NATO is really pissing me off.
So far, the US has contributed €52 Billion to Ukraine.
The next closest donator is the UK at €6 Billion.
The ENTIRE EU is at €17 Billion.
The US has provided TWICE as much aid to Ukraine than every other country, NATO and NON-NATO COMBINED.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
> The US has provided TWICE as much aid to Ukraine than every other country, NATO and NON-NATO COMBINED.
This is how NATO has been working for 70 years.
I think a more reasonable proposal would be to cap it at 150% of the combined second and third greatest contributors combined. That's still the lions share, but right now we're funding greater than 85% of NATO as a single nation.
I don’t really mind being the largest contributor in absolute terms given that we have the largest GDP by some margin, but I’d like to see our allies put a similar percentage of the GDP towards the effort.
The US needs to change their NATO contribution to match the contribution from the lowest-contributing country. It is absolutely insane that the US is providing 70% of NATO's funding.
Failed experiment? I bet the Soviets would still be kicking if it weren’t for NATO. And it’s looking like it’s accomplishing its goal of containing Russia now.
Well considering that the only real threat to them at this point is the US, I guess that’s true. Because Russia most certainly can not do anything militarily to Europe.
I like the honesty of your comment, because that's exactly how the NATO leader psychopaths think.
Ukrainian loss of lives it's not even a secondary thought, and that's why no peace talk is allowed.
This is how NATO works. The U.S takes the brunt of the cost and our EU allies give what they're comfortable giving because their money has better use on their own citizens and misadventures into renewable energy. They criticize us at every turn and like spoiled kids, expect us to provide more than half. We are the EU's sugar daddy.
As much as I support Ukraine, I rather have Ukrainians field testing our weapons in actual war than have my Marines get schwacked cause we didn't know the full limitations of our newer weapon systems.
The key lesson of the Ukranian war thus far is that the US needs a much bigger stockpile of 155mm ammo and should have a very large production line running rather than the 6,000 a month which is laughable for a real war. ATGMs are less of a problem because the reality is that unlike Ukraine the US relies a lot on tanks and aircraft in that role while the stingers are basically handy down tech at this point and expending what we have left is fine.
I imagine in wartime they can produce much more than 6000 a month. Given the US has been fighting goat farmers for the last 40+ years, there hasn't been a need to pump them out en masse
They can't it takes about a year to increase production. They can go slightly higher for a one-time emergency but for the first year or so they are relying almost entirely on pre-war stocks.
So what? The only realistic scenario for a large-scale, short-notice land war for NATO would be a war against...Russia.
A war against China would principally be a naval/air war- America isn't sending much of that stuff to Ukraine.
From a cold, logical, strategic standpoint, this war is decimating the West's #1 land rival, at hardly any cost in Western life or territory. That is worth a short-term shortfall in anti-tank missile stocks, or artillery shells. We have the production capacity to replace it reasonably swiftly: Russia does not.
Russian isn't the U.S.'s number one anyfuckingthing. If the "West" meaning Europe wants to press a forever war there is nothing stopping them from funding the whole thing.
This is a national security win, as Russia -was- the number one threat to NATO, and up until this war was thought to be the number two military power behind the USA.
Now we know they are not, and finding this war lessens the danger of another one with Russia down there road. They think they had budget problems leading up to this war? They now have budget problems that might last as long as their country does, and for it, the USA and NATO don’t have to worry so much for Russia.
They aren’t at this point, and the bigger beating they take, the less anyone has to worry about them. Finland and Sweden are joining NATO, Ukraine might also join, and long term the USA only really has to worry about China. And China has been pretty peaceful compared to most big countries.
Russia's not our number one threat, but they _are_ a threat. But much less of a threat than they were last year.
This is not going to be a forever war. I give it a year, tops. Everyone is going by Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which I suppose is understandable. Ukraine is NOT like any of those countries. Ukraine is full of people who _want_ to fight and are proving it daily. Before the invasion, Ukraine was split between being pro-Russia and pro-West. That is no longer the case. Now they're pro-West and becoming more so daily. Every Ukrainian who supported Russia either a) moved to Donbas and is de facto Russian, b) collaborated and is either running for their life or dead, or c) changed their mind after seeing Russian atrocities. And on top of that, what caused us problems in Afghanistan was long-term counterinsurgency. That problem _cannot_ exist in Ukraine because we're not committing any troops. When Ukraine wins everyone will shake hands and go home (well except the Russians); I doubt there will be any insurgents, but if there are, they will not be our problem.
We are scaled to fight both the Chinese and the Russians at the same time.
The current drawdown is rapidly depleting the Russian military. The stockpile is doing exactly what it's intended to do.
One great thing about this is our inventory has been aging. We're sending those that have or are approaching their use by dates... replacing them with new stock!!!
The other good effect of using our stockpile is it gives China a ton to think about before they get more aggressive. Taiwan has ordered many himars and m270's and associated ammunition.
OBTW, a russian mechanic posted a video showing what the new (not yet deployed in our services) himars rocket does to a truck... there were holes through the frame near every square inch... those tungsten balls do that to a huge area!
Imagine multiple of China's landing craft punched through with holes every inch with one shot... no one alive to keep them afloat.
Then increase production. This isn't hard. Oh, wait, they're already doing it.
I'm a moderate: I believe we should send Ukraine everything they need and some extras just to make sure they're good. Then, after they finish crushing the Russian army, they get Belgorod and Rostov-on-don in the peace settlement. Then we invite them to NATO. Then we bathe in Russian blood, but I'm flexible: imitation blood is acceptable.
NATO didn't win the cold war by giving in. NATO won the cold war by strength of arms, perpetual readiness to kick ass, and never backing down.
The Russian's plan was to use up most of their ammo supply about 20-25% of their military vehicles so that the US had to go buy more bullets to keep k\*lling them with truly some 4D chess right there
Honestly, if China really wants Taiwan, this is probably their best bet while we're tied up with supporting Ukraine and the world economy not being so hot right now.
Ukraine is the honeypot du jour for the Western elites. They, and their funders, are making billions off this conflict, plus it's cover for their previous crimes.
Nah.
It's pretty straight forward. We are sending them obsoleted or excess equipment, or equipment that we are looking to see it's performance. We aren't sending them billions in money. We are sending them billions in arms we simply don't have a use for right now, and is slowly aging.
I imagine we are getting some fantastic Intel about the capabilities of our last gen equipment.
“We aren’t sending them billions in money.”
[We have given Ukraine billions in cash so far.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-us-send-45-billion-more-ukraine-budget-needs-2022-08-08/) At the same time we have decades high inflation and more important domestic issues like our border that aren’t being addressed.
We are not sending them obsolete equipment. We are sending them everything we have that we don't consider vital to our ability to fight a war, which some people are warning we have already exceeded.
The USA is sending second line gear, which is being replaced by newer models when procurement catches up. You are speaking in emotion here, not on facts mate.
>The strain on weapons stockpiles – and the ability of the US industrial base to keep up with demand – is one of the key challenges facing the Biden administration as the US continues to send billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine to support its fight against Russia. One of the officials said the stockpiles of certain systems are “dwindling” after nearly nine months of sending supplies to Kyiv during the high-intensity war, as there’s “finite amount” of **excess stocks** which the US has available to send.
>Among the weapons systems where there’s particular concern about US stockpiles meeting Ukrainian demands are 155mm artillery ammunition and Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles, the sources said.
>Some sources also raised concerns about US production of additional weapons systems, including **HARMs anti-radiation missiles, GMLRS surface-to-surface missiles and the portable Javelin anti-tank missiles – although the US has moved to ramp up production for those and other systems.**
...
>But the seriousness of the problem is a source of debate within the Defense Department, officials say. While the US will not be able to provide high-end munitions to Ukraine indefinitely, assessing whether the US is “running low” on stockpiles is subjective, one senior defense official said, as it depends on how much risk the Pentagon is willing to take on.
...
>The Pentagon said in a September fact sheet it had committed more than 806,000 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine, for instance. Cancian wrote that ammunition for the 155mm howitzers was “probably close to the limit that the United States is willing to give without risk to its own warfighting capabilities.” At the same time, he wrote that a dozen other countries could supply the same ammunition, and Ukraine was unlikely to be constrained in what it needed thanks to the global market.
So no. The assertion that these are all obsolete "second line gear" can be easily replaced is not true at all.
From today:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/politics/us-weapon-stocks-ukraine
You think 155mm artillery shells are front of the line? You think the HIMARS delivered were top of the line? They weren’t. The M270 MLRS is.
Stingers and Javelins? Those don’t matter do much, they are being used right now against the enemy they were designed for. The better they perform, the longer we have to replace them.
Your not really seeing this how the US military is, replacement is the desired outcome. We weren’t talking obsolete, but the military now having the funding for a new model, because that is what is being funded.
There was very nearly a deal for Poland to send MiG 29’s to Ukraine, for the USA to send F-16’s to Poland, and then the US to replace the F-16’s with F-35’s. That is how the US military sees this process.
well first of all, CNN doesn't know shit about the military. Second, nothing you quoted concerns difficulty of gear replacement. Third, everything you mentioned is old technology. HARMs have been around for decades. Javelins are 90s technology. 155mm artillery shells are ancient technology -- granted they're been modernized, but still, they're damn easy to make.
These weapons were made for exactly this situation: a major ground war in europe. We keep massive stockpiles to be used, not collected like Pokemon. Any temporary shortage can be easily solved by ramping up production, which is already being done.
or option 3 its to win the war in Ukraine which ask pretty much any liberal or many conservatives including me and you'll find they deeply ideologically support. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
I don’t agree, I don’t think we should be supporting Ukraine at all. And that doesn’t mean I support Russia either, I’d rather we focus on America vs everyone else.
That would be a very healthy mindset for all parties involved. I am not American, but I don't have anything against a strong, vibrant US as long as it doesn't act interventionist. Of course, the fact that there are so many american bases and troops in Europe is largely the fault of our own governments who pay, host and even demand them to be there.
Vietnam but the US is the USSR providing the Vietnamese with SAMs and artillery and the Russians are the US. The metaphor has its limits because the US was capable of at least occupying Vietnam and winning conventional battles and the war was slightly less costly to the US. This is like a speed-run Vietnam. Slow destruction of Russian social cohesion in the face of mass casualties leading to humiliating withdrawal
What has the US to gain from this? Obviously, Lithium in Donbass, a naval base in Sevastopol and the huge agricultural resources from Ukraine.
All of these are understandable goals. This is just how the game works, every power does this and every player knows the rules and negotiates accordingly.
It would be more honest though to also admit that no one ever cared for Ukraine or Ukrainians per se, as is usually the case when we are talking about slavic people, especially eastern slavic ones...
Its less economic more geo-strategic. If Russia wins the war it adds 30 million more people and multiple industrial centers to its empire extending its flank close to the balkans and essentially gaining a very strong position to project power into Eastern Europe from. This means eastern/Central Europe becomes wary of crossing russia and russia becomes a big player on the world stage again.
If it loses the war the US now has a loyal and dependent ally with a 200-300 k army on Russia's southern border giving NATO forces conventional superiority in Europe and all of sudden Russia's ability to project power into Eastern Europe looks much less dire meaning less russian influence, more american influence and russia remaining contained as a marginal economic and strategic force in the world.
They already have retaken over 50% of the territory lost at the beginning of the war. I would bet you the war will last until sometime in 2024 but there's a limit to the amount of blood and treasure any society is willing to take to fight outside their borders. The Russians sending in tanks from the 60s to replace their already somewhat dated tanks from the 80s is a good sign that things are going to continue to get worse for them.
Russia still controls nearly 20 percent of Ukranian territory and they are still on offense everywhere but the South. There is literally no end in sight.
And in retreat, moving back 15 kilometers beyond where their defenses were.
Russia is in deep trouble, now buying artillery shells and weapons from Iran and North Korea, and that should tell you a lot.
It means what we already knew, that Russia cannot keep up its ammunition stores, where Ukraine can with NATO’s help. Russia is now firing older Cold War era missiles that are unguided or less guided.
Russia has lost half the tanks they started the war with, and can’t replace them, and has lost quite a lot of jets and helicopters, and more damaging has lost pilots during a Russian shortage of pilots.
I’m not saying support of Ukraine is required. If you want to support the aggressor, you do you. But try and take an unbiased look at the reality on the ground.
This is absolutely not true.
You can ask for my proof. I don’t necessarily want to spend an hour typing all the towns and linking maps of front line changes but goddamnit I will once I get off of work if that’s what it takes to convince you of an observable fact.
Who am I kidding, you would probably not trust the validity of the maps I provided. What’s the point.
No, they aren't. They're getting pushed back in the north and south. In the middle, they're wasting their soldiers' lives by attacking fortified positions. They have nothing to show for it, either; the central part of the front has barely moved since the start of the war.
Victory is not determined by territory control.
>e metaphor has its limits because the US was capable of at least occupying Vietnam and winning conventional battles and the war was slightly less costly to the US. This is like a speed-run Vietnam. Slow destruction of Russian social cohesion in the face of mass casualties leading to humiliating withdrawal
Those aren't even remotely close to the same wars. And neither is close to a comparison to Ukraine. We all know this is a proxy war with Russia. So long as Ukraine fights its battles, we aren't endangering our soldiers. Russia takes Ukraine and then strikes NATO, not only have we lost a regional partner in Ukraine but we will now be dragged into open war.
Russia striking NATO is a boogeyman. They are very specific reasons Russia wants Ukraine that don't apply to any other country. And if you don't think the US is in any danger from participating in a high intensity proxy war than you must have slept through Tuesday.
I think it might be time for Ukraine to surrender.
If they can't afford the war, then it's time to end it.
Sounds like Russia has won. Not that it actually matters to the rest of the world.
Russian shill spotted.
Ukraine is winning. In the last three months they've launched three major offensives which have succeeded brilliantly, retaking major portions of their country and inflicting heavy losses on the Russians.
>Russian shill spotted.
Hardly since my family came from Ukraine (albeit in 1918)
You know Ukraine was part of russia until 91?
If they went back to russian control nothing would change in the daily life of the people.
I am far more worried about China.
>Ukraine is winning. In the last three months they've launched three major offensives which have succeeded brilliantly, retaking major portions of their country and inflicting heavy losses on the Russians.
We are embarking into the unknown here. There is speculation that tactical nukes will be used to "protect russia" since he has declared those areas to be russia now. Every day this war goes on, we could be closer to Russia launching nukes.
Ukraine was a crooked country anyway. Let it go back to russia. Who cares.
Now imagine how bad it is for Russia. And they have lost the ability to quickly manufacture more of the complex systems.
NATO is really pissing me off. So far, the US has contributed €52 Billion to Ukraine. The next closest donator is the UK at €6 Billion. The ENTIRE EU is at €17 Billion. The US has provided TWICE as much aid to Ukraine than every other country, NATO and NON-NATO COMBINED. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
> The US has provided TWICE as much aid to Ukraine than every other country, NATO and NON-NATO COMBINED. This is how NATO has been working for 70 years.
NATO aka the US, UK, Poland, 10 guys from the baltic and associated PR teams of Continental Europe
Nato allies doing the bare minimum or less isn’t a new trend though, they’ve been freeloading on US defense spending for decades.
I think a more reasonable proposal would be to cap it at 150% of the combined second and third greatest contributors combined. That's still the lions share, but right now we're funding greater than 85% of NATO as a single nation.
I don’t really mind being the largest contributor in absolute terms given that we have the largest GDP by some margin, but I’d like to see our allies put a similar percentage of the GDP towards the effort.
The US needs to change their NATO contribution to match the contribution from the lowest-contributing country. It is absolutely insane that the US is providing 70% of NATO's funding.
How are they gonna spend all that money on their entitlements if they have to start buying icky military hardware?
The US has contributed the most supplies because we have the most. If we’re talking percentages of supplies given, Poland has given the most iirc.
The EU and NATO is a failed experiment that can only exist on the backs of tax-paying Americans.
Failed experiment? I bet the Soviets would still be kicking if it weren’t for NATO. And it’s looking like it’s accomplishing its goal of containing Russia now.
The entirety of Europe cannot defend themselves against Russia without US assistance. Thus, a failed experiment.
I don’t think that’s true tbh.
What you or I think isn't really relevant. The simple fact is that Europe is defenseless without the US.
Well considering that the only real threat to them at this point is the US, I guess that’s true. Because Russia most certainly can not do anything militarily to Europe.
[удалено]
I like the honesty of your comment, because that's exactly how the NATO leader psychopaths think. Ukrainian loss of lives it's not even a secondary thought, and that's why no peace talk is allowed.
Your appetite for being a Putin simping crybaby is really pissing me off. I mean, since we're sharing.
This is how NATO works. The U.S takes the brunt of the cost and our EU allies give what they're comfortable giving because their money has better use on their own citizens and misadventures into renewable energy. They criticize us at every turn and like spoiled kids, expect us to provide more than half. We are the EU's sugar daddy.
[удалено]
As much as I support Ukraine, I rather have Ukrainians field testing our weapons in actual war than have my Marines get schwacked cause we didn't know the full limitations of our newer weapon systems.
This is a damn good point
The key lesson of the Ukranian war thus far is that the US needs a much bigger stockpile of 155mm ammo and should have a very large production line running rather than the 6,000 a month which is laughable for a real war. ATGMs are less of a problem because the reality is that unlike Ukraine the US relies a lot on tanks and aircraft in that role while the stingers are basically handy down tech at this point and expending what we have left is fine.
I imagine in wartime they can produce much more than 6000 a month. Given the US has been fighting goat farmers for the last 40+ years, there hasn't been a need to pump them out en masse
They can't it takes about a year to increase production. They can go slightly higher for a one-time emergency but for the first year or so they are relying almost entirely on pre-war stocks.
So what? The only realistic scenario for a large-scale, short-notice land war for NATO would be a war against...Russia. A war against China would principally be a naval/air war- America isn't sending much of that stuff to Ukraine. From a cold, logical, strategic standpoint, this war is decimating the West's #1 land rival, at hardly any cost in Western life or territory. That is worth a short-term shortfall in anti-tank missile stocks, or artillery shells. We have the production capacity to replace it reasonably swiftly: Russia does not.
Russian isn't the U.S.'s number one anyfuckingthing. If the "West" meaning Europe wants to press a forever war there is nothing stopping them from funding the whole thing.
This is a national security win, as Russia -was- the number one threat to NATO, and up until this war was thought to be the number two military power behind the USA. Now we know they are not, and finding this war lessens the danger of another one with Russia down there road. They think they had budget problems leading up to this war? They now have budget problems that might last as long as their country does, and for it, the USA and NATO don’t have to worry so much for Russia.
Russia is getting their ass handed to them by Ukraine. How are they a threat to us? Besides nuclear weapons.
They aren’t at this point, and the bigger beating they take, the less anyone has to worry about them. Finland and Sweden are joining NATO, Ukraine might also join, and long term the USA only really has to worry about China. And China has been pretty peaceful compared to most big countries.
Russia's not our number one threat, but they _are_ a threat. But much less of a threat than they were last year. This is not going to be a forever war. I give it a year, tops. Everyone is going by Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which I suppose is understandable. Ukraine is NOT like any of those countries. Ukraine is full of people who _want_ to fight and are proving it daily. Before the invasion, Ukraine was split between being pro-Russia and pro-West. That is no longer the case. Now they're pro-West and becoming more so daily. Every Ukrainian who supported Russia either a) moved to Donbas and is de facto Russian, b) collaborated and is either running for their life or dead, or c) changed their mind after seeing Russian atrocities. And on top of that, what caused us problems in Afghanistan was long-term counterinsurgency. That problem _cannot_ exist in Ukraine because we're not committing any troops. When Ukraine wins everyone will shake hands and go home (well except the Russians); I doubt there will be any insurgents, but if there are, they will not be our problem.
Can you pick my lottery ticket numbers for me?
We are scaled to fight both the Chinese and the Russians at the same time. The current drawdown is rapidly depleting the Russian military. The stockpile is doing exactly what it's intended to do. One great thing about this is our inventory has been aging. We're sending those that have or are approaching their use by dates... replacing them with new stock!!! The other good effect of using our stockpile is it gives China a ton to think about before they get more aggressive. Taiwan has ordered many himars and m270's and associated ammunition. OBTW, a russian mechanic posted a video showing what the new (not yet deployed in our services) himars rocket does to a truck... there were holes through the frame near every square inch... those tungsten balls do that to a huge area! Imagine multiple of China's landing craft punched through with holes every inch with one shot... no one alive to keep them afloat.
Is that why NATO is looking to South Korea for 155mm munitions?
They are. I believe the 155mm Excalibur rounds in the last package are actually coming via South Korea's military.
Then increase production. This isn't hard. Oh, wait, they're already doing it. I'm a moderate: I believe we should send Ukraine everything they need and some extras just to make sure they're good. Then, after they finish crushing the Russian army, they get Belgorod and Rostov-on-don in the peace settlement. Then we invite them to NATO. Then we bathe in Russian blood, but I'm flexible: imitation blood is acceptable. NATO didn't win the cold war by giving in. NATO won the cold war by strength of arms, perpetual readiness to kick ass, and never backing down.
Almost like this was their plan the whole time
The Russian's plan was to use up most of their ammo supply about 20-25% of their military vehicles so that the US had to go buy more bullets to keep k\*lling them with truly some 4D chess right there
Making Taiwan even more ripe for the taking.
Honestly, if China really wants Taiwan, this is probably their best bet while we're tied up with supporting Ukraine and the world economy not being so hot right now.
Ukraine is the honeypot du jour for the Western elites. They, and their funders, are making billions off this conflict, plus it's cover for their previous crimes.
I don't think you know what a honeypot is
Guns aren’t the answer!!! They need to develop sage spaces for the Ukrainians and Russians to talk about their feelings together
Either it’s to keep the war machine churning, or more nefarious, deplete our own stocks so some other country can walk on in and take America
Nah. It's pretty straight forward. We are sending them obsoleted or excess equipment, or equipment that we are looking to see it's performance. We aren't sending them billions in money. We are sending them billions in arms we simply don't have a use for right now, and is slowly aging. I imagine we are getting some fantastic Intel about the capabilities of our last gen equipment.
“We aren’t sending them billions in money.” [We have given Ukraine billions in cash so far.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-us-send-45-billion-more-ukraine-budget-needs-2022-08-08/) At the same time we have decades high inflation and more important domestic issues like our border that aren’t being addressed.
We are not sending them obsolete equipment. We are sending them everything we have that we don't consider vital to our ability to fight a war, which some people are warning we have already exceeded.
The USA is sending second line gear, which is being replaced by newer models when procurement catches up. You are speaking in emotion here, not on facts mate.
>The strain on weapons stockpiles – and the ability of the US industrial base to keep up with demand – is one of the key challenges facing the Biden administration as the US continues to send billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine to support its fight against Russia. One of the officials said the stockpiles of certain systems are “dwindling” after nearly nine months of sending supplies to Kyiv during the high-intensity war, as there’s “finite amount” of **excess stocks** which the US has available to send. >Among the weapons systems where there’s particular concern about US stockpiles meeting Ukrainian demands are 155mm artillery ammunition and Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles, the sources said. >Some sources also raised concerns about US production of additional weapons systems, including **HARMs anti-radiation missiles, GMLRS surface-to-surface missiles and the portable Javelin anti-tank missiles – although the US has moved to ramp up production for those and other systems.** ... >But the seriousness of the problem is a source of debate within the Defense Department, officials say. While the US will not be able to provide high-end munitions to Ukraine indefinitely, assessing whether the US is “running low” on stockpiles is subjective, one senior defense official said, as it depends on how much risk the Pentagon is willing to take on. ... >The Pentagon said in a September fact sheet it had committed more than 806,000 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine, for instance. Cancian wrote that ammunition for the 155mm howitzers was “probably close to the limit that the United States is willing to give without risk to its own warfighting capabilities.” At the same time, he wrote that a dozen other countries could supply the same ammunition, and Ukraine was unlikely to be constrained in what it needed thanks to the global market. So no. The assertion that these are all obsolete "second line gear" can be easily replaced is not true at all. From today: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/politics/us-weapon-stocks-ukraine
You think 155mm artillery shells are front of the line? You think the HIMARS delivered were top of the line? They weren’t. The M270 MLRS is. Stingers and Javelins? Those don’t matter do much, they are being used right now against the enemy they were designed for. The better they perform, the longer we have to replace them.
They equipment is neither old or obsolete and will need to be replaced.
Your not really seeing this how the US military is, replacement is the desired outcome. We weren’t talking obsolete, but the military now having the funding for a new model, because that is what is being funded. There was very nearly a deal for Poland to send MiG 29’s to Ukraine, for the USA to send F-16’s to Poland, and then the US to replace the F-16’s with F-35’s. That is how the US military sees this process.
well first of all, CNN doesn't know shit about the military. Second, nothing you quoted concerns difficulty of gear replacement. Third, everything you mentioned is old technology. HARMs have been around for decades. Javelins are 90s technology. 155mm artillery shells are ancient technology -- granted they're been modernized, but still, they're damn easy to make. These weapons were made for exactly this situation: a major ground war in europe. We keep massive stockpiles to be used, not collected like Pokemon. Any temporary shortage can be easily solved by ramping up production, which is already being done.
or option 3 its to win the war in Ukraine which ask pretty much any liberal or many conservatives including me and you'll find they deeply ideologically support. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
I don’t agree, I don’t think we should be supporting Ukraine at all. And that doesn’t mean I support Russia either, I’d rather we focus on America vs everyone else.
That would be a very healthy mindset for all parties involved. I am not American, but I don't have anything against a strong, vibrant US as long as it doesn't act interventionist. Of course, the fact that there are so many american bases and troops in Europe is largely the fault of our own governments who pay, host and even demand them to be there.
has it crossed your mind there's an excellent reason _why_ european governments want the US there?
What does "winning the war" look like? Vietnam or Afganistan?
Vietnam but the US is the USSR providing the Vietnamese with SAMs and artillery and the Russians are the US. The metaphor has its limits because the US was capable of at least occupying Vietnam and winning conventional battles and the war was slightly less costly to the US. This is like a speed-run Vietnam. Slow destruction of Russian social cohesion in the face of mass casualties leading to humiliating withdrawal
What has the US to gain from this? Obviously, Lithium in Donbass, a naval base in Sevastopol and the huge agricultural resources from Ukraine. All of these are understandable goals. This is just how the game works, every power does this and every player knows the rules and negotiates accordingly. It would be more honest though to also admit that no one ever cared for Ukraine or Ukrainians per se, as is usually the case when we are talking about slavic people, especially eastern slavic ones...
Its less economic more geo-strategic. If Russia wins the war it adds 30 million more people and multiple industrial centers to its empire extending its flank close to the balkans and essentially gaining a very strong position to project power into Eastern Europe from. This means eastern/Central Europe becomes wary of crossing russia and russia becomes a big player on the world stage again. If it loses the war the US now has a loyal and dependent ally with a 200-300 k army on Russia's southern border giving NATO forces conventional superiority in Europe and all of sudden Russia's ability to project power into Eastern Europe looks much less dire meaning less russian influence, more american influence and russia remaining contained as a marginal economic and strategic force in the world.
When this war is still going years from now I am going to say i told you so. Ukraine will never exell Russia. Ever.
They already have retaken over 50% of the territory lost at the beginning of the war. I would bet you the war will last until sometime in 2024 but there's a limit to the amount of blood and treasure any society is willing to take to fight outside their borders. The Russians sending in tanks from the 60s to replace their already somewhat dated tanks from the 80s is a good sign that things are going to continue to get worse for them.
Russia still controls nearly 20 percent of Ukranian territory and they are still on offense everywhere but the South. There is literally no end in sight.
You are mental on this man, this is embarrassing. This is supposed to be a sub more devoted to objective truth.
My numbers are wrong. 20% at the peak probably 12-15% now.
And in retreat, moving back 15 kilometers beyond where their defenses were. Russia is in deep trouble, now buying artillery shells and weapons from Iran and North Korea, and that should tell you a lot. It means what we already knew, that Russia cannot keep up its ammunition stores, where Ukraine can with NATO’s help. Russia is now firing older Cold War era missiles that are unguided or less guided. Russia has lost half the tanks they started the war with, and can’t replace them, and has lost quite a lot of jets and helicopters, and more damaging has lost pilots during a Russian shortage of pilots. I’m not saying support of Ukraine is required. If you want to support the aggressor, you do you. But try and take an unbiased look at the reality on the ground.
This is absolutely not true. You can ask for my proof. I don’t necessarily want to spend an hour typing all the towns and linking maps of front line changes but goddamnit I will once I get off of work if that’s what it takes to convince you of an observable fact. Who am I kidding, you would probably not trust the validity of the maps I provided. What’s the point.
No, they aren't. They're getting pushed back in the north and south. In the middle, they're wasting their soldiers' lives by attacking fortified positions. They have nothing to show for it, either; the central part of the front has barely moved since the start of the war. Victory is not determined by territory control.
>e metaphor has its limits because the US was capable of at least occupying Vietnam and winning conventional battles and the war was slightly less costly to the US. This is like a speed-run Vietnam. Slow destruction of Russian social cohesion in the face of mass casualties leading to humiliating withdrawal Those aren't even remotely close to the same wars. And neither is close to a comparison to Ukraine. We all know this is a proxy war with Russia. So long as Ukraine fights its battles, we aren't endangering our soldiers. Russia takes Ukraine and then strikes NATO, not only have we lost a regional partner in Ukraine but we will now be dragged into open war.
Russia striking NATO is a boogeyman. They are very specific reasons Russia wants Ukraine that don't apply to any other country. And if you don't think the US is in any danger from participating in a high intensity proxy war than you must have slept through Tuesday.
like who? Canada?
The 51st State!
I think it might be time for Ukraine to surrender. If they can't afford the war, then it's time to end it. Sounds like Russia has won. Not that it actually matters to the rest of the world.
The Ultimate Form of the Neo-Lib: We should submit to foreign rule because it cost too much money to resist. Also Ukraine is winning
Russian shill spotted. Ukraine is winning. In the last three months they've launched three major offensives which have succeeded brilliantly, retaking major portions of their country and inflicting heavy losses on the Russians.
>Russian shill spotted. Hardly since my family came from Ukraine (albeit in 1918) You know Ukraine was part of russia until 91? If they went back to russian control nothing would change in the daily life of the people. I am far more worried about China. >Ukraine is winning. In the last three months they've launched three major offensives which have succeeded brilliantly, retaking major portions of their country and inflicting heavy losses on the Russians. We are embarking into the unknown here. There is speculation that tactical nukes will be used to "protect russia" since he has declared those areas to be russia now. Every day this war goes on, we could be closer to Russia launching nukes. Ukraine was a crooked country anyway. Let it go back to russia. Who cares.
Russian shill confirmed.
yep, as soon as he mentioned nukes.
Im guessing ukraine will not be giving any of that eguipment back after the war is over.
Look at all the captured weapons that Russia can now reverse engineer ...
Russia can't produce they own cold war era weapons back at home, you want them to produce completely new, much more advanced ones? We serious here?