceding the Invasion of Iraq has left me *permanently* suspicious of US MSM when it comes to info needed to make good decisions about US Foreign Policy. I *still* consider the NeoCons to be the most dangerous force in US politics, so I'm disturbed to see that two of the long quotes in the OP were penned by confirmed NeoCons.
Friedman is the most obvious; and IMO, NYT FP reporting is tainted by the fact that they continue to publish his 'work' (along with many other NeoCon Pundits who 'fell up' despite (?) their backing of the Iraq fiasco).
Anne Applebaum also supported the invasion: ‘It’s too soon to tell’ how the Iraq war went – Anne Applebaum
In general, I fear that the main-stream reporting that most people here depend on has consistently painted a biased picture of the 'Russo-Ukraine War'. The most egregious example of that was the blind acceptance of the allegation (attributed to 'Western Security Experts') that Russia blew up the NordStream pipeline.
In a world where most major news sources are owned by Zillionaires, we all need to be careful about believing what "has been widely reported"…
@elkern: Okay, but, hopefully respectfully, I suggest there is a major difference between the Ukraine situation and the US invasion of Iraq. In the case of Ukraine, a foreign power (Russia) invaded Ukraine.
For me, my skepticism at the time of Iraq war II, and the fact that I've considered Iraq war II a mistake and indefensible are not inconsistent with my view that Russia's invasions of Crimea and subsequently all of Ukraine are both indefensible.
I don't see a consistency in your evaluation of Iraq war II and the most recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
And what I'm talking about here is on-the-ground facts, as opposed to political posturing and media reporting. Facts on the ground.
Yes, And in the case of Iraq, a foreign power (USA) invaded Iraq. The stated reasons/excuses – alleged connections with Al Qaida, imaginary WMD programs – were *all lies*: intentional falsehoods. The real reasons were Oil and Israel.
I'm *not* defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine! (and yes, I use the word 'invasion' for both situations, because that's the right word for 'this country attacked that one with a big army'.)
I'm saying that American complaints about Russia's invasion of Ukraine ring hollow.
Regarding the current military and strategic situation… I'll try to describe it in neutral terms, so maybe we clarify our disagreements.
1. Russia is currently 'winning' all aspects of the ground war in Ukraine. It is advancing – albeit slowly – along a wide front, and Ukraine has does not seem to have forces for anything more than futile, local counter-attacks. Russia has air superiority which extends well beyond the front lines, covering (at least) all of Eastern Ukraine, so Ukraine has logistical problems, too. Ukraine has remarkably effective drone forces (this will be mandatory reading at military academies around the world for a century!), but Russia is (slowly) finding ways to counter that; the drones can slow Russian advances, but it can't stop them.
2. Western hopes for a Ukrainian victory now focus entirely on Strategic War: using long-range missiles, drones, and sanctions to disrupt the Russian economy and society to the point of collapse – *before* Ukraine's ground forces collapse.
Am I really wrong about this?
Close enough for government purposes.
Western hopes for a Ukrainian victory now focus entirely on Strategic War: using long-range missiles, drones, and sanctions to disrupt the Russian economy and society to the point of collapse
Of course sanctions have worked really well so far. Import substitution seems to have give Russian industry and agriculture a real boost. This may not have been what NATO intended.
Currently the Ukrainian rocket and drone attacks on the old Russia are pinpricks. They are doing some damage but Ukraine does not have enough long range drones of sufficient weight to do really serious damage.