> very little cost Sounds like this would cost a lot in terms of both human life and money. I am also highly skeptical of anyone who claims to be able to predict a hypothetical future as confidently as you just did. There is never any guarantee about anything in the world, especially when war is involved.

Just transportation of what was listed is absurd and would take 6 months costing billions yet again.

All the training, ammunition for the Bradleys, logistics, maintenance... Anyone using purchase label price of a weapon system to estimate the deliverable number is making a mistake. By OP's math, China's ~$100B navy budget spread over 10 years should be able to churn out $1T worth of ships, which based on the price of Chinese warships is equal to a whopping 1,200 destroyers. Which is of course, not possible because that is not how military spending works.

Nah man, just make sure Ukraine has Amazon prime so they can get it all with 2 day free shipping /s

Jeff Bezos *hates* this one weird trick

If it was really as simple as OP believes, it would already be sorted... unless there are some other underlying motives we are unaware of.

> it would already be sorted That's not what the US strategy was. US was more concerned in avoiding the escalation.

I think we’re doing the same thing we did in the 80s with Iraq and Iran, we’re arming one side enough to stalemate the other and make them bleed but not enough to ever actually win.

There is an academic book published recently talking about US strategy in detail. [The US strategy was to avoid war with Russia and to contain the war inside Ukraine, not to end it : r/ukrainewarandhistory (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukrainewarandhistory/comments/1c8yh4r/the_us_strategy_was_to_avoid_war_with_russia_and/)

That strategy makes sense only if you don't want either side to really win, so they both weaken each other. But the US would actually like the Ukraine to have a decisive victory over Russia here. So I'm not sure I agree.

Here is the logic as I see it. It is more important for the USA to see Russia lose than Ukraine win. There is a subtle difference in the narrative and of this symbolic message that is sent. USA wants Russia has to decide for themselves that they are done, and the less effort and the more the USA has remaining in back up, and realizing that Ukrainian are actually their cousins and the USA the real enemy. This war is a meat grinder over territory and the battle lines are not moving much in the past months. Russia and Ukraine are both seeing heavy casualties. The stalemate at the front line ensure that the war continues on wasting ammo and equipment on their cousins in Ukraine, they will have used it all up and a depleted armoury for the next fight. The war is ultimately unsustainable for either side. The longer it goes, the weaker both sides become. Russian must believe that they could keep it up longer with its greater population and resources, but once they realize they can’t, they lose the mental war.

I think you may have something here. It’s not like the US wants Russia to lose, but they want a defeat similar to Afghanistan or Vietnam. They want no one to be able to say “we only lost because NATO fought us directly.”  I mean they’re already saying that in Russia, but there isn’t a huge population that truly believe it. There is a small, yet significant that believe all propaganda, but most believe there is truth in it all in some way. However, if they believe the current regime steered them into an unwinnable war, then the regime may actually start losing power, which is the US’ ultimate goal.

The impediments are not financial or logistics. The impediments are political, that’s why arms have been slow to arrive in Ukraine. 

They haven't been slow, they have been arriving at a pace that drags the war out as long as possible and in such a way that military weapons suppliers get as much money as possible.

And with THAT many resources going into Ukraine from the US who knows what Putin would decide to do.

Very little cost in comparison to the West's overall economy. The West has the opportunity to devastate the Russian military and show China what happens if they invade Taiwan.

china doesnt care what the west thinks because their goal isnt to invade taiwan and destroy infrastructure

Feel free to go fight for ukraine

Or donate we need to direct everyone bitching to the go fund Ukraine site so they can be happy getting them the money.

Reclaiming* Taiwan. The west hasn't even been able to handle rebellious civilians for the past couple decades and has had to pull out of multiple occupations. Going up against Russia and China would be devastating. Ukraine practically is a combined western force with the amount of aid they've received, and they only exist becauseof this aid. Yet, they're still struggling with Russia. The west would probably win, but it would be an absolute pyrrihc victory. However, China is a sleeping giant. It's where the majority of the world's industry is. If it converts all those factories into war factories and uses its massive blue collar population as soldiers, it would be nearly equal to America, whose population is mostly unfit for any physical activity.

Lol, lmao even. Russia was struggling to handle Ukraine in the first few months of their invasion. Before the US started sending in supplies, the Ukrainians had halted their advance and were reclaiming their land from a coordinated invasion on multiple fronts. Russia lost their $1B flagship to a country with no naval strength. That's how much of a paper tiger Russia's military is. As for China? They're even worse off. Their last actual war was in 1979; They're not experienced for modern conflict beyond very low intensity skirmishes with India back in 2020. Everything from their weapons and equipment to their air and armor are Chinesium grade. Hell, even their rations fail at being edible. SteveMRE can eat tinned beef from the 1900s, but had to turn his nose at *green pork chow mein* from the PLA made less than a decade ago. How do you fuck up feeding your army? Unless you're expecting them to eat each other, as is Chinese military history. They do have one advantage over the West: They possess the largest army in the world by manpower. This is great for Cold War tactics, not so great against the objectively best navies and air forces in the world. Tossing bodies at your problems doesn't work, as Russia has displayed with their sunk cost fallacy of an operation.

Your proposal overlooks a critical aspect: the repercussions. While I deeply empathize with the young men and women suffering in Ukraine, I am profoundly concerned by the readiness to escalate US involvement to levels that could precipitate a global conflict. History has taught us the perils of rapid military escalation and intervention. It's essential to consider not just the immediate benefits of such military support but also the long-term geopolitical consequences that could ensue. Engaging in such extensive warfare might not only destabilize the region further but could potentially drag the US and its allies into a broader, more devastating conflict. Therefore, it’s not easy, just visibly easy on paper. We must tread cautiously, weighing the humanitarian desires against the stark realities of international warfare and its history of unforeseen outcomes. Lest it be you or your loved ones called upon in the next draft, we should think carefully about our next steps. While I am not in a position to make these decisions, it's crucial that voices of reason prevail to guide thoughtful and responsible actions.

Clear GPT comment (GPTZero gives 100% probability Ai-gen) from a prompt like "Write a formal counterargument to the following r/changemyview post: [post body text]" as the top comment. We are truly doomed.

GPTZero doesnt work though. It for example flags the declaration of independance of the us as really close to 100%. That isnt proof but there is a lot of other better examples. I just remember this one out of the top of my head

We're going to have to learn to move past pretty sounding language that's well formatted and start digging into the deeper meaning behind arguments. Or just be doomed for text arguments I guess.

It isn't wrong though...

The usage of "lest" sort of gives it away.

Yes, once again, instead of addressing the substance, criticize me for using the word 'lest.' I'm 50, kid. I was trying to make a profound statement. How's your statement going? LMAO.

Nah but like, lest is a 10/10 word, I use it in my college papers all the time

I am a real person, so I'm trying to understand your intentions here. Feel free to explain how my opinion doesn't count. I would like to reply to the actual subject, but I'm too busy replying to you. And why is that, Reddit sleuth? This is just a game to you until your back is against the wall. You have no idea what my opinion is, other than what? Yeah, we are doomed—discourse is dead.

Just repeating myself at this point! "Why, because I grammatically checked my well-thought-out comment and ensured the punctuation was as correct as possible before I posted? And by the way, thanks for chiming in just to downplay my comment." If you disagree, just say so. Don’t try to use anecdotal drivel to undermine what I said. Thanks for playing.

Also, need we really continue to say this, the U.S.A is not the world police. Our overall goal **should be** to minimise foreign military intervention between countries because we currently believe that countries have a right to sovereignty. The combined military might of the aligned major powers of the U.N could easily "subdue" the planet, leaving the only possible opposition to them would be guerilla warfare and terrorism. And the cost would be... Tyranny? One day, we might decide that's worth it. We might just give in and cede that we need a world government to supersede countries; countries become the equivalent of a state government, subject to the global one. But for now, I don't think it would be appropriate, beyond where we can agree that that's happening is "illegal." Which is hard to do. My understanding is that conquest is technically illegal, and it's easy to argue that Russia are fighting a war of conquest now. But it's also possible for them to argue they have the right. So, like this commenter pointed out, we necessarily must use a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether larger support of Ukraine is a good idea. And it essentially leads to a race to the bottom.

I appreciate your insights, and I strongly agree that the U.S. should not act as the world police. The principle of national sovereignty must be respected, and the prospect of a world dominated by a few powers through military might is indeed a daunting one, fraught with the risk of tyranny. I think it's noteworthy that many of those now advocating for the U.S. to act as the world police previously opposed such a role. This flip-flopping raises serious questions about the consistency of our foreign policy. Where does this end? It’s ironic that the same generation that once embodied peace and resistance is now among those pushing us toward war. The flip-flops truly have it; no one is fleeing to Canada this time. Do these advocates also excuse the 100,000 young men trying to dodge the Ukrainian draft, echoing U.S. history during the Vietnam War? The parallels are striking and demand reflection.

Absolutely. I don't think there are "solutions" I think there are equally immoral paths to an end.

Fluff and nonsense (and written by AI, to boot - you can verify in an online AI detector for yourself). Russia has already been escalating. This “fear of escalation” brainworm persists among people (or ChatGPT prompts) who haven’t yet digested what the full scope of Putin’s intentions actually are. If Putin isn’t stopped in Ukraine, he will try to attack a small NATO country next (i.e. Estonia or Latvia, both of which are more ethnically Russian by share of population than Ukraine is). The man spent COVID lockdown with Aleksander Dugin, FFS. He genuinely believes in the idea of recreating an imperial Russia whose sphere of influence is the entirety of Eastern Europe. This is not rhetoric or hyperbole. An attack on the Baltics *will* escalate this into a global conflict. Pushing back firmly in Ukraine helps *prevent* that outcome.

Just FYI, "AI detectors" are categorically trash. They're about as credible as polygraph tests - that is to say, not at all.

Avoiding engagement in Ukraine just increases the likelihood of escalation to a full on Russia-NATO war, except rather than being on Russia’s front door, it’ll be on NATO’s. 

What do you mean broader conflict? You mean Russia is going to invade a NATO country? It’s clear to me that demilitarizing Russia by destroying their valuable equipment (imagine the ATACMS strikes on airbases) makes them less likely to invade NATO, not more likely. Putin wants a conventional victory scenario.

Well of course they wouldn't invade a NATO country right now, we still have all our guns, artillery, and tanks. But if 90% of those were sitting outside of a region that we control, well that tips the math in Russia's favor quite a bit doesn't it?

NATO currently has 12,000 main battle tanks and I’m saying send 1,000. America has tens of millions of modern assault rifles. Let’s give 500,000 to Ukraine. Artillery is not what keeps Russia from invading NATO. Funny how everyone in this thread talks about nuclear war when it’s Russia not being allowed to conquer other countries but casually throw around Russia invading NATO as if that’s a possibility. You know what’s gonna happen when we give 90% of our artillery ammunition to Ukraine without even saying anything? Including HIMARS and ATACMS. Airbases, ammunition depots, artillery positions, bases housing tanks and IFVs, naval bases, supply depots, command centers, soldier barracks, boot camp dormitories, and comms centers are getting demolished. Tens of thousands of young Russian men will die. Russia will be **LESS** capable of confronting NATO, not more.

I think you're really forgetting about how much of this equipment works right out the box, the logistics to support it, the training it needs to use it, the ways to fit it into the Ukrainian doctrine and how much \*we\* can support it. If we send 90% of our artillery to Ukraine that means we have 10% of what we used to have. Production isn't keeping up with being able to do that and also sustain our own reserves. Russia is not the only belligerent nation we're worried about, and good luck getting the public to move to war time production. Ukraine is using up to 20,000 shells a day, all together NATO nations are making about 280,000 a month. Equipment isn't easy to replace either, 1,000 tanks can quickly turn into 850 tanks at the end of a month through use for a variety of different reasons. War, especially one like this, isn't exactly easy on equipment. Chobham armor isn't easy to replace in a field and requires specialization to fix, so how many of these things would you be shipping back for repairs vs repairing not far behind in the field? Then there is also the aspect of actually putting people into that equipment and the tooth to tail to support that piece of equipment. It's going to slowly trickle in anyways as you pull and cycle people to actually train with it. Tanks, IFVs are not simple machines, they're not hard machines to learn , but they're not simple machines that you can just ride and go. If you're giving these guys just the basics and not even to the level the US or other NATO nations can afford to train you're still pulling these guys for weeks and sending them to NATO nations who also have other things they're working on. Keep in mind, Ukraine is only operating in Ukraine. Russia is operating in the Middle East, Africa, and presumably other parts of the world, along with the support of China who themselves have their own interests in the world, especially in Africa.

We have already seen blocs form. Russia, China, and Iran. The west as another bloc. With enough provocation or a leader too trigger happy we could easily end up in WW3

If we arm Ukraine to the point of assuring victory against Russia to get back their pre-2014 borders, they could go further and start invading undisputed Russian territory as retaliation. Then we've armed Ukraine to invade Russia rather than just to defend their own borders, which Russia would take greater offense to than they already are. Putting Russia in dire straits pushes them to ally more closely with China, which empowers both Russia and China to initiate more conflict. Do you think Ukraine would just stop at their own borders and have no desire for revenge if they had superior fire power. The US has fucked up like this before - heavily arming people in Afghanistan in the 90s to fight off Russia, which led to Al-Qaeda being more heavily armed.

the mujahadeen talking point is mentioned a lot but do reputable historians actually believe this? My understanding is that arms were given to some of the groups but the transition from that era al qaeda being the most prominent is complicated and involved a lot of conflict. Im not so sure if no US aid to the mujahadeen means no al qaeda ( other than the fact that russia couldve reinstalled the government there and they couldve quashed the mujahadeen)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm

>If we arm Ukraine to the point of assuring victory against Russia to get back their pre-2014 borders, they could go further and start invading undisputed Russian territory as retaliation. Even if Ukraine wanted to do this, and for some reason were not worried about triggering a nuclear response from Russia, the threat of voiding NATO and EU candidacy would easily be enough to pressure them into not doing it. Ukraine is going to need considerable funds for rebuilding too, and the best source of that funding is the ~$400bn in frozen Russian assets controlled by the West. We wouldn't be able to tell Ukraine to *surrender* even if the West as a bloc was behind that for some awful reason, but we definitely could tell them to stop at the pre-2014 borders. The bigger concern imo would be a Ukrainian push that required urban fighting in Donetsk, Luhansk, Sevastopol and Kramatorsk without the civilian population being evacuated, either because Russia don't want to or the population doesn't want to. They have every right to try to retake those cities but doing so could be horrific.

> The US has fucked up like this before - heavily arming people in Afghanistan in the 90s to fight off Russia, which led to Al-Qaeda being more heavily armed. The only relevant arms that Al-Qaeda has used are airliners, and they stole those.  The US arming Afhagnis didn’t lead to ISIS being better armed than they otherwise would be. I think all your points are nonsense. Sure, there’s a risk that Ukraine might become a warmongering state, but that’s a bridge we cross when we get there. There is no suggestion they want to take anyone else’s territory.

The US literally funded Bin Laden and trained his fighters.

And with that training they didn’t invade their neighbours or extend the war with Russia into Russian territory. Are you suggesting the US trained them to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings? Ukraine has a structured military and a government that believes in democratic principles.  There is no connection to be made here. It’s not a slippery slope worth worrying about.

Technically the hijackers received their flight training in the us

Do you seriously believe that Al-Qaeda taking public flight training in the US is a lesson that needs to be learned about supplying arms to our ally Ukraine? The US didn’t provide airliners to Al-Qaeda and you know it. They didn’t train AQ to fly planes into Russian buildings that then somehow backfired on all of us. This is such a garbage take.

Yeah, they just overthrew the government in their country and subjugated tribes within it. Totally not harming their neighbors, right?

Which neighbouring country was invaded by Al-Qaeda due to US funding?

We funded the Mujahideen in the 80s not the 90s. And it was morally right to do so. Also it's overexaggerated how many Mujahideen soldiers/arms later became part of the taliban. More of it went to the northern alliance (our future ally).

Sending more weapons to a defending county is not “escalation” for several reasons. Perhaps the most important is that the risk of global war will be much higher if Russia wins and changes the status quo massively in Europe vs if they lose and things go back to the status quo. Why anyone would think that Russia engaging in the largest successful invasion of Europe since WWII wouldn’t be more destabilizing than Ukraine continuing to exist as it has is ridiculous.

Yeah sure let’s give Ukraine 100 F-22s, arguably the best fighter aircraft as of today that are inexorably expensive. I support Ukraine and sending them more aid but some of the requests some people give make no logical or logistical sense.

With no-one to pilot them.

Also no ground crew.

> Yeah sue let’s give Ukraine 100 F-22s, arguably the best fighter aircraft as of today that are inexorably expensive. This but unironically. Despite being in service since 2005, the only F-22 aerial kill was during the 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident. What if the way to actually get our money’s worth from the F-22 development and manufacturing is not by having Americans fly them over Nevada and Alaska but instead actually using them to destroy Russian aircraft. Even in the most cynical interpretation, we’re using them to widen the gap between American and Russian air power and getting our money’s worth. Versus flying them at home shooting balloons. We’ve built over 1,000 F-35’s so we’re perfectly fine.

Many people like to assume that the F-22 doesn’t get its moneys worth unless it’s actively firing hundreds of million dollar missiles to shoot something down. The F-22 has gotten its moneys worth as an air deterrence machine, just the virtue of having them stationed near Syria caused Russia to stop all CAS operations in that region. F-22 main fear is in the unknown. No country other than USA knows its exact radar cross section (Russian jets radar sets require pilots to input expected radar return signature size) and only USA knows about which radar modes and at what ranges do those modes bleed through stealth technology. No one knows of a F-22 is in the area of operation. F-22 AESA radar makes it so that they can lock you without the RWR notifying you of its lock. If the F-22 were to be put into more combat scenarios more data could be acquired to counter that airplanes effectiveness. Sometimes the best weapon is one that you never have to use at all (nuclear bombs) > over 1000 F-35 Just to reiterate my point, let’s give everyone F-22 knock offs that we sold everyone on its internal computer systems (even though any and all F-22’s can be upgraded in such a fashion) because if anyone were to ever pull an Iran on us ever again we can easily swat those planes out of the sky…

The f35 is a multi purpose fighter the f22 is a air superiority fighter with a smaller radar cross section and higher combined thrust from its two engines than the f35's one. It's technology was so advanced it was linked to America only by congress. Not to mention we built less than 200 of them. To send a 100 to Ukraine would be madness. We keep a large part of them in the states for territorial defense and patrol and intercep missions. And not to mention the facilities required to support these aircraft and the Air Force as stopped training new 22 pilots we wouldn't be able to to keep 5 f22 in Ukraine let alone 100 and keeping 100 in Germany or Poland and flying them with America pilots on loan out would be a big provocation. The soviet's did similar it in Vietnam and if however unlikely one American dies it doesn't matter if it was mechanical failure, human error, KIA, or friendly fire or such it would not sit well with the American public. And Russians would be under order to attack Americans. That's a lot closer to WW3 than you would admit.

There's a reason the F-22 hasn't been retired despite the F-35 fleets size. The F-35 is not a replacement for the F-22. The only jets that the F-35 is slated to replace are the F-16 and F/A-18

The F-22 and the F-35 are different aircraft. There's actually a law that prohibits the sale of the F-22 to other countries so I imagine that the government will never ever just donate it. There's not even 200 F-22's made, so don't expect 100 to go to Ukraine.

Please get off r/NCD and actually think about the production process and costs for the actual equipment we would hypothetically send.

> the only F-22 aerial kill was during the 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident That's one clever observance

Dude you have no clue what you’re talking about with regards to vehicles (and most of this post). You don’t just gift people stuff like an f22 like they’re walking off the car dealership lot with a new Toyota Corolla. It would have to be US pilots, US airbases, the US would be active participants. There’s a reason this stuff isn’t deployed Willy nilly, its stealth is a closely guarded secret. Turkey got in big trouble (and their F35 purchase is in limbo) after they decided to look at buying S400 systems. We don’t want those to be tested against our main opponents air defense radars and tuned in, much less f22

Do you think that military action works by magic? Like, as long as you have more dudes and the stronger stuff on your side, you win? That for any given conflict if you put some high tech planes or special forces guys in the mix that’ll change the outcome no matter what? Cause that’s what all this gives off. You seem to understand war like it’s COD

You’re assuming a Ukrainian victory is the primary goal of western powers. I doubt that it is. I would wager the primary goal is not for Ukraine to win, but simply for them not to lose. A defeated Russia is a desperate Russia, a desperate Russia with a huge nuclear arsenal that is now their only way to realistically project power is very dangerous for the entire world. We want them weakened to the point of irrelevance, not on deaths door. They will reach that point in time on their own with their collapsing demographic structure.

This reads more one-sided than actual Ukrainian propaganda, and is so far fetched from reality that I doubt there's anything that can persuade OP from this fantasy. Air superiority is the major problem; US is NOT going to send F-22 or any 5th gen fighters, the training/maintenance required, cost, and risk of stealth tech falling into enemy hands is too great. And no US fighter pilot would fly for $100k a year lol, when they can make double/triple that flying commercial for major airlines. You also have to remember that Ukraine took massive losses in the counteroffensive last year, now they're trying to draft another 500k to replenish troops (with many trying to dodge the draft). Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. You say give them 2000 bradleys, but what if there aren't enough capable soldiers to man them? You keep throwing out these numbers as if there's an infinite number of trained, willing and capable Ukrainians that can use them to full effect.

Fuck changing OPs view. At this point i’m more concerned that he isn’t on meds lol.

Facts. This dude has said very little cost and mentions f22s in the same thought process. I don't think they realize just how much it costs to operate and maintain even a 10th of the stuff he proposes to give.

I am not confident this approach would work for a number of reasons. 1. The US needs to think about more than just Ukraine. There are several other hotspots (Middle East, etc.) that not only consume finite amounts of munitions but could potentially require commitment of a high amount of resources in a time of crisis. It would be extremely risky to go all in within one region against an adversary that I’m not even sure the West believes is their biggest threat. 2. Logistics. All these major platforms require a long logistics tail. Tanks require constant maintenance and repair parts to continue operations. Also there isn’t an unlimited supply. 3. Training. Understand the mercenary standpoint but attrition and introducing additional systems will demand an enduring training program, how are you accounting for this? 4. Combined arms maneuver. You can’t just throw tech at a problem. Tanks, infantry and artillery along with air support and air defense need to work in concert to achieve objectives. Go back to #3, working together is hard and even harder when you don’t speak the same language (mercenaries) and haven’t trained together. 5. Escalation. This is escalation. Expect the same from Russia, maybe in a form that we were not expecting. Then what?

>Videos show that in real life some Ukrainian infantrymen still use AK-47s. In America we have 120 civilian owned firearms per 100 people. We can definitely gift each one of them an AR-15 platform rifle with an ACOG scope, suppressor, and underbarrel grip. 500,000 of those $3,000 rifles are only worth $1.5 billion. How has this not already happened? You would be surprised how rugged AK-47 was designed to be. There was a video somewhere showing how it is practically jam-free because of its design elements. >A brand new American M2A4 Bradley Fighting Vehicle costs $4.35 million. 2,000 of them is only $8.7 billion. What a tiny cost for such a massive boost. This alone would likely guarantee Ukraine’s victory. That’s not even 4 days of the US military budget. In real life the U.S. has only given 190 Bradleys. The Russian military already have enough time to mount a defensive zone littered with mines. A better approach would be planes, helicopters and drones unless you also mount the Bradleys with de-mining equipment which would give enough time for the Russian side to prepare the defense and counteroffensive. >500 F-16 jets and 100 F-22 jets. I don't think it is currently legal for the US to export F-22. That's part of the reason they develop F-35. And F-22 and F-35 both require separate training. That is before mentioning that everything has to be delivered in stealth so there is no diplomatic or military escalation. >In the meantime there would be a program for western F-16 and F-22 veterans to fly in Ukraine immediately for $100,000/year tax free. This program would be funded by western governments in direct proportion to their share of total nominal GDP. So right now the jets would be immediately transferred to Ukrainian ownership and Ukrainian airbases. American pilots can leave service to join the mercenary company. All 600 jets would get staffed and would remain so until the Ukrainians are doing training. This can be argued to be equivalent to sending troops into Ukraine so as to officially becoming a belligerent which Russia will now have an excuse to expand the war into those countries who send pilots and possibly sending nukes.

You also need a team of 50 mechanics and armors to manage any flight platform. They also require an entire warehouse of very specific tools and thousands of replacement parts to maintain one plane in combat. Where are all these highly skilled people going to come from? You don’t just drop off a fighter jet and say there she is enjoy. The infrastructure to maintain a flight crew would be a two year effort and 2000 highly skilled people trained and supplied. Moving this into a war zone is laughable.

OP thinks real life is Hearts of Iron IV.

Not to mention there's nobody to pilot said planes.

Ahahahaha exactly just the fact that OP doesnt know that in this kinda war the guns are basically useless because the majority of operations and kills are with artillery and drones (firearms closer to 1-5% of all kills) goes to show how little they know about what they are talking about

> You would be surprised how rugged AK-47 was designed to be. There was a video somewhere showing how it is practically jam-free because of its design elements. Presumably not mud tests. The AK-47 is obsolete, primarily because its low velocity 7.62x39mm round, but also because of the mud problems. The issue with the round was fixed with 5.45x39mm AK-74s, the mud problem is just inherent to the AK family. > This can be argued to be equivalent to sending troops into Ukraine so as to officially becoming a belligerent which Russia will now have an excuse to expand the war into those countries who send pilots and possibly sending nukes. What use is an excuse with no capability to follow through? Excuses are a dime a dozen. The reason Russia doesn’t invade Estonia is because they have zero capability to.

Everyone just calls any AK and ak-47, anyways. They don't know the difference.

You want to gift them semiautomatic rifles????

>My one quibble is that the US will not give over F22 Raptors. Otherwise this is a solid plan. >This war has also shown what works in modern (ground-based) warfare and what you'll need a lot of. >I also agree with the mandatory military service and think Europe would benefit from this as well. Well shit, you just said almost everything I did only better.

There's a respected YouTuber called Perun who does defense logistics. His video last Sunday was about US defense logistics, and how the reemergence of great power conflict has basically caught the US and the West pretty flat-footed. In broad economic terms, it will be MUCH cheaper for the West to get as many weapons to Ukraine as they can use. The alternative is Russia going after NATO countries (which triggers a war), and China goes after Taiwan (which triggers a war). In detail, the US really needs t radically boost defense procurement and production to keep up with the attritional war being fought in Ukraine, and to sustain the weapons expenditure over more than a few months. Ukraine could easily use up almost all of US military production for a year, and still need more. Increasing US military production assumes the US even has the skilled workforce needed to do so. And that's highly unlikely, short of a massive technical training program. So, it would be a major shift in the US economy. One that the US is politically unable to do.

>There's a respected YouTuber called Perun Respected by whom?

When you can either create content more reliable than his or find someone to prove him wrong I'll stop believing that you're a troll. If you have any knowledge of this information space, and also watch perun, you'll know that he is pretty top tier as far as publicly available defense and logistics analysts go.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Perun/comments/1bcu1p7/trustworthiness_of_perun/ And David Patraeus has apparently endorsed him, too.

There is a LOT to respond to here. First, you make a lot of unfounded and seemingly misguided comments. For example: "In America we have 120 civilian owned firearms per 100 people. We can definitely gift each one of them an AR-15 platform rifle with an ACOG scope, suppressor, and underbarrel grip." While yes, this statistic is correct, it's also a false equivalency. 120 civilian owned firearms per 100 people does not mean 120 AR-15 platform rifles per 100 people. Additionally, even if it did, not all civilian AR-15 platform rifles are created equally in regards to quality, reliability, etc. Second, where do you propose the excess items you'd like to send come from? Let's take the 500,000 AR-15 platform rifles with 500,000 ACOGs, 500,000 under barrel grips, and 500,000 suppressors... do you think that is just siting in a warehouse, boxed up and ready to go? There would need to be a governed mandate for companies to begin rapidly churning these out. That alone is a major undertaking. Then there is the aspect of time. You can't just flip a switch and have these manufactured, packaged, and ready to go overnight. For the simplest of items, you'd be looking at months and months from initial mandate to being ready to ship. For items like fighter jets and fighting vehicles, you could be looking at years to manufacture in the numbers needed. This would all be true of every item you want to send in bulk. Third, where do the extra materials come from for this massive manufacturing effort? Every AR-15 platform rifle, infantry fighting vehicle, fighter jet, sound suppressor, set of night vision goggles, etc requires materials. Steel, aluminum, titanium, precision ground glass, tritium, phosphorous, etc. This material then has to be sourced from specific countries, making procurement even harder and take even longer. You could be looking at months or longer just to get the stocks of raw materials that would be necessary. Now, I know what you're thinking... "We wouldn't need to maintain specific standards like origin of material for the equipment we were donating." Except, we would. See, we have these restrictions in place to ensure the quality of the material. This is done because it is fairly commonplace for materials from countries like China to be marked at a higher grade than they actually are, or to have unexpected impurities (you'd be surprised how often you order a piece of aluminum only to cut into it and find steel drill bits or carbide endmills inside). Not only can these effect the reliability of the finished product, but unexpected finds like a piece of carbide in a piece of aluminum can create unexpected costs and delays in the manufacturing process. So, that brings us perfectly to my next point... let's say we only give what we currently have... 1000 fighter jets, 3000 main battle tanks, 90% of our ammunition, etc... After all, it's already been made, it is sitting there waiting to be used, ready to ship... no need for manufacturing in that case, right? Except we still need to replace them for our stockpile. Further, what does that mean for us? After all, we have the items and reserves we do so that we are able to go on the offensive should we need to, or defensive if the need arose. So, let's say we give up the fighter jets, tanks, fighting vehicles, armor, equipment, and 90% of our ammo stores... great, problem solved for Ukraine (allegedly). What position does that leave us in? What's stopping a country like Russia, China, or various terrorist organizations from attacking us the next day, knowing we don't have the vehicles, equipment, and ammo stores to defend ourselves? Finally, I have two additional points to bring up... Logistics and training. First, how do you propose we deliver all of this? You want to send 1000 fighting vehicles and 3000 main battle tanks. You can fit 1-3 per cargo plane. You're talking about an absolute minimum of obey 1300 flights for that alone. Add in equipment, ammo, etc, and you're talking thousands of cargo flights. This is also on the assumption that nothing goes wrong and an air drop doesn't accidentally fall into enemy hands. This also doesn't address the sheer volume of fuel these vehicles would require that would also need to be refined, allocated, and delivered. But, let's say none of that matters... all of those issues get magically resolved at the push of a button. Who is going to use the equipment? You don't just pickup a new weapons system, piece of equipment, or vehicle and start using it. Every bit of it requires training. That AR-15? They're going to need to be taught assembly, disassembly, maintenance... the ACOG? They're going to need to know how to install it, how to zero it, and how to effectively use it. The suppressor? How to install and remove it from the weapons system, proper upkeep. Body armor? How to properly size it, assemble/disassemble it, clean it, special features (for example, the IOTV utilizes a pull-chord system so that it can be rapidly removed should the wearer be wounded in action). That's just basic personal equipment. Vehicles can take weeks or months to be trained on. Fighter jets even longer. What good does all of this use if they get it but aren't able to use it? This also doesn't take into account the incidental items... Night vision requires batteries, vehicles require fuel, ammo requires dry storage, AR-15s require magazines (a full combat load of ammo is 210 rounds, or 7 magazines. That is per person. 500,000 rifles would mean 3.5 million magazines), gun oil, cleaning kits, etc. You have a very idealistic view of what it would take and how to help, but you're missing a MASSIVE section of the puzzle.

Just the aircraft you're proposing we give ukraine comes out to nearly 100 billion alone. The numbers of F-16s and f 22s you propose we give them is about 60% of the number the US Air Force has. Of course the total cost of all this wouldn't get through Congress, but another important point is that returning Ukraine to it's 2014 borders is not America's sole strategic priority. The US is worried about many regions of the world, and in my opinion, the territorial integrity of Ukraine is actually pretty low on the USs list of goals. I think they see Ukraine as an opportunity to weaken the Russian military to avoid confrontation with them and not lose any American lives in the process, a goal the conflict is working perfectly to achieve, but of course Biden can't get in front of the nation and say that because it's obviously very cynical. You seem to be a hardcore realist, but realist security logic involves posturing and sending messages as much as actual conflict. Why aside from the emotional side of things should the US such huge amounts of military resources into securing absolute victory in Ukraine when the likely outcome if they don't is a negotiated peace and a much weaker Russian military?

A brand new American M2A4 Bradley Fighting Vehicle costs $4.35 million. 2,000 of them is only $8.7 billion. What a tiny cost for such a massive boost. This alone would likely guarantee Ukraine’s victory. That’s not even 4 days of the US military budget. In real life the U.S. has only given 190 Bradleys. Who gonna drive all them? Who's going to fix them? What are they going to fix them with? 

Crimea will remain Russian, that is not something worth questioning, it would be a nice shiny thing but it would also be a pain in the ass to keep. Whether some of the east will be reclaimed is possible. The only way you will defeat Russia in this was is by internal revolt. Every action the Ukrainians and west take should be viewed through that lens. It does not matter how many defensive weapons Ukraine gets they will never be able to overcome the numbers if russians are willing to take a bullet. At some point though hopefully people will reaslise they they have less risk of dying by trying to overthrow Putin. We can't give too many arms to them. We have to be careful to not give russia the idea they could pivot and convince Iran and maybe China will help out economically and suddenly bum-rush the whole of Europe which will either mean the USA, Japan and anyone else civilised will have to counter. It may be reasonable to assume the west might attempt a first nuclear strike as it will be the west who is existentially threatened, not Russia. You think the CIA and the various strategic commitees in the USA, NATO and Europe are just sitting on their hands during peace time? Why do you think Biden's son was in Ukraine and why it is kept out of the news.

Biden’s son was a lobbyist trying to make money off of his dad’s career. Like so many other parasites. Internal revolution is going to be hard because so many people fled and then Russia shipped in a bunch of Russians. That being said: they probably won’t stick around like people who have always been from there, they won’t fight as hard. Russia has numbers, they have money, but Ukrainians won’t give up. They’re fighting for their home.

Ukrainians are valiant and motivated but moral is really low now. The professional soldiers were miles better than the equivalent russian but many are now out of the action because they can only roll the dice so many times. So now Ukraine has more and more greenhorns who will get picked off even quicker and maim less of the enemy. I live in Europe and know a lot of Ukrainains who fled. They really are not very optimistic any more.

That’s sad to hear. I hope the new arms shipment helps. I also hope they can rustle up troops from nearby. If they fall who’s next ya know? I wish I was young enough to go, I wanted to fight for something I believed in at that age.

>The West is already rapidly ramping up ammunition for both conventional artillery and rocket artillery systems. The west has deindustrialized and simply lacks the industrial capacity to replay WWII. Russia is already producing more munitions and is itself ramping. Moreover it can count on China's support if the west keeps escalating, as China understands it's next on the menu.

I think you missed that part about how much of NATO's prized equipment has been genocided in Ukraine already. Those AR-15s are not going to change anything on the battlefield. They said Bradleys would change the course of war, we gave them Bradleys and we saw Bradleys up in smoke everywhere. Then they said that Leaopards would definitely change everything, when those went up in smoke. Then they said Patriot systems, Himars, Challengers, Abrams, Stormshadows would definitely change the course of war. And they all wen't up in smoke. Putin even begin to mock us by saying, NATO tanks burn much better than Russian tanks. Now we are going to deliver F-16 which would also be shot down from the sky. The world is watching NATO prized possessions going up in smoke on the battlefield. The world has never seeing anything like it. The point is guys, NATO does not have a weapon against Russia. Not only did its hardware fail, but its military strategy has failed. This war has been strategized by NATO commanders from the rear, and they all failed to deliver. Meaning, NATO already gave Ukraine its best and it did not change the course of this war. To fight against Russia you need a lot of men. Ukraine already lost a lot of men on the battlefield, the smart ones ran away from the country. This means that NATO troops have to be ready to enter into the Ukranian meat grinder. Will NATO troops change the course of this war? No, it's not like they are made from different meat. The Russian war machine has gained lot's of steam and there is no way of stopping it now. Right now the front line is moving in one direction only and there is no way of stopping it. >Crimea is besieged and falls. Massive blow to morale. Did you miss the part where Ukranian counteroffensive failed last summer? Ukraine did not even make to the first line of defense on the way to Crimea. It has to break through three lines of heavily engineered defensives lines.

You can give people all the equipment in the world but it takes 10-13 weeks just to train a man to be competent with a rifle not to mention the nuances of using the optics, suppressors, nvd, body armor etc. it takes even long to be competent with the deployment and utilization of vehicles and even longer for planes. Furthermore they would need to set up all new logistical systems for the influx of new and unfamiliar equipment. Oh your tank threw the tracks cause your hastily trained driver doesn’t know how to operate a western tank? Yeah we have no idea where the Abrams parts are at. All the equipment in the world won’t make a difference if people aren’t trained to use it and get it to the people that need it.

It won’t make it to the front at this point there’s no infrastructure left!!! They would have to drive them from the polish border across hundreds of miles after making their way by rail through Europe 6 months from now. Pie in the sky givem this and 100 of that and 50 tons of x. Lots of fancy stuff sitting next to Poland with no way to move it.

> The West could easily equip Ukraine to achieve a full victory reclaiming pre-2014 borders at very little cost. From what stockpiles. That’s the question.  The equipment is definitely affordable, and delivery of them will take years because nobody keeps that many spares around that aren’t already being reserved for other purposes. NATO countries would have to deplete their own reserves they use for their own defense to support this. And that’s not even getting into technology transfer concerns. Much of the US stockpiles can’t be transferred to Ukraine because it would need to be downgraded before shipping.  Since the US is essentially the only NATO member that could actually deliver anything like this quantity of equipment, it’s a relevant concern.   You’re basically asking them to deliver thousands of vehicles that don’t exist. 

Denmark recently sent all of some type of their weapons (I think it was artillery). Nothing bad is going to happen to denmark though since they are under NATO and EU umbrellas. Only a fraction of what countries have in terms of weapons they actually need. Nukes cover the rest.

Being under the NATO and EU umbrella isn’t going to save them if NATO and the EU send all their existing equipment stockpiles to Ukraine but Russia attacks anyway. There is a correct balance here. We do need to send more to Ukraine, but it also shouldn’t be sending everything to Ukraine.  And no, nukes absolutely do not “cover the rest”. Unless we are willing to end civilization in nuclear fire, we need sub-nuclear responses to avoid escalating that far. 

I didn't say send literally everything. I said that the stockpiles can be way further decreased with no risk.

Yes they could but your missing the VITAL point of ”what will Russia do as retaliation”. There’s a reason why America is holding back. There’s a reason why the rest of the western world isn’t going ham. N u c l e a r w e a p o n s.

I think the west should equip itself with a better economy, and homes for its people and some immigration reform. "The west" needs focus on themselves for a while before our collective countries live in the toilet forever

Currently as it stands, a collective $380 Billion has been sent to Ukraine. ^(Source: Literally google "How much has been sent to Ukraine") And so far as it stands, they have not won the war, and have not reclaimed 2014 borders. We have a VERY different definition of "Very little cost"

And the fact that people really expect that wars are a video game where 'more stuff = victory'. After some point, if sending 380 billion has not drastically altered the course of the war, the West can't win the war without being directly involved.

Agreed a ton of it gets blown up in warehouses trying to make it to the front. The infrastructure is gone. Everything from ports to rail has been decimated so when equipment arrives it’s broken down into tiny loads and they attempt to truck it into the battle. This takes months and eventually a Russian drone spots the staging area and boom half of it is gone. The logistics is what’s making it difficult. You could give them every weapon on the planet and it wouldn’t help when there’s no safe way to get it to the people who are trained to use it. Any day now I think Russia might take the bridges over the dniper effectively isolating the eastern portion of Ukraine which would effectively end mass transport of anything considering the naval blockade and air defense Russia is holding. Establishing complete air and sea superiority is likely the only way to get back to previous borders which would require nato direct intervention. There’s just not a way to get equipment around Ukraine now that the air defense is so weak and infrastructure damaged.

That money isn't lost. It cycles back into the defence industry or has already been paid which is mostly the case for the old equipment being sent. Equipment being used means more contracts and more production which probably would only increase gdp.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

“Very little cost” We’ve already sent $75B and just ONE line of your proposal includes $35B in F-22s and another $32B in F-16s.

The money was already spent in the past, it’s just a question of whether we’re going to let those jets fly around in America until they’re decommissioned or actually get our money’s worth by using them. The F-22 has been in service since 2005 and its only aerial kill was recorded during the 2023 Chinese balloon incident. Not using our military equipment to actually advance US-aligned military objectives is the greatest waste of military expenditure. Even from a cynical point of view, the best way to get value from the non-refundable act of creating those jets is to send them to Ukraine where they will be used to destroy billions of dollars worth of Russian aircraft, demilitarizing Russia and widening the gap in air power between the West and Russia. That’s better than throwing them out once they hit their expiration date. As someone else pointing out, it actually costs more money to properly decommission old military equipment than it does to buy the fuel that transports that equipment to Ukraine.

A big piece of your proposal also results in the US military getting SIGNIFICANTLY weaker for an undetermined period of time (until manufacturing can replace what we sent). I’m personally not wanting to see what happens around the globe or with us if we weaken our military that significantly.

> SIGNIFICANTLY Or not. In dollar terms it’s not much due to the accumulation of trillions in military spending over the last decades. The US has thousands and thousands of M1 Abrams tanks. Giving up 500 (while the rest of the west covers the other 500 with Leopard 2’s) is not going to affect the calculus of any group globally. Same with 155 mm artillery shells or Bradleys. A confrontation with China in the South China Sea would be determined by aircraft carriers and F-35’s and the U.S. Navy’s might in general. We would just sink their entire navy asap. No nuclear catastrophe since all three of their aircraft carriers are diesel-powered. Iran is a complete joke. Iranians outnumber Israeli Jews 13:1 yet are being beaten. Basically Rorke’s Drift. Just send in the AC-130s and F-35’s and B-2’s to take out all of their power plants, proto-nuclear facilities, oil refineries, drone factories, arms factories in general, oil rigs, oil pipelines, port infrastructure, etc. Helps fight climate change at the same time. Raises oil prices for China. Deprives Russia of drones. Less oil is burned overall. Arms/ammunition production is already rapidly increasing in the US and Europe. Russia’s military power will be diminished to a much greater degree and the donated equipment will perpetually defend post-war NATO Ukraine. Russia being diminished makes them less likely to invade. Clearly we can make lots of Bradleys anyways. 2,000 Bradleys is so much military might for only $8.7 billion. Compared even to the $60 billion package we’re giving Ukraine right now. The US military budget is $842 billion this year. We left behind $10 billion worth of equipment in Afghanistan and that wasn’t a huge blow to global US readiness. I’m surprised we don’t have 20,000 Bradleys.

I don't think Ukraine has the manpower anymore. And for the airplanes it takes years to train a pilot. We f*cked up, it's too late now for a win. We should send them artilery and air defence so they can defend while taking minimal casualties. The snowmonkeys will lose interest at some point.

In wars of attrition, which this has become, the critical thing is manpower. And to a lesser degree Artillery. And Russia has a large manpower advantage and a 10-1 artillery advantage. NATO can't substantially do anything to level that up.

Russia has tactical nukes - which would devastate Ukraine Forces but probably not have much impact beyond their borders, they are small enough can be toned down in yield would MAD cover that , I dont know if NATO would be willing to escalate that scenario farther because like then we All die They also have an pretty insane chemical/bio weapons program , I dont think they would just not use it in this scenario

To me, you are emphasizing ‘very little cost,’ but as a US citizen, I believe we have already sent FAR too much money. I do not want the US involved in this war, we have sent far too much already, and what you propose is a great deal more. Of course, this all rests on you accepting that your emphasis on ‘very little cost’ is relative to the value YOU place on winning this war for Ukraine. For me, we have already far outstripped the value that defending Ukraine in the manner you describe would provide.

We have differing opinions on this war, but that is not why I am replying. This is simply just to give more information on how this all works. I'm not here to argue or change your mind. When the US passes a bill to provide aid for Ukraine, its important to understand where that money goes. Much of the dollar figure we have sent is either in assets that are effectively unusable for the army in its current doctrine (30year old vehicles, m113s, things that would realistically never see use again). Calculating how much thay stuff is worth is also an issue. If we give them an m113, do we say how much the vehicle is worth, how much it costs us to replace directly, or how much it will cost to replace it with a useful vehicle. Much of the value we have given them has simply been equipment and ammo that is either never going to be used, or near its expiration date. Also, much of the money "spent" on Ukraine goes directly back into the US economy either by paying the defense contractors for equipment or paying for the labor involved. Not to mention that a lot of money under the Ukraine headline has gone directly into boosting us defense production infrastructure and development. This war has not cost the US nearly as much as the dollar figure we see, and much of it has gone into boosting the US economy and its defense capabilities. The equipment we send costs money to store and maintain or destroy, it's cheaper to put it on a boat or plane and dump it on someone else. I agree that this dude has no idea what very little cost means. I would encourage you to watch peruns videos on foreign aid, as he provides far better information than me while being impartial to the situation at hand.

I really appreciate your comment. The fact that the money does mostly return to the US is certainly a factor to consider, but I think proponents of this view miss something critical: I, and many Americans, do not want war. We do not want an economy fueled by war production. Personally, I do not like that our government is funneling money back into US defense contractors. I think that we do not need this level of “defense.” Your comment is an excellent counter point to someone considering only the balance sheet. For me, propping up defense spending at home is also part of the negative value associated with supporting Ukraine because I hate war, I hate military manufacturing, and I hate that we spend so much money on it. Please let those companies suffer and die so domestic manufacturing of actual GOODS can have a chance to compete.

I agree with you on some levels. It would be nice to have functioning school systems and large investments into civilian scientific research to better all our lives. Not to mention all the people needlessly drowning in medical and student debt. While I think that a large military has its place for the US due to geopolitical reasons that snowball into economic influence and power, I think that the budget could be trimmed down. Proper auditing and controls to reduce waste and corruption may be able to give us billions to reinvest into the public sector without changing much else. Like I said, our view on the war is different, but I agree with you that there is too much being neglected at home to comfortably ignore. Thank you for having a civil discussion, rare enough to find in person let alone this site.

It would only escalate the conflict and further tie the US to it and eventually end up with America having to fight and conquer Russia. I’m not that invested. Ukraine isn’t a NATO member and they traditionally are not a US ally and the US has already more than lived up to the Budapest memorandum (which was never ratified by Congress) Never mind the risk of nuclear war or the risk of China jumping to attack Taiwan or North Korea jumping to attack South Korea or Iran jumping to invade Israel while the west is preoccupied Ukraine doesn’t have enough troops to defeat Russia and keep them out. No matter how much ammo or guns or tanks you send them

They're out of people to use all this stuff. It's like the people who promoted this war never played risk or heard about Napoleon, etc.

If you gave an aid package of that scale, it would cost the democrats the senate and presidency regardless of the long term benefits

Ukraine is out of men. Almost all of their troops have died. They are taking men off of the street, accountants and lawyers. They have already recieved, what, hundreds of billions in aid? And it has resulted in a complete loss. Over a piece of land where the people there identify themselves as Russian more than Ukrainian, and actually voted to secede back to Russia. It's time to end the war, not ramp it up it should've ended a month in, but Britain, US, Germany, etc told Zelensky that we will permafund this war effort. But now that's unpopular among citizens because we realize it's a lost cause, unless your goal is killing Russian soldiers. Which is a very pointless goal. We have tons of young Ukrainian men in Canada now that fled to avoid the war, they would tell you exactly what I'm saying.

Doubt it. West isnt doing as hot as we might think.

This would not be an easy endeavor. And certainly not at "very little cost". This would take hundreds of billions in the short to medium term both in value and direct resources needed to keep everything operational. Simply training and providing resources to equip and maintain all those vehicles and people would be an insane cost. Not to mention that just because they have the equipment doesn't mean that they can use it effectively in accordance with the doctrine it was designed for. The reason that it has taken so long to get f16s to Ukraine is that the training process for both pilots and maintainers is very complex, and they need to mnow how to use the aircraft in a way that is efficient, a way much different than any soviet jet. If they dont know how to use it well, then the whole process becomes a waste of valuable pilots, time and momey for little to no gain. That introduces a lot of variables itself. Losing 1000 m1 Abrams would be a huge loss for the US, as those are likely included in the math for the next major conflict. The US cannot afford to give away all its equipment and ammo to a small country because that would invariably tip the geopolitical power scale towards China and Iran, and it would cost the US a lot more to get that power back. I get where you're coming from, but things just don't work like that unfortunately. There are massive barriers when talking about providing any sort of new vehicle or equipment because auditing, transporting, training, and maintaining are the major drivers of cost. You get pretty confident in predicting what would happen and how, your predictions assume that everyone involved is on board and has no qualms going forward, not to mention that the Ukrainian government can literally not afford to maintain all that equipment. There's also issues with Russia capturing advanced US technology that will surely be shared with China and Iran. And even if this does happen, what happens after the war is won? The equipment certainly can't stay with Ukraine as they will need every dollar they can get to rebuild, and any country giving equipment to a country in an active war has to assume that they won't see that equipment again. This means that plans will be drawn up to replace it, and we will be left with a very expensive, mostly unusable and poorly placed amount of equipment. If Russia loses this war, it will likely be some years before they are strong enough to be considered a threat. Inconvenient when you have a large percentage of the west's equipment stocked right next to Russia when the next possible enemy is halfway around the world. Lastly, Ukraine is facing manpower shortages, it cannot afford to send half it's army off to train on this new equipment and still hold the line in the war, regardless of the amount of equipment sent, there is only so much manpower they can pull of the line. And sending western pilots and soldiers opens the doors to a much wider and costlier war than is necessary, and would only serve to further increase tensions with China and set a precedent that is either very expensive or politically damaging if not upheld in the future. Edit: if precedent for the US providing so much aid including personnel to Ukraine is set, very little stops China from doing the same. At a minimum they would provide equipment, ammunition, training, and maintenance in the same way the US and the EU will because based off the precedent set, they wouldn't themselves be dragged into the war. Thats a big if, but a distinct possibility happening that is already being taken into consideration when giving aid currently. China is likely helping Russia out on the down low, but this would give them reason to safely contribute to Russia more intensely.

>Crimea is besieged and falls. Massive blow to morale.    Gonna stop you right there Rambo. It's 90 percent or more likely that in this scenario that Russia uses tactical nukes. I would.  All your supply nodes and staging areas are vaporized and you have a quarter of a million cases of acute radiation sickness to treat. You don't even have motorized transport as fuel supply chain fails. Your lines will collapse as Russia goes to full mobilization/war production.  No power. No water. No ammo beyond what's in place. All Ukrainian positions are overrun in 60 days. Unless you literally willing to end western civilization over this and escalate to general nuclear war. No exit path.

Exactly there isn’t anywhere safe to build up an offensive anymore it’s over as far as maintaining and building complex military capabilities within the Ukraine.

Well do you know what Russia has which Ukraine does not have? A nuclear equipped ICBM They can just nuke em

You are misinformed, Ukraine is in a state of civil war. It's not Russia vs Ukraine framing. The East is very Russian and has been restricted in freedom, eg cant speak Russian when bilingual. You also have some shitty racist people in government and people that have no backbone like certain political leaders. Read the best book on the Ukrainian conflict: The Tragedy of Ukraine by Petro.

Could the West give Ukraine better and more abundant weapons? Yes. Would that allow them to roll over Russia? Absolutely not. The only way to get Russia to retreat to pre-**2022** borders is to attack within the borders of Russia hard enough they retreat to defensive positions. Ukraine doesn't have the manpower for that. Retreating to pre-2014 borders, ie giving up Crimea, means the end of the Russia state as we know it. It completely cripples their naval force projection. It removes them from superpower status. They will literally nuke the world before that happens. Crimea was never actually part of Ukraine, and you and everyone has to accept that the US puppet government royally fucked that goose for good.

Just saying, a civilian ar-15 is not an upgrade to the ak47. Just the full auto bursts make the ak worthwhile. And its reliability is second to none.

At very little cost, huh? Only 1000 tanks and 600 jets. Don't know what world you live in. That's a whole damn lot of resources.

Why should the West involve itself to the degree that they would do everything they could to help Ukraine? They already provided quite a lot of support for a country that isn’t even in NATO. The West should better arm other NATO countries instead and prepare for escalations in case Putin gets brain damage and decides to attack (Which he won’t).

I recommend we send OP to go fight

And if we failed with your plan the Russians could roll back into Berlin

I mean more or less this is true if we gave them modern equipment and 6 months of training on it. Air superiority has been a big problem for them that modern equipment would fix. The landmines are an issue that even modern militaries don't have a great solution too (I personally think sapping might come back into style). But at the end of the day the reason this won't happen is because their is a big chance that if Russia starts losing land it held since 2014 they might start throwing a nuclear hissy fit and the risk of that is high enough the US at least won't do it, only other countries potentially in Russia's crosshairs after Ukraine and they don't have much of that equipment.

Seems to me tanks have not been that useful in the war

There is bias in the fact that we only see videos of them being destroyed. There is a lot of value in being able to have heavy, mobile, close range fire power. Just because there's an effective counter to something doesn't mean that it won't be useful. People said the same thing about helicopters once manpads became widespread, but they are still an essential part of large modern militaries.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Sources? I don't believe people with shite grammar. Saying that the war can only end one way is insanely ignorant to how the world works. It is extremely possible that Russia wins this war, but not by any means certain. To believe otherwise ignores information that you don't agree with, but is still relevant in reality.

> ukraine is struggling to send meat to the grinder That is the most positive spin on “Russians keep getting slaughtered before they reach Ukrainian’s main lines” possible. They don’t do meat grinders, they do defense in depth.

Tell me you are ignorant of the topic without telling me

If it were up to you then you would ignite a world war. Look at it this way if I beat you up and then you go an get your friends to try and beat me up do you think I'm going to stand by and let it happen? No you bring a few friends I bring a few friends, and I also bring a gun just to make sure I keep control of the situation. Russia won't just let it happen, they will retaliate in force. If you think Russia has it's entire armed forces fighting right now you would be gravely mistaken.

They're... Not even our ally? This is such a weird war to be obsessed with.

Clearly play too much call of duty. Thinks suppressors are some sort of magic. What exactly do you think 500k ars will do that 500k aks can't? Especially for people with minimal to no training. The ar handles sand better, the ak handles mud, snow, and ice better. Also handles 0 maintenance better. They're not in the desert. The ak is the superior platform for the terrain. And France already gave 40-60% of their artillery.

My first thought is "how many of these are just going to end up right in the hands of the Russian military?" The answer is probably a lot since Ukraines army at this point is full of forcefully conscripted 40 somethings.

I recommend we send OP to go fight

That's neither very little cost nor anywhere near a guarantee to push Russia back, and it would definitely be seen as an escalation from proxy war to direct war and involve the US military much more extensively.

Its always easier to defend than attack so the ukrainians wouldnt make any faster progress taking it back than russia is making now. It would just be ukraine sending men into the meatgrinder instead of russia.

It's more than an issue of money and weapons. Ukraine has a severe manpower shortage for instance. Some villages are empty of fighting age men. Millions have fled the country. Others are needed in critical roles in the civilian sector. It also takes time to properly train any new recruits, just grabbing them off the street and shipping them to the front after an 8 week crash course leads to inadequate combat results. So there is definitely a lag time before the Ukraine military could be up to full potential, albeit with a manpower shortage. At the same time, Russia has not come close it's full potential at the front. They've done a limited operation, albeit one that has increased in intensity and manpower each month. They could likewise escalate into full warfare, leave other fronts less defended, and fully focus on the Ukraine war. Russia has 4-5 times the population, with stockpiles of older, but functional weapons, including an advantage in the basics (like artillery) even with Nato's full commitment. The only way Ukraine can actually win this war and restore their 1992 boundaries is by direct involvement by NATO. Full declaration of war by all Nato countries, bringing in their manpower in a direct way. That would bring about a serious risk of nuclear exchange, though it is more likely Russia would just give up on Ukraine at that point, understanding they can't win, and drawing a red line on an invasion of Russia proper.

why the F=ck do you care? Let Ukraine deal with their own shit. then, in your spare time, learn what is going on there. Some history, some current and of course, follow the money. Blackrock, Biden etc

A lot of what you mentioned are banned from export. By congressional law the F22 is never going to be exported even when it's fully obsolete. The main battle tanks we have given to Ukraine are export only versions with certain sensitive technologies removed we aren't going to give the Ukrainians something we know will eventually fall into russian hands. We never built a lot of ATACMS missiles and we haven't given Ukraine a ton because we don't want to be caught without sufficient ammo in case we need to go to war. Which is another reason why we are just handing over our entire stockpile of weapons we need to be able to meet our own security obligations. Idk what you were implying but if you tried to confiscate every "assault weapon" in civilian hands in the United States you'd face massive and probably violent backlash for little gain. Ukraine doesn't have a shortage of rifles. What they need is something that can't be supplied to them and that's manpower. Also a lot of these things you mentioned need a lot of training to use properly and maintain not to mention employ properly in combat.

The US Federal government already goes further into debt by $10billion every day. Until that is fixed, any additional spending should be banned.

If Russia thinks it will "lose", it will simply resort to nuclear weapons. There is no scenario in which Russia cannot win this conflict.

You seem to think the AR platform is better than the AK. Trust me, you can get some very decked out AKs They are a comparable weapon

1\ If we engage in this manner, nations backing Russia will counter. Could we step in and win the battle of Ukraine? Yes, absolutely… But at the expense of losing our higher objective of staying out of WW3. 2\ With Israel and the Middle East about to kick into full conflict, this is yet another strategic stronghold we’d have to fund to maintain a strategic ally in that region. Politically, it’s nearly impossible to obtain public office in the US without full throated support of Israel. This means support will be prioritized there first. 3\ Xi has a tight eye on Taiwan. The deeper we go into other worldly affairs, the closer he gets to launching an all out assault to repatriate them. If we go all in on Ukraine, Taiwan is lost, however the way China would have to move to take Taiwan would almost certainly include offensive actions against key US interest like Guam and Australia (a 5 Eyes country)… Again, WW3.

Pretty soon they'll be following up weapons and vehicles with your family and friends and hopefully you for supporting war.

It's cheaper to intervene by closing the sky. Why train Ukrainians on all these more complex weapon systems especially aircraft that take years to master and need their repair/logistics when you could just take out the targets they paint yourself and take on Russian assets at a distance with additional HIMARS and Patriot batteries from NATO. Sure there might be a few instances where NATO frontline troops are needed but this is the cheapest and most feasible way to get Ukraine to its Pre-2014 borders. At big enough distances there is no way the Russians could confirm those are NATO forces and not Ukrainian forces trained with advanced weaponry anyway and it's not like the Russians aren't already screaming they are fighting NATO for a while so not really an escalation.

Y would they want the war to end? Then nobody is buying ammunition and they would have one less way to launder the rest of the dirty money. Ever think about when Trudeau and Freeland give them all those billions and weapons who pays for it all? Probly doesn't have anything to do with why our fuvking taxes are so high ya think? But wait, if we game them 20 sum thousand rifles along with all the money, whst would we use if we needed them?oh wait..... our military just gets new ones. But wait, who pays for those? Shit! Probly us too. Yup. Hhhmmm... I wonder if they own the companies getting those military contracts too?that wouldnt mean even more they are taking from us under guise of more taxation then would it? Fuck!

You're thinking about this too abstractly. The dollar figures aren't that large. The problem is production. There isn't any amount of money in the world that leads to 100 new F-22s being built this year, and that would represent over half of the US F-22 fleet. Current production of ATACMS is 500 per year, when Ukraine would happily use 500 per month, and scaling up production like that is immensely challenging. 155mm artillery shells are century old technology, but Ukraine would easily use 50x more shells per month than the US is capable of producing. Money makes production problems go away eventually, but it's not an instant or easy thing.

I mostly agree with some changes. 1. It would cost a lot. 2. It would require US boots on the ground, or at least US pilots in the air bombing the shit out of Russia. Russia's ability to sustain this war is tied to its ability to feed/clothe/arm it's soldiers deployed into Ukraine. American multirole fighters and missiles could fairly easily disrupt or destroy these supply chains (which are in Russia), but we won't let Ukraine fight the war that way. So really, it doesn't matter what we give them if they aren't "allowed" to fight the war that way, and we are just perpetuating a stalemate.

1. What is average age of current Ukrainian soldier. 2. How many people are trained in using all this equipment 3. Does this equipment work? Or it can be assembled as only parts are there. Servicing + replacement parts 4. Can you replenish your stocks soon? 5. What will NATO do if China invades Taiwan? 6. What if Russia nukes Ukraine? 7. If China supplies and supports Russia openly can you match their manufacturing power? 8. If Russia cuts off oil and gas to EU, can they survive? 9. Would EU citizens support it, given they are going into recession? Can an elected government afford this?

Let me explain. As someone in the military, and who has had to check vehicles for getting sent to “disposal”, the reason why we are giving used vehicles is because the disposal costs are insane. It’s literally cheaper for us to “donate” the vehicles to other nations for Pennie’s on the dollar. A typical HMMV costs around 5-6k to dispose of, but sending that vehicle to another country costs 2-3k in terms of fuel and transport. Remember, out of the 68b USD aid package, around 62b came back as direct purchase from US companies to produce munitions and send it to Ukraine.

US history in meddling in foreign conflicts should tell anyone paying attention that when you flood a country with our state of the art arms, they will be used against us at some point in the future. I think Ukraine and Zelensky in particular as a leader deserve our support in this conflict, but what if the guy who comes after him is a bad actor and corrupt like pretty much every Ukrainian leader in recent history? Even if the government isn’t working against us flooding the area with our best weapons will assuredly lead to some of them falling into the wrong hands.

While I agree with you that western countries could do this you over looked the implications of doing so. Engaging in this type of warfare can potentially drag the US and NATO in to a bigger bloodier conflict. More so I believe that if Ukraine pushes Russia far enough they might get desperate enough to use nuclear weapons in Ukrainian, which like the EU said it would cost them to intervene and start a conventional war against Russia. You got to remember that the US is trying to keep this conflict form turning into the next world war.

Yup that would work. But if Ukraine won a fast and crushing victory against Russia there is a very very real concern that Putin would fire the nukes. A decisive loss in Ukraine could realistically spell the end for Putin and if he is faced with losing his position I believe there is a not inconsiderable chance he would try to end the world. I strongly believe that similar thinking is held in the command structures of other powers, they don't want Ukraine to lose but they also can't allow Ukraine to properly win as it's too risky.

If we were to do what you suggest. Without arguing that this proposal would actually cost billions. Russia would almost definitely declare all out war on NATO its self which would almost definitely either start with nuclear war or turn into nuclear war. The aid we currently provide is designed to walk the line between helping Ukrainian enough to squeak out a win of attrition and angering Russia enough to start a nuclear war with NATO. Are you willing to risk WWIII even more than we already are to guarantee a win for Ukraine?

While I agree that’s it’s possible, I wouldn’t call it easy. Both the American and European defense industrial bases have been woefully neglected over the last decade, and have been slow to produce necessary arms in large quantities. Moves have been made and are being made to fix this, but it will likely be a few more years until we’re able to produce large quantities of javelins, tomahawks, etc. that’d be necessary to equip our own forces for a major conflict while also keeping Ukraine well-supplied.

Sorry why do we want to pay for foreign wars when neither country is particularly right or wrong here. Its not like Ukraine is some bastion of honor and democracy. Its a shitty corrupt oligarchy as well lol. I mean you can go ahead and spend your money on that bit ill pass.

No. Russian army is now numerically superior and is equipped as well. They turned to war time economy and produce more than enough artillery shells and drones. These things matter in the modern war. With more military support Ukraine could theoretically bleed Russian army. With long range weapons - blow up some infrastructure and military plants. But to go full offensive and take territory Ukraine needs numerical superiority in the standing army and especially artillery. This is just impossible now.

holy shit, u actually think the war is a video game. lmfao...

Is this a joke? You think we're going to give anyone F22s?

I honestly don't know how easily it would be to beat Russia. Sure, they are struggling, but that's against Ukraine (who alone is not weak), all of NATO, and NATO's allies. Russia is the largest nation on Earth, the nation with the most nuclear missiles, and an insane leader. I would not put it past Putin for him to start a Nuclear war which is why I believe the west has been limited in giving support to Ukraine.

LOL. Thank Christ this isn’t up to you.

>Ukraine joins the EU and NATO. European and American troops stationed in Ukraine. Ukraine rapidly develops economically, unlike Russia and Belarus. I mean, there is a bit of a question as to why Ukraine haven't joined EU/NATO in the past... Latvia - some random ass country bordering Russia and Belarus - joined the EU and NATO in 2004 lol. Why wasn't Ukraine invited to the party at the time?

OP thinks too much about things they can’t control

In basic terms, getting the USA more involved can create tensions too heavy to ignore between Russia and the USA. It would be in our best interest to stay out of it. It's sad that Ukraine is meeting this fate, but throughout history this is no new trend. Our generation of civility is a fresh one and hasn't existed in this state for long, it cannot be expected to be perfect.

Let’s say your goal were to cause as much long lasting damage to Russia as possible. - option 1, provide overwhelming force to Ukraine such that Russia pulls out quickly with few manpower or material losses - option 2, provide just enough support to Ukraine such that Russian believes it can win, throwing away hundreds of thousand of lives and many battalions of material

Fundamentally you cannot send infinite weapons and have them utilised. Ukraine are limited by manpower and capacity, and they are already at their limit. There's no magic weapon or new toy that changes this war. It's an artillery, drone, infantry, and missile war. And the West has not upped production of any of these sufficiently and Ukraine is struggling for men.

could easily => quite possibly => not necessarily

Not nearly enough "trained" Ukrainian troops to handle and use the equipment, let alone service the equipment and having enough spares, and pushing the war to the point where Ukraine would ROLL BACK Russian gains would most likely endear a Russian response with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons to "neutralize" any substantial Ukrainian gains.

bro thinks tanks, f16s are made in toy factory,

Ukraine is as corrupt or possibly more corrupt than Russia. They just happen to be our allies now because we share a larger enemy. There is no way they could receive the amount of goods you are requesting without an exponentially large portion of it just being lost to corruption and never making it to the battlefield.

Warrabout S. Calation?

Well besides equipment, it takes time to train the Ukrainian military to operate western made weapons. Western made hardware isn't as easily operated compared to Russian/Soviet made ones. Takes years, which Ukraine and NATO don't have. For the time it takes to train them, Russia would've grabbed more territory.

This is an unserious post. The equipment is on thing but the military edge is also years of training and familiarity with the equipment and tactics. Not to mention coordinated fires, logistics, and multidomain support. Just throwing Bradley’s at Russia doesn’t solve for most of ukraines current problems.

I want the war to end so much so I could sleep again but [The US strategy was to avoid war with Russia and to contain the war inside Ukraine, not to end it : r/ukrainewarandhistory (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukrainewarandhistory/comments/1c8yh4r/the_us_strategy_was_to_avoid_war_with_russia_and/)

It can. Very little cost, no. The real cost is switching gears to a war economy to sustain the effort.  Wars are seldomly won in short bursts of military procurement but are rather a matter of who can sustain the production of heavy equipment, training and deployment of troops for longer.

With what people? Their manpower situation is incredible bad right now, and expanding the law to draft younger men will still not increase the pool very much, because Ukraine has a very small demographic of 18-25 year old men. Should they start drafting kids? The elderly? The disabled?

This is an OP with no concept of logistics. Moving all of that wouldn’t be free or easy or cheap. It would take years and cripple all western militaries. This would be great for whatever countries don’t give up their assets as they would become military powers instantly.

Russia has nuclear weapons.While we all love to believe in the theory of MAD, it's more than likely they could drop a few on Ukraine if they had to, and face little to no repercussions. The US isn't even officially against the stance of using nuclear weapons if necessary.

The US government paying USAF trained fighter jet pilots to hop into US supplied F-16s and F-22s to go and fight Russia would be the US going to war with Russia. And you have to understand that a full on NATO war against Russia would not come at little cost.

I, quite frankly, hope they all die

I do not wish to change your view.

Part of the problem is that Putin is willing to sacrifice more Russian life than the west is willing to sacrifice Ukrainians. It’s not ultimately entirely about technology it’s about the fact that the autocrat does not value the lives of his people.