The article doesn’t give a lot of hard numbers, but two of the four things it talks about are European (Franco-British storm shadow missiles and Rheinmetall’s Spanish division producing a shitload of 155mm artillery shells). I think rocket artillery specifically remains pretty much an American thing within NATO, though

Rheinmetall has been setting up factories in Ukraine as well just now, they’re clearly confident in being able to operate under wartime conditions near the front. They’re not alone either, a Czech manufacturer has done the same this year

Why did foreign allies not give far more artillery and artillery ammunition earlier in the war for example?

Though there absolutely was an issue of willingness, actual availability was a real problem too. Ukraine’s existing artillery in 2022 was all Soviet calibres that NATO countries didn’t have much of and weren’t producing much of. Many NATO countries also lacked significant stockpiles and production of their own artillery after decades of favouring other options like air strikes. That’s why when the Czechs arranged that program to massively increase artillery supply to Ukraine, they largely did so by figuring out where else around the world they could buy it

That must be an absolutely mad return on investment in terms of money spent by Ukraine vs money lost by Russia

No idea, I’m afraid

New build ones would be after the war, but they’re saying that the possibility of transferring some of Sweden’s existing aircraft remains open

While this is true, it is easy for graphs to be misleading without being wrong by doing this. Axes not starting at zero is probanly the most common problem, as it’s really easy for people to not notice. With this graph, you could start the y axis at 15% to make it look like Russia is advancing much faster than it is. On the other hand, showing the full 0-100% emphasises how much of Ukraine hasn’t been occupied and how slow the Russian advance is. Neither is untrue at all, but they present very diferent pictures

To be clear I do not think that the author was attempting to be misleading here. It’s just important to remember that it is absolutely possible to be misleading with the truth

I’m pretty sure it is. It starts at about 7%. Crimea is a little over 4% of Ukraine’s total area, and the occupied area of Donetsk and Luhansk on February 24th 2022 was a little smaller than Crimea, so adding those two up seems to account for the “before the war” value

Germany is painfully slow to act, but it has objectively been the biggest backer of Ukraine in terms of material and financial support outside of the USA. It generally seems to need someone else to take the first step, but will follow through once someone does. That’s a hell of a lot better than Hungary

Based on how attached he seems to be to Russia, he’d probably be fuming to see the headline call him Latvian. Which I find quite funny

Well I’m glad you mentioned it because I didn’t know about it and it is quite funny

Oh this article doesn’t say, it’s the RBC one that it links to early on that specifies (and even then the English version of that doesn’t say) https://www.rbc.ua/rus/news/rosiyani-zbili-vlasniy-litak-timchasovo-okupovanim-1760688255.html

The source article says it was an Su-30SM, which is a highly capable and expensive manned jet. It also says the crew ejected successfully

Thanks!

Considering some of the close calls we had from false positives, yes, I absolutely do think that

But again, if you’re so sure that there would be no meaningful retaliation and that Russia would nuke Ukraine just now if it could, why did the Soviets not nuke Afghanistan and why did America not nuke Vietnam?

Machine translation of the text in the image:

Истребитель МиГ-31 ВКС РФ разбился в Липецкой области. Пилот и штурман до последнего уводили боевую машину от жилых домов и катапультировались за несколько секунд до крушения.

A Russian Aerospace Forces MiG-31 fighter jet crashed in the Lipetsk region. The pilot and navigator steered the aircraft away from residential buildings until the very end and ejected just seconds before the crash.

I can’t speak Russian so I won’t notice any errors

If that’s the case, why did the two cold war superpowers not use nukes in Afghanistan or Vietnam?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Russia nuking Ukraine would not provoke a serious reaction from the other nuclear powers?

If by “in the room” we mean “in range of Russia”, yes

Russia have lost hundreds of T-62s in this war already but barely any T-54/55s, so it seems that Russia agrees that fielding the older ones isn’t worthwhile. Or 55s are magically invincible, of course, but I know which version I think is more likely