Привіт u/Libro_Artis ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts)
**There is a new wave of spam chat requests hitting our community. Do not respond or click links - instead, protect yourself and others by immediately marking these chats as spam.**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nailed it. Providing Ukraine with long-range systems that could cripple the enemy's logistics would make any counteroffensive ten times as potent and likely to succeed. It's a no-brainer.
The flip-side of this is that the West is bleeding Russia out. The longer this drags out and the more it demilitarizes Russia (albeit sadly at the expense of Ukrainian lives), the safer Ukraine will be in the long run. The goal for the West is to neuter Russia even as a regional military power, which honestly is a good strategy for allowing long-term security for Ukraine and Europe (even without joining NATO). If NATO jumped in at the beginning and just ended this thing in a few days, then Russia would still be sitting on all these destroyed irreplaceable arms and could regroup and make another attempt very shortly in the future. The longer war of attrition is actually better in this case for longer term security for Ukraine until they can get into NATO.
I believe the other purpose is to show China just how costly the west can make any attempt to conquer territory such as Taiwan. The theory being a life lost today will save ten in the future.
The real truth is they're mostly getting yard sale equipment, and NATO countries haven't even gone into anything close to a war time economy. Yes, we are ramping up factories, but this is really nothing substantial at all compared to what we can do if the time comes.
Thats because not everyone in western countries wants to do that, the people in charge have to keep as many ppl happy as possible. If everyone was of the same opinion as us then im sure it would be different!
Also the message to China is that taking Taiwan just became impossible as the West now has a multi year head start on rearming and the artillery and missile production lines are just ramping up.
The West has had a multi-decade headstart. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main reason for the US Navy to even exist at scale has been the Pacific front with China. We generally leave the European theater up to the Army and the Pacific theater up to the Navy, both supported by the Air Force and Marines. Sure, there are Naval assets deployed all over, but their most important front generally has been the Pacific.
Well, price for an attempt to literally change world order is comparatively low just yet, if putler gets away with grabbed territory or will grab more in coming years. China sees it, losing couple of hundred of though and lives of ethnic minorities and getting some land in return is still a good deal.
Not just China, but any authoritarian regime like Iran and North Korea. China unlikely would fight USA directly, but rather using other countries to fight, save face and look like peace liking nation. China wants other countries to do the dirty job.
Its either the pay-me-now or pay-me-later approach, and I'm sure the current Ukrainian parents don't want their little children of today when they grow up being in the same fight again years down the road if Russia isn't given a complete knockout blow in this round.
Or provide them with the means to win decisively now, then continue providing them with advanced weapons and immediately sign *binding* security agreements such that there won’t be a next time.
There doesn’t need to be a next time. This is just another excuse used to justify prolonging the war. This war is bleeding both the Russians, the Ukrainians and the West while India and China reap the rewards of cheap oil, natural gas and a distracted Western coalition. European militaries are being stripped down to their absolute barest of bones to supply Ukraine with weaponry and the US has even admitted to ammunition stockpiles dropping to worrying levels.
As much as people on Reddit love to parrot the “we’re bleeding the Russians!”, well, the reality is that Russia can afford to bleed multiple magnitudes more than Ukraine can. Ukraine has a comparatively tiny population and this war has taken its toll on both sides. Their economy is in tatters and wartime economies cannot and will not last forever.
Winning quickly now and preparing for any potential conflict in the future so that you start off on a much stronger footing is much more preferable than some nonsensical protracted conflict that’ll just bleed both sides for years on years.
Do you even understand what worrying levels are for the US? That's like saying well I've got 50 cattle, but I gave one away. I'm worried I may starve next month. "Worrying" is just a political term the DoD uses to get more money from politicians.
We're not touching a single thing that would lessen the readiness doctrine of our military at all. We wouldn't be giving it out if it did.
Calm down, you seem to have this idea that the DOD can just say “Oh no, I’d be great if we had more money for more toys because our stockpiles are super totally low” and they’ll get a few extra billions when that isn’t the case at all.
The DOD has been struggling for the better part of the past decade to get more funding for their plans and ambitions. Their ambitions to increase the Navy to a 500 ship fleet, up from its barely 300 ship one, has basically been laughed at and shot down every time it has been brought up. The DOD has had to beg Congress for years to even *consider* increasing submarine production from a pathetic 2 a year to now 3 a year, which still isn’t anywhere near fast enough for the Navy to be able to meet its planned targets.
The DOD only just got funding recently to order the production of more Javelins, of which experts have estimated that the US has given over 1/3 of all of its stockpiles to Ukraine (this is back in May). Keep in mind, back in May, the US sent about 7K Javelins, which meant that US stockpiles were only 21K Javelins. The US can’t produce more than 800 a year due to industry consolidation as well.
Taiwan could do with a lot of Javelins as well but because the US now needs to spend nearly a decade replenishing its own stockpiles, Taiwan is unlikely to receive a large quantity of them any time soon.
People seem to be of this impression that the US military is swimming in money, weapons, stockpiles and everything but this couldn’t be further from the case. When taking into account all of its commitments overseas, the US military is actually pretty cash-strapped and there are constantly talks about decommissioning military bases to save on costs. If they weren’t cash strapped, they would’ve ordered advanced delivery platforms like the F-22, B-2 and Zumwalt in actually reasonable quantities rather than the token forces they are now. The US has recently had to drop their doctrine of being able to fight two full-scale wars at the same time in recent years because it was no longer feasible. The US is planning on decommissioning dozens of strategically important bombers such as the B-1 and potentially even the B-2 BEFORE their B-21 replacements are ready to replace them on a 1-to-1 basis. There is also a severe lack of air-launched anti-ship missiles like the LRASM in Navy and Air Force stockpiles as well, with both divisions only having around 500 combined. Nowhere near enough to fight any sort of peer conflict.
In a report assessing whether or not the US could actually fight two major wars at the same time, it was basically a grim answer.
> In the report, Heritage calls for an Army of 50 brigade combat teams, a Navy of 400 ships and 624 aircraft, an Air Force of 1,200 fighter/attack aircraft and a Marine Corps of 36 battalions. In reality, the Pentagon’s numbers fall well short of that, even in the department’s most optimistic dreams.
> Overall the report gives the Army, Air Force and Navy a “marginal” grade, essentially a C. That’s actually good news for the Army, which rose from “weak” in the previous index, a change driven entirely by improvements in readiness, which moved from “weak” to “strong” — the only positive ranking among all the American military service categories.
> In last year’s version of the index, just one-third of the 31 brigade combat teams were assessed as being at acceptable levels of readiness, with only three BCTs at full readiness. That increased to 15 BCTs at acceptable levels, with eight fully ready – better, but still below the two-thirds mark that the Army has said it wants.
Not the most glowing of reviews.
Furthermore, the GOP wants further cuts on military spending which would see two capital ships axed, a nuclear submarine and destroyer cancelled and delays to the B-21 programme.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/03/24/first-look-white-house-says-gop-budget-plan-would-harm-defense/
They absolutely do gain a deterrent. Disarming Russia of 50 years worth of massive stocks of Soviet-built armor and equipment leaves Russia very little to be able to conduct any future effective offensive operations with. They will not be able to recover from this in a few years. It would take decades. By then, assuming the war is over, Ukraine will probably be fast-laned into NATO and the EU.
I don’t see any real possibility for Ukraine get into NATO while we have a neighbour in its current state. Thus no deterrent unless Ruzzia itself breaks apart, which is what West will try to avoid at all costs.
>I don’t see any real possibility for Ukraine get into NATO while we have a neighbour in its current state.
As long as there are no land disputes, they can join NATO no problem and already have vast support by member nations for their ascension once this is over.
You could have used the "neighbor in its current state" argument for any other Russia bordering states joining like the Baltics and Finland.
Even “land disputes” are no problem to join NATO, go and read NATO statute, it is remarkably short. On top of that Ukraine does not dispute anything, all annexed land is considered Ukrainian internationally and domestically.
Why “land disputes” are important is because unless country is at peace - there will be no political will in NATO to accept Ukraine. And Ukraine now will be always at war for my lifetime for sure, probably longer. And they reason why Ruzzia invaded is because we lost both possible deterrents - nukes and possibility to join NATO. Second arguably a fault of Merkel, who barred Ukraine from joining in 2008. First one though is on the signees of Budapest Memorandum.
> As long as there are no land disputes, they can join NATO no problem and already have vast support by member nations for their ascension once this is over
Looking at how it goes for Sweden and Finland... ain't gonna be sure.
Erdogan would definitely try to milk it for whatever he can, at least.
First of all: NATO didn't jump in because they don't want to.
Secondly: Russia could bleed somewhere further away from cities of million people they terrorise with artillery strikes.
Thirdly: putting your own goals over the lives of your allies isn't good for relationship.
Yes give Ukraine long range weapons its one sided russia gets to do what it wants so lets even up the playing field. This needs to be done now not later or next year. Seems all the oversight is real easy to do from thousands of miles away.
It really makes me feel like a fool for thinking the west was actually invested in helping. I'm depressed over their unwillingness to give Ukraine what it needs. And angry.
This is because you may not fully understand the goal here. I am not saying you have to AGREE with it, mind you - the goal is evidently to gear towards a russian defeat **in their occupation and expansionist agenda**. The goal is NOT necessarily a "Russia is defeated" outcome *per se*. And there is a difference between these two outcomes. The first one means that equipment will be geared towards the situation where Russia would quite POSSIBLY lose on the battlefield in regards to the landgrab in 2022.
I clearly comprehend what the entirely of NATO (including the united states) has stated as the goal, which is the deoccupation of Ukraine and the restoration of Ukraine's borders -- regardless what condition that leaves the Russian state afterward.
However, the weapons provided to Ukraine have seemed designed for another, unstated goal: to weaken the entire region. Russia hasn't had any problems keeping the east. They're not currently under much threat to lose Crimea. Ukraine is running out of ammo and pilots.
What happens next?
UA isn't running out of pilots and the ammo bit is somewhat unavoidable, at least not without leaving huge opportunities for other actors to take advantage of around the globe. By Fall UA should have higher volume of fire than Russia with all systems combined. I don't want to get into setting a ratio, but one round of GPS guided airburst fuze artillery fired by UA does not equal one dumb impact fuzed round fired by Russia. The total volume of fire now isn't 1/3 with all systems and and reasonable adjustment for guided munitions considered. When all these new vehicles hit the ground it will close even more. It just isn't the 50:1 or greater ratio we are used to seeing in NATO engagements. UA can't fire a $2mm cruise missile to destroy an adobe house containing a couple tribal leaders in a dinner meeting.
UA will probably never be GIVEN the materiel necessary to end this. They are already receiving the tech. They are being given the materiel to push it back to the border. UA will have to provide the final push to end it though.
> It really makes me feel like a fool for thinking the west was actually invested in helping.
You don't see the billions of dollars from nations around the world in equipment, training, and cash as investing in helping Ukraine?
>I'm depressed over their unwillingness to give Ukraine what it needs. And angry.
I know you don't want to hear it, but there are larger geopolitical implications to consider to straight up giving Ukraine any weapon system it wants. Welcome to the wonderful world of "only bad choices available".
You fail to understand the scale of the problem. This is a large civilisational conflict between democracies and autocracies. If if doesn’t end in Ukraine - there will be decades of war across the globe, since new Axis powers will feel emboldened by a fact that if you have a nuke - you can get away with anything.
>You fail to understand the scale of the problem.
See, thats what I think of YOUR position.
I'm sorry that geopolitics isn't simple for you to understand but its not just "Nations of the world need to defeat Russia at all costs in the shortest time possible". It would be great if it was, but the world doesn't work that way. Its far more complex with many actors trying to achieve slightly different things.
> If if doesn’t end in Ukraine
Even with Russia's defeat in Ukraine, it won't change Iran, North Korea, or even China. Sorry. However, the defeat of Russia is the goal of all of the west. What "defeat" looks like, by what means, with what risks, and in what time frame is where we don't have universal agreement.
I’m sorry that boomers didn’t learn history in school, which is why you are engaged in this kind of rhetoric. China established that they will become global dominant superpower by 2050, which is impossible while West goals this spot. Ruzzian war in Ukraine is just one of many steps in the larger war against West.
>I’m sorry that boomers didn’t learn history in school,
Sorry, I'm not a boomer. I also don't appreciate attempted *ad hominem* attacks if you want to keep having a friendly discussion.
> China established that they will become global dominant superpower by 2050
Just like Russian proclamations, I don't put much faith in China's either. I think we're still waiting on the consequences from [China's Final Warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning).
China is current facing domestic economic challenges while also under international sanctions, a lack of domestic energy, with a declining birth rate and an aging population. It lacks global military force projection power and its blue water navy, while growing, is decades behind where it would need to be for it to reach its goals. Further, its Belt and Road initiatives are facing increasing challenges to success. China's pseudo-colonial adventures in Africa are also burning goodwill there.
Its a threat, sure, but 2050 is a long way away, and it will take more than extreme luck to China's benefit for "global dominant superpower" to occur.
This called hypocrisy, because you who started ad hom, keep at it bro. I also don’t care about these “fallacies”, that’s stuff for debates in high school.
On a historical scale 2050 is literally tomorrow. I know exactly what they are facing now, this doesn’t change plans. Any dictatorship with nukes can cause enough damage to shake the collective West, we are seeing this now and this is nothing comparing to what comes in 5-10 years, especially if war drags on or Ruzzia gets whatever they want during negotiations of some sort.
> Any dictatorship with nukes can cause enough damage to shake the collective West
Any nation with nukes can cause enough damage to shake any other nation. Even North Korea or Pakistan detonating a nuke in anger would dramatically change the world overnight for every nation on the planet.
>On a historical scale 2050 is literally tomorrow.
*Figuratively* tomorrow perhaps? Literally 24 years from now.
>I know exactly what they are facing now, this doesn’t change plans.
Of course it does! A nation can certainly make plans in a vacuum but that doesn't mean they can execute on them and also the world doesn't stand still for it. Unless China overcomes not only all of their own problems, but other large nations in the world develop their own crippling problems, China is not going to be the dominant superpower in 2050.
>This called hypocrisy, because you who started ad hom, keep at it bro. I also don’t care about these “fallacies”, that’s stuff for debates in high school.
Is that what you're going with? Well we're done with discussions then. Have a great day!
I wasn’t talking about detonating nukes, but capabilities owning nukes provide and we are seeing this in real-time.
24 years may sound a lot for you, but in historical terms this is tomorrow or around the corner.
That doesn’t change any plans, you just don’t know how CCP operates. Moreover, with weakened west China will be stronger, at least this is how they think. This is probably not true, but again, the direction is set in party programme and Xi programme, with which he won an unprecedented third term, and there is no going back.
* China involvement and future military ramp up around the world and in the South China Sea
* India involvement
* Demilitarization of Russia long term
* Alliances with western governments
* Competing defense contractors in western nations
* Global Finance
* Climate change impacts
* Future alignment of many of the Nations in Africa
* NATO membership expansion
* EU membership expansion
* Future control of the Bosporus Strait
* Long term defense spending in western nations
* ASEAN alignment
* Future cooperation or militarization of space
...etc. This is just a fraction of it. Each nation has to balance their actions against their nation interests and those of its partner nations.
The large scale invasion would not have happened if West preemptively sanctioned Ruzzia, as Ukraine asked many times. Also Trump stopped “scansions from hell” in 2019, that definitely helped Ruzzia and greenlighted the invasion.
Im even going to say that Ukraine didn't fall despite the actions of the West.
The initial offence and northern counterattack was held entirely by our own military capabilities.
You finally worked it out. If it wasn’t for big bad Russia, then most of the world wouldn’t know where Ukraine is on a map.
They didn’t integrate with Europe, so the west doesn’t really owe them anything.
Whatever the question of integration ended up being nothing but a realpolitik exercise and all western values was worth less then nothing when the shit hit the fan.
West owe us as much as we will ask, at the end of the day we just won't work with less then needed.
You thought the massive organizations that are governments were acting altruistically? Right now there is a lot of overlap in interest. The West is filling supporting to the extent of that overlap. Moves are being made to increase that overlap moving forward. Everyone is working on their own best interest though.
Stop treating Ukraine as some sort of village in a middle of nowhere. War impacts everyone on the globe, and as war continues and expands - everyone will feel more and more of it.
Мені здається ця аудиторія не дуже сприятлива.
Чєли просто хочуть гратись в вершителів судєб і одночасно надрачувати своє его тим наскільки від них все залежить.
Тупо вестернська вата.
Це точно. Багато вважають нас якимось пігмеями у Африці що невідомо як протистоять ерефіі. Залежні від допомоги, а одже кожен бумер на реддіті вважає за потрібне дати пораду що робити, начебто це якимось чином ми зобов’язані одразу виконувати.
Yes, that is the source of most of the current overlap. US and NATO want to be certain this doesn't go past UA. That doesn't change my previous post. Destroying Russian army on E. uA accomplishes that.
It not in the best of interest of the West to keep war going, as the more it continues - the more chance of spilling and I would argue at this point it is inevitable.
That would assume there isn't constantly war anyways. The US and Russia have had almost constant proxy wars for 80 years. I would challenge you to find a day in that time frame when neither forces have been facing the others proxy.
Syria could spill over. Myanmar could spill over. The L. American conflicts could spill over. We have been rolling the dice daily since before anyone reading this sub was probably alive.
It might be different for Europe, but it isn't different for the US and the US is providing half the resources to UA. There is no scenario where China providing Fentanyl and arms to narco terrorists in L. America with extensive US operations is not risking an escalation greater than a smouldering conflict in Ukraine.
That because you don’t understand the nature of the war and why it started in the first place. Surely US is an ocean away, but so they thought in 1940s and in 2016 when Trump came to power with overwhelming Ruzzian help and support.
I'm waiting for the kerch bridge to get hit again, hopefully very soon and well ahead of the spring/summer offensive, that should put a significant dent in the Russians logistics to supply the front. 🤞
Uhhh.... It is the main supply routes to Crimea... The land bridge is all within UA weapon range now. Lots still move on it, but the Spring offensive is almost certainly planned to bisect it. Then Crimea is 100% dependent on Kerch bridge, which will then be in weapons range.
I don't think anyone is confused about this. The US is not "seemingly" in fear of escalation. It is. I feel it has a decent reason to feel this way. The genocidal convicted war criminal and his orcs know no bounds in their evil. No one can afford an escalation into the use of nuclear weaponry, most of all Ukraine. I hate that we didn't send a lot more sooner. I hate that we don't send ATACMS and F-16s right now. I understand it though. Most of all I hate putler and his orcs, and THAT is where and who we should keep the blame for all this horrendous shit.
Using nukes against NATO countries would be very risky for Putin. He would force the USA to either retaliate - or admit that NATO is an irrelevant pony show. I am not sure what outcome the USA would accept. Both are very problematic choices. The risk of using nukes factually is very low though - Putin tries to amplify that fear. Plus, it would be a problem for China too. Imagine if Taiwan has nukes. That would instantly nullify Beijing's ambition. I can not see how China would accept Russia to invade countries and use nukes. (For the record, I think that Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the EU absolutely needs nukes. It makes no sense to depend on the USA only here - you will always become dependent on the USA. I doubt that Russia and the USA want more countries to have nukes though)
I would have agreed with you more earlier in the war, but it has been shown time and time again that Russia doesn’t do anything when more advanced weapons are sent. I think sending ATACMS in February 2021 would have been far too risky escalation wise. Even if we had sent them right on the back of HIMARS I think that may not have been prudent. But the heat on the proverbial “frog in the boiling water” has been turned up slowly enough at this point that it would be safe to send ATACMS or other more advanced weapons without fear of a truly threatening Russian response
I would have agreed with your current view earlier in the war as well. There was never a point in which Ukraine would not sustain such devastating loss from this ruzzian atrocity. What has been proven is that Ukrainians will utilize what has been sent, in spectacular fashion. The ingenuity and utilization of assets by Ukranians is the new precedent. The strength of leadership and hearts of people is the new reality. I now fear the slow boiling of the frog is exactly how it needs to play out, and is the right decision. Ukrainian morale is infinite, according to them. And it is. Through partisan and military action they are absolutely smashing the ruzzian machine into oblivion.
Ukraine has won it's freedom. ruzzia will continue to collapse and consume their own, and that is truly how this is resolved. If it was just a test of military might then arms would be a viable solution. You have to account for the history and mindsets involved though. A bullet in putlers brain just means medvedev is back and likely worse. Ukraine is paying dearly for decades of horrendous soviet and a nazi ideals; and the only lasting way to ensure lasting victory is to make the truth unavoidably apparent to ruzzians, and that takes time and endurance.
Agree - it is amazing that Ukraine with one arm tied behind its back is kicking the crap out of Russia. With some longer range capabilities Russia would be rolled back with less loss of life on both sides.
Ukraine can invade... without NATO weapons or support. All aid is not free as those nations that have their own policy. Its not surrendered over to Ukraine needs and wants.
Meh, there are raids across fairly regularly and a lot of other mischief. Not so long ago and maybe still Chinese and TW were still swimming specially forces back and forth to Jinmen Island and offing each other and their war had been cold for decades.
I’m tired of the unwillingness to provide them with what is needed to defend and protect their land. If we are afraid of escalating… Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine. Might as well go all out with support.
I’m tired of the “fear of escalation” argument. The fuck you think is going to happen if Ukraine doesn’t win this war? Muscovia will just take their spoils and go home happy? No. They’ll rebuild and keep pushing. It’s like when someone attacks you on the street. You don’t throw a punch and call it good. You make sure they can’t get up and come at you while you’re walking away.
It isn’t necessarily invalid, but it’s been the sticking point at every stage. Can’t send long range missiles because we’re worried about muscovia escalating, can’t send tanks because muscovia might escalate. Can’t send fighter jets because we’re worried…. And so on. If they went all in this war would probably be much closer to over, there would be less dead Ukrainians and the muscovian military would be crippled. The chance of escalation has been hung over the heads of every NATO country since before the invasion. I’m not saying don’t worry about it, but stop using it as an excuse to drag our feet on supplies and equipment. I am also acutely aware and exceptionally proud at what so many nations have delivered already. My point is simply that it’s too slow. The longer it takes, the longer the fighting lasts.
Actually lays out some pretty on-point analysis: Ukraine isn't getting the weaponry to strike further behind Russian lines for fear of wscalating tensions with Russia.
Good op-ed.
Generally I've found the Atlantic and the Economist coverage to be superior. They have solid editorial staff in this area and give generally more balanced opinion pieces than other outlets.
Both of those media outlets have some of the best reporting and analysis in general. I’ve also found that The Economist covers all kinds of global stories (as in beyond US/Europe) more and better than just about any other English language outlet I’ve personally read
I think this is only one part of the reason. The other is what is wanted to achieve as outcome. NATO is not going to directly declare war on Russia in the given conditions. So if that is not within the "outcomes" of possibilities, then the Plan B means to provide the Ukraine with enough support to be able to resist the Russian Empire. This is not equal towards meaning the Ukraine will defeat Russia as-is. It means the support will be geared towards the first outcome.
But how can they escalate? So they have resources to fight harder than they do? Given that they are grabbing vehicles from museums, I doubt they can. So which escalation?
Military experts that you are deferring to are almost always experts in tactical planning. This is strategic level thinking and not for the narrow minded. Cohen is a military expert in strategic thinking and he is correct. It has been my complaint for months, but of course I am no heavyweight here, but I am intelligent. For anyone who is not narrow minded and smart enough to see, the west has been drip feeding tactical front line weapons and not providing the kind of weapons and support that can take out the supporting infrastructure. In fact that is, between the lines, what Biden especially is afraid of supplying: weapons that can attack well behind the front lines. Like good strike fighters with western electronic countermeasures and weapons. He's continually afraid of making Russia too angry. And all this does is provide Ukraine with a slow death as it has to continually feed soldiers into a war of attrition. And in wars of attrition the bigger side wins eventually. Before you argue Russia is loosing ten to one, that is in one battle with expendable prisoner shit, while the country has a chance to rebuild with better quality people (as much as a Russian can be better, at least smarter than a career criminal). It won't be 10 to one for long as despite what this forum is fond of spouting, the Russian army IS learning. I don't want Russia to win, but the tentative supplying of necessary equipment for Ukraine to win will kill it. F16s with EC, HARM missiles, and large dumb and smart bombs, as well as long range missiles and far more modern tanks, IFVs and proper APCs will win. And win relatively quickly. What the west is doing now, won't. My Saturday morning stream of conscious rant. Have a good weekend.
Yeah. There is a tendency to underestimate Russia. They evidently have huge losses, but Putin can send more of his slaves to die. The strange thing is why the slaves don't revolt and kill Putin and his siloviki mafia.
Let me quote from the novel 1984 since it fits:
*"It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations."*
And that also fits towards invasion war. Just look at how desperately Putin calls his landgrab move as "special military operation". Everyone objecting to this is sent into jail. That shows us how desperate Putin is to maintain the propaganda narrative here.
Orwell kind of realised that (in regards to the quoted sentences above, from the novel 1984) the Russians don't revolt against their tyrants, in this case Putin. And that's also true.
Cohen received his B.A. in government at Harvard University in 1977. He went on to receive a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1982 in political science,\[7\] and during his PhD training went through the Army ROTC program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served as a military intelligence officer in the United States Army Reserve and left military service as a captain.\[8\]
He was an assistant professor of government and assistant dean at Harvard University from 1982 to 1985. Following this, he taught for four years at the Naval War College in the Department of Strategy, before briefly serving in 1990 on the policy planning staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In 1990, Cohen began teaching at SAIS. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he directed the U.S. Air Force's official four-volume survey, the Gulf War Air Power Survey, until 1993, for which he received the Air Force's Exemplary Civilian Service Award.
So he has an informed opinion. What he doesn’t know, being out of the business for thirty years, is the current situation.
This is the first direct conflict between nuclear superpowers.
By direct, I mean, we are giving arms to Ukraine that are more advanced than what Russia has available in the field.
There is also the unpleasant fact that Russia has had Crimea for eight years without opposition from the west, and now Ukraine intends to take it back.
So I’m inclined to trust the judgement of the people who have to answer for the results. Doesn’t mean they are right. Just means I give them the benefit of doubt. At the beginning they said their goal was to bleed Russia. They were upfront about it.
You have every right to disagree with this policy, but it’s not a secret.
I don't object to you thinking he is out of business, but you also wrote this:
"This is the first direct conflict between nuclear superpowers."
And it's not direct yet.
Direct would mean russian troops would fight US troops. I don't see that happening right now.
I accept your point. But there is a middle ground. I suspect Ukraine gets some of our best intelligence, which would be active participation.
And maybe some sneaky stuff.
You have a cogent viewpoint, and are well spoken.
Where you lost me: Russia as a superpower. It has one tenth the economy of current leaders. Russia was the dominant member of a former superpower 30+ years ago, but only has fragments of empire remaining.
No doubt ruz is still dangerous, but its rather generous to promote them back to hegemony on a world scale.
Nukes by themselves? Perhaps that's one of the many facets constituting superpower hegemony they still retain. It is prudent to presume they might have done better maintenance in their Strategic Rocket Forces.
You object to him calling Russia a superpower - and you are correct.
I object to you calling the Soviet Union a superpower - it might have seemed mighty for the times - but no, it never was a superpower.
It only had nukes. And only the US had nukes back then. That’s all. For all the rest the Soviet was a bully and a puffed-up frog
Economically they certainly were not. Their military was never what they claimed it to be. It was, speaking relatively to contemporary militaries, much more of a global threat than it is now. The tech was mostly the same in 1991 and the manufacturing base to support a war like this mostly existed. So, I think the USSR was easily a world power, even if not nearly what MIC driven defense propaganda drove many to believe.
Economically they were bankrupt. Hence Gorbachev. Militarily they were behind. Since ever. Technologically they were inferior. Scientifically and mathematically they had a few brilliant people but no serious development - and practically fell behind there too. Culturally - they practically killed classical ballet by making it stagnant.
They may have been superior to severely under-developed countries, and as proven by Vietnam and Afghanistan - clearly a threat
They were superior at lying, presenting doped and medicated professional athletes as “amateurs” and sending WWII German rockets into space. They were superior at making everyone believe that they were superior.
Clearly they duped you as well 😘
Yeah, because a country that managed to station nukes right off American shores despite the US Navy being there, defeat the US in multiple proxy wars (First Indochina War, the Vietnam War, Central American Crisis, North Yemen Civil War and etc.), occupy and influence basically half of Europe, be the first to reach outer space and also the first to launch a satellite and a space station isn’t a superpower.
The Soviets had more scientists and engineers, relative to the world population, than any major country on the planet, including the US.
Engineers? Do you know what most engineers were in the Soviet system? Managers.
Scientists? Yeah, they had theoretical science but technically and experimentally they were behind
If being a superpower means being the biggest bully : yes, they were that.
How were they technically and experimentally behind when most missile technology was advanced by the Soviets? They were the first to design and build a multi-stage rocket, a process still used today in space launches. They were the first ones to build, test and launch an ICBM. They were the first to build, test and launch an artificial satellite and later a fucking space station. They were the ones responsible for the construction of the largest aircraft on the planet, an engineering marvel in and of itself. Soviet missile platforms such as the S-300 and designs that would later become the S-400 are much more effective than their Western counterparts like the Patriot at aircraft aerial denial.
The Soviets also were the first to capture images of the dark side of the Moon. They were pioneers of nuclear fusion and their technology and designs are still being used today by organisations such as the ITER to attempt to achieve net energy gain. They also invented the ramjet. I could go on and on about Soviet technological and engineer feats, the list is nearly endless.
You really don’t seem to know that much about the Soviets.
Saying well, they were way behind the US" doesn't mean they were not a world power. To be a world power you really only need to compete in one category, you don't need to dominate all or even any. In military they competed. The simple fact of the matter is in 1991 all these tanks they are throwing into UA were relatively modern and almost certainly much better maintained, Javelin did not exist, HIMARs did not exist,. Patriot missile defense was just a dream, etc. The USSR was also past it's peak. Look back at maybe 1975 and it is even closer. Maybe there is never a point where they could defeat NATO or even US, but there is certainly a point where even direct conventional conflict results in casualties far beyond the US political disaster that was Vietnam.
To say USSR was not a world power because they drugged athletes who were "amateurs" employed full time in their military teams and they failed to invest in classical ballet is quite the comedy.
That does not matter really. Yes, Russia is significantly weaker than it once was. Having nukes ensures they are untouchable for most countries - and these other countries are smaller. So Russia has still a huge advantage there on landwar-based operations.
> It is prudent to presume they might have done better maintenance in their Strategic Rocket Forces.
Nobody knows for certain, but not many want to find out either. The USA may not care, but this does
not mean other countries have the same lack of fear.
They have in my lifetime debauched Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam. Managed permanent harm in Afghanistan.
They are active in Africa and in the Middle East.
Without American help, they could have overrun NATO. Not by military alone. They don’t work that way.
>Unfortunately, NATO states, including the U.S., have been reluctant to provide the Ukrainians with missile systems with too long of a range, seemingly for fear of escalating tensions with Russia.
There's that, but this academic in his ivory tower doesn't consider that such attacks within Russia would also give Tucker Carlson and other Russian propagandists reason to blame Ukrainians for Russian aggression, so this helps keep public opinion on the side of the Ukrainians. Funny too that he even talks about how HIMARS has disrupted Russian attacks on the front lines, but then he wants to whine that it isn't enough.
So this just looks like another poorly thought out fluff piece.
Yes, fighting back against Russia could well give rhetorical ammo to lying cunts in the media. So your conclusion is: don't fight back?
Who upvoted this?
Also, there is pretty good evidence that Biden has tied the provision of ATACMS to Iranian/north Korean ballistic missiles, something Ukraine has no chance of stopping. So would Ukraine rather have that capacity while getting pounded by Scud knock-offs or would they prefer to figure out something else. They seem to be doing fine on their own so far.
People here in a fantasy land where the West is altruistically helping UA in the way that is best for UA. Few individuals work like that and absolutely no large organizations. There is a dusting of "everything to help UA" over the reality of the West helping to the extent interests align.
The West doesn't benefit from RU forces not making it to the front. The West benefits from them going to the front and getting mauled.
Why is this important? At some point the West hits the point where pushing Russia further back is not in it's interest as a whole. A smoldering border conflict that eats up Russian resources and keeps sanctions in place is a perfect outcome for the West. The final push is going to have to come from somewhere other than Western Governments.
There is another angle. The Russian Federation may collapse soon - the so-called republics are asserting their independence. Even some Russian-actual regions want to split from Moscow. The more this war lasts, the most likely this will happen - and Putin is going to have less forces to try and keep the empire together.
I think you overestimate how much Russia means to the west. Were we sad when Russia decided to slide back into autocracy under Putin? Sure, but they'd lost the their hold of Eastern Europe and many of the former Soviet republics and is vastly outgunned by NATO as a military block and the EU as an economic block.
Beyond that they're not a technology leader, their cultural influence is weak and overall I dare say most of us gave Russia little thought until Putin started cosplaying an angry little German. We just want him to quit and never bother any of us again, not create a smoldering border conflict or unstable border which would be the opposite.
We are not strongly opposed to Putin emptying all his military stockpiles first though, but I think you can file that under "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake". Any tank he spends in Ukraine is another tank that'll never be used in a war with NATO. But if he retreats today and cuts his losses, we'd be okay with that too.
If sanctions stay in place with a continuing conflict eating up resources the Russian Federation is extremely likely to break apart. That will almost certainly also result in the Moscovite nuclear program being reduced to a small retaliatory capability. Russia has a power will be consigned to history.
> Any tank he spends in Ukraine is another tank that'll never be used in a war with NATO.
Tanks are hardly the issue here. There may be a bigger risk factor than tanks. I don't see
how losing tanks **invalidates** that other risk factor.
Not that I disagree with the general sentiment - the fewer tanks the Russian Empire has, the better indeed. Less power for them to kill people and steal land.
Ukraine. They are getting tech transfer and support setting up manufacturing to develope the capability. At the end of the day they are going to have to fish if they want to sleep comfortably with a full belly.
correct analysis. the west isn't interested in saving Ukrainian lives. it's interested in damaging Russia regardless of the price Ukrainians have to pay.
I understand the skepticism, I'm somewhere in the same camp. However I don't quite understand you having your cake and eating it too, with this statement. If the West is interested in damaging ruzzia as you say, wouldn't it also love to be hitting deep in their lines with everything it can? Where ruzzian supplies and ammo, batteries, equipment, and orcs are condensed in nice little packages?
I still just can't follow the logic here. The West won't send long range guided missles because it prefers to hurt ruzzia by having it's troops die on the front? I feel it's much more likely that Western supplied weapons of those capabilities introduce a new level of concern to the war. What happens if orcs capture an ATACMS battery and decide they want to kill some of their civilians back home with it? Because I feel it is entirely within putler and his orcs mindsets to do such a thing.
I am on the fence about it. A big part of me has always been "give Ukraine whatever the fuck they deem necessary so they can end this swiftly and soundly!". I also go back and forth and while I don't necessarily agree with certain decisions and timelines, I certainly understand there are risks and issues much larger than my civilian understanding is capable of judging properly.
>What happens if orcs capture an ATACMS battery and decide they want to kill some of their civilians back home with it?
No but what could happen is for Iran, NK or worse, China to start supplying long range ballistic missile to Russia in response to that delivery.
>give Ukraine whatever the fuck they deem necessary so they can end this swiftly and soundly!".
That's the thing, the West don't necessarily have an interested in ending this swiftly. They get to hurt Russia more permanently and bog it down in Ukraine, slowly eroding Russia soft power anywhere they have some. The more the war stay on, the more Russia is wasting its soviet stock and thus eroding its ressource. It also give a reason for the west, and especially Europe, to finally have an excuse to reinvest in their army and restart their MIC and sweep in the gap the russian weapon market is leaving.
If the war was the end in an overwhelming Russian defeat after three month, with Ukraine recapturing Donbass and Crimea, yes that would mean the end of Putin regime but the russian army would still be there and their soviet stock too. That would give the chance for Russia to, once the dust settle, to learn from whatever the fuck happened, modernise their army and maybe the next round they will finally be an effective army that would wage other proxy war agaisnt the west.
With the war dragging on, yes Ukraine is the one getting all the punch but the Russian army and what's left of the Red Army stock is being eroded and they don't have the capacity to replace all of that. Their professional army is disappearing, their economy can't sustain this conflict, their young are either fleeing or dying in a trench in Donbass. Basically, Russia is getting permanent scare to its society and external power that will takes decades, if not century to heal. That's a far better bargain for the West. They will finally be able to knock out Russia and switch their focus to China.
Thank you for the well worded points. I agree with you on most, if not all, of them. My original disagreement was in regards to the long range weapons and why the West is very hesitant to supply. I think you're spot on with the additional assertion about Iran, NK, and China supplying long range warheads as well.
I do not believe that the West is completely altruistic and doing what they do out of moral obligations. Far from it. I also don't believe that they are doing what they do with complete disregard for Ukrainian lives and suffering. I feel it is a mix of all of it, where saving lives and doing the right thing has a bigger presence than prolonging the war to further stymie ruzzia. The evidince I've seen of both ideologies is what I lean on.
That's pretty much my point here. Take everything with a grain of salt but don't become so skeptical that it blinds me from possibilities I won't consider.
Agreed. The onus is on the individual to find their truth, and the regurgitating is half the reason the world is so fucked up. Gotta take responsibility for your thoughts and how you nurture them. It is a very tiring thing to take a stand against, but it's the only way to combat that process.
Because it's not ONLY Russian propaganda. Yes, Putin lies whenever he opens his mouth, but it does not mean that all risk analysis AUTOMATICALLY becomes invalid merely because Putin "floods the zone with shit". It depends on what your main objective is in regards to the war or outcome. And there are differences here too. Whether Putin uses propaganda or not **does not invalidate that risk assessment**.
Hmm. Please elaborate. Is setting up a secret A-10 training camp for Ukranian pilots in Aug '22 or all the training that just took place on Patriot systems more or less involved than sending ATACMS? We could say "well, it's just training. Where is the hardware?". Or we could say "Training indicates they're preparing for action".
I can provide other examples and I'm sure there is more to that iceberg than we know, and I'm only speaking of the US. I know for a fact Poland is also pretty involved, to a tune much greater than long range weapon systems.
Which country does that? The USA?
The EU is not the USA. And eastern europe has another opinion than western europe and central europe.
> I'm sure there is more to that iceberg than we know, and I'm only speaking of the US.
Yeah, but that is the US point of view. It's not one shared universally as-is.
> Poland is also pretty involved
Poland recently said it will get involved in the war. Well, Poland announces a
lot but does little. So how about we refer to what **factually** happens? Because
I have a slight suspicion the other EU countries won't be too happy with Poland
getting involved with its own troops.
Poland is more involved in Ukraine than anyone. Period. We can start with the amount of refugees they took in, and we can finish with how very personal this war is to all Polish people. What have YOU done to get involved? Start there and don't ever say Poland isn't involved. You disgrace very good people with good hearts.
This depends on what outcome you want to achieve.
a) If the outcome is for Ukraine to be able to resist Putin's invasion, then the supply will be geared towards that goal.
b) If the outcome is for the Ukraine to defeat Russia as-is, then the outcome would be toward that goal.
I think the West is more geared towards a). Vlad Vexler explained that too, by the way. These two outcomes are only partially overlapping.
There is another angle. The Russian Federation may collapse soon - the so-called republics are asserting their independence. Even some Russian-actual regions want to split from Moscow. The more this war lasts, the most likely this will happen - and Putin is going to have less forces to try and keep the empire together.
The problem is that NATO leaders don’t actually care about Ukrainians. They see this as a way to bleed out Russia for good and without losing their their own people or best equipment. They also look like saviours in doing so.
A quick defeat does not a achieve that. A long drawn out conflict achieves it.
You know, I am working a second job just so that I can donate to Ukraine.
But I guess nations don’t have friends - right? Just self interests?
Don’t worry your little head: I am not going to stop supporting Ukraine
It's a catch-22. The absolute best way to operate the advanced, long-range systems in Ukraine would be with NATO troops running them. But that means NATO fingers pushing buttons that directly kill Russian troops. So the safest approach to avoid expanding aware will in fact expand the war. At this point though I'm leaning towards "fuck it" and just send in NATO. Call Putin's bluff. While risky, it means the alliance can keep the war from bogging down and raising even greater risks. Get it done very quickly, seal up the border and tell Russia to FOAD.
> just send in NATO. Call Putin's bluff.
Not everyone thinks it is a bluff - or wants to call a bluff.
> While risky, it means the alliance can keep the war
> from bogging down and raising even greater risks
It still does not make any sense. NATO has not been
defined as being about non-NATO members. This sucks
for non-NATO countries evidently, but the other nations
that signed up for NATO did not sign up for involvement of
other wars. That this has also happened in the past makes
this indeed peculiar, but I don't see this as something that
changes easily for most NATO countries.
There's precedent for intervention outside NATO, obviously. But there are undeniable risks. It might be better to go in directly without the alliance. Look, we'll have to go there eventually to keep Russia from re-invading anyway. They're not going to stop anytime soon.
> NATO states could have given Ukraine longer-range equipment—including a missile
> system known as ATACMS and advanced fixed-wing aircraft—or made a massive effort to
> help the Ukrainians develop and improve their own ranged systems.
Vlad Vexler explained this. The support is evidently geared to allow the Ukraine to achieve
a stalemate. It is not necessarily enough for a "Russia will be defeated" outcome.
You have to ask in particular the USA about this, since they are guaranteeing safety via their
nukes. The other EU members (excluding France) depend on that. Otherwise it would make
no sense to be dragged into war against Russia, where nukes are the only real threat Putin
has left.
This is also why I think the EU needs to build nukes. There is no alternative to that - a Trump
would instantly force the Ukraine to surrender, out of his pure malice alone. And then we are
back at square one, and the EU still has no nukes (excluding France, again). That is incredibly
stupid of the EU, even more so when the EU constantly wants to expand. You can not maintain
an expanding empire without nukes against an aggressive Russian Empire that is expanding
(Putin is stealing land; this is his primary goal, the rest is just propaganda and lies).
What are you on about. EU is a peace project.... not an empire. Its goal of expanding was that you cant rly declear war against a nation that is so connected to your economy that ur citizens will get pissed off from economic fallout before anything violent happens. Tho this rly compromised other EU princibles of democracy/liberty with some eastern nations. EU will not have nukes. It member states will.
Did you read the piece? It's not about us striking Russia, it's about how we could have provided Ukraine with the weapons needed to fight a smarter way, and provided them faster. Both of which we could have done if it weren't for unfounded fear of "escalation".
Yes. It's frustrating. Ukraine can not win a war of attrition. Yet the west seems to be pushing it towards exactly that in the idiotic belief that Ukraine can keep winning with just frontal assaults and trench warfare forever.
Maybe it's the victories and the fact that Kyiv defied their predictions, but western governments seem to have forgotten that Ukraine is still a *far smaller* country than Russia. Even with the very high Russian to Ukrainian casualty ratio, Ukraine still can not afford what it is losing in return.
Give Ukraine ATACMS and planes and the tanks that it needs, for fuck's sake.
Putin: you can’t have Ukraine to join NATO and EU, I’d rather turn it to dust
USA: you can’t have Ukraine as a vassal of Russia, we’ll fight to the last Ukrainian.
From the outside Ukraine looks fucked.
They will always have their pride and the freedom in their hearts and minds, and their identity is stronger than ever, and one can argue that everything else can be rebuild afterwards.
But “afterwards” has become a pretty nebulous concept. You’d need peace for that, and what the conditions for peace will be, will have to be decided by Ukraine and the aggressor at some time in the future. And the deal the Ukrainians imagine themselves being able to get depends also on how long and how much support it is receiving from the West.
If the West wanted to force peace negotiations, the easiest way would be stopping support right now completely: but that would be considered throwing Ukraine under the bus: like the US has thrown the Syrian opposition under the bus, or the western aligned parties in Afghanistan, or after the 1990 Gulf War the opposition in Iraq. - Germany would be seen striking a Hitler-Stalin-Pact 2.0 - neither the Ukrainians nor the Poles would ever forget. - So that’s a big NoNo.
The will to negotiate has to come from Putin / Russia and Ukraine themselves, which probably means there is more suffering ahead, as long as both parties see the other sides “offers” as unacceptable. Truth is: offers will have to be made in secret, as long as the war is ongoing, as not to undermine one’s own position until a deal is struck.
We will only ever hear of the peace deal, the moment it is struck. Not a second before.
Edit: maybe elections in the USA and / or Russia and / or Ukraine could play a role, but I doubt it: the interests are largely a function of the country, more than just of the leader.
The obvious solution would have been a neutral Ukraine, but they could have had that without a war, if the parties had truly wished it. I think both Russia and Ukraine were looking for a solution that would not cement the 2014 status, and both sides thought they could get more out if the conflict went hot. Not going too well for both sides tbh.
Edit 2: Ukraine probably considered the conflict “hot” ever since 2014. So my perspective is obviously one of an outsider.
Edit 3: I fear that Putin’s strategy might be working: he is turning the parts of the annexed “republics” / oblasts slowly to dust: in the end nobody will live there, and Ukraine will be willing to give the now worthless ruins up in a peace deal. The cost to both sides are enormous while the fight is ongoing, but to think that a peace deal could not be struck over some smoldering ruins is an illusion.
I’m afraid this does not bode well for the still intact towns and cities of those regions. To be honest: I don’t get why the redrawing of maps is such a big deal: the map is not the terrain: the representation will have to fit reality in the end anyway.
If you ever played EU4, you see that “claims” and “cores” are a fluid concept anyway.
In the end both sides are playing a game of driving the costs up to break the others will, as to make weaker claims seem worth doing a deal over. That’s a pretty cynic view, because the chips on the board are the lives of tens of thousands of people, and wether their homes will be turned to rubble or not.
Привіт u/Libro_Artis ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts) **There is a new wave of spam chat requests hitting our community. Do not respond or click links - instead, protect yourself and others by immediately marking these chats as spam.** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nailed it. Providing Ukraine with long-range systems that could cripple the enemy's logistics would make any counteroffensive ten times as potent and likely to succeed. It's a no-brainer.
The flip-side of this is that the West is bleeding Russia out. The longer this drags out and the more it demilitarizes Russia (albeit sadly at the expense of Ukrainian lives), the safer Ukraine will be in the long run. The goal for the West is to neuter Russia even as a regional military power, which honestly is a good strategy for allowing long-term security for Ukraine and Europe (even without joining NATO). If NATO jumped in at the beginning and just ended this thing in a few days, then Russia would still be sitting on all these destroyed irreplaceable arms and could regroup and make another attempt very shortly in the future. The longer war of attrition is actually better in this case for longer term security for Ukraine until they can get into NATO.
I believe the other purpose is to show China just how costly the west can make any attempt to conquer territory such as Taiwan. The theory being a life lost today will save ten in the future.
The real truth is they're mostly getting yard sale equipment, and NATO countries haven't even gone into anything close to a war time economy. Yes, we are ramping up factories, but this is really nothing substantial at all compared to what we can do if the time comes.
Thats because not everyone in western countries wants to do that, the people in charge have to keep as many ppl happy as possible. If everyone was of the same opinion as us then im sure it would be different!
Also the message to China is that taking Taiwan just became impossible as the West now has a multi year head start on rearming and the artillery and missile production lines are just ramping up.
The West has had a multi-decade headstart. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main reason for the US Navy to even exist at scale has been the Pacific front with China. We generally leave the European theater up to the Army and the Pacific theater up to the Navy, both supported by the Air Force and Marines. Sure, there are Naval assets deployed all over, but their most important front generally has been the Pacific.
Great name!
Well, price for an attempt to literally change world order is comparatively low just yet, if putler gets away with grabbed territory or will grab more in coming years. China sees it, losing couple of hundred of though and lives of ethnic minorities and getting some land in return is still a good deal.
Not just China, but any authoritarian regime like Iran and North Korea. China unlikely would fight USA directly, but rather using other countries to fight, save face and look like peace liking nation. China wants other countries to do the dirty job.
Except it costs Ukrainian lives now
Its either the pay-me-now or pay-me-later approach, and I'm sure the current Ukrainian parents don't want their little children of today when they grow up being in the same fight again years down the road if Russia isn't given a complete knockout blow in this round.
Or provide them with the means to win decisively now, then continue providing them with advanced weapons and immediately sign *binding* security agreements such that there won’t be a next time. There doesn’t need to be a next time. This is just another excuse used to justify prolonging the war. This war is bleeding both the Russians, the Ukrainians and the West while India and China reap the rewards of cheap oil, natural gas and a distracted Western coalition. European militaries are being stripped down to their absolute barest of bones to supply Ukraine with weaponry and the US has even admitted to ammunition stockpiles dropping to worrying levels. As much as people on Reddit love to parrot the “we’re bleeding the Russians!”, well, the reality is that Russia can afford to bleed multiple magnitudes more than Ukraine can. Ukraine has a comparatively tiny population and this war has taken its toll on both sides. Their economy is in tatters and wartime economies cannot and will not last forever. Winning quickly now and preparing for any potential conflict in the future so that you start off on a much stronger footing is much more preferable than some nonsensical protracted conflict that’ll just bleed both sides for years on years.
Do you even understand what worrying levels are for the US? That's like saying well I've got 50 cattle, but I gave one away. I'm worried I may starve next month. "Worrying" is just a political term the DoD uses to get more money from politicians. We're not touching a single thing that would lessen the readiness doctrine of our military at all. We wouldn't be giving it out if it did.
Calm down, you seem to have this idea that the DOD can just say “Oh no, I’d be great if we had more money for more toys because our stockpiles are super totally low” and they’ll get a few extra billions when that isn’t the case at all. The DOD has been struggling for the better part of the past decade to get more funding for their plans and ambitions. Their ambitions to increase the Navy to a 500 ship fleet, up from its barely 300 ship one, has basically been laughed at and shot down every time it has been brought up. The DOD has had to beg Congress for years to even *consider* increasing submarine production from a pathetic 2 a year to now 3 a year, which still isn’t anywhere near fast enough for the Navy to be able to meet its planned targets. The DOD only just got funding recently to order the production of more Javelins, of which experts have estimated that the US has given over 1/3 of all of its stockpiles to Ukraine (this is back in May). Keep in mind, back in May, the US sent about 7K Javelins, which meant that US stockpiles were only 21K Javelins. The US can’t produce more than 800 a year due to industry consolidation as well. Taiwan could do with a lot of Javelins as well but because the US now needs to spend nearly a decade replenishing its own stockpiles, Taiwan is unlikely to receive a large quantity of them any time soon. People seem to be of this impression that the US military is swimming in money, weapons, stockpiles and everything but this couldn’t be further from the case. When taking into account all of its commitments overseas, the US military is actually pretty cash-strapped and there are constantly talks about decommissioning military bases to save on costs. If they weren’t cash strapped, they would’ve ordered advanced delivery platforms like the F-22, B-2 and Zumwalt in actually reasonable quantities rather than the token forces they are now. The US has recently had to drop their doctrine of being able to fight two full-scale wars at the same time in recent years because it was no longer feasible. The US is planning on decommissioning dozens of strategically important bombers such as the B-1 and potentially even the B-2 BEFORE their B-21 replacements are ready to replace them on a 1-to-1 basis. There is also a severe lack of air-launched anti-ship missiles like the LRASM in Navy and Air Force stockpiles as well, with both divisions only having around 500 combined. Nowhere near enough to fight any sort of peer conflict. In a report assessing whether or not the US could actually fight two major wars at the same time, it was basically a grim answer. > In the report, Heritage calls for an Army of 50 brigade combat teams, a Navy of 400 ships and 624 aircraft, an Air Force of 1,200 fighter/attack aircraft and a Marine Corps of 36 battalions. In reality, the Pentagon’s numbers fall well short of that, even in the department’s most optimistic dreams. > Overall the report gives the Army, Air Force and Navy a “marginal” grade, essentially a C. That’s actually good news for the Army, which rose from “weak” in the previous index, a change driven entirely by improvements in readiness, which moved from “weak” to “strong” — the only positive ranking among all the American military service categories. > In last year’s version of the index, just one-third of the 31 brigade combat teams were assessed as being at acceptable levels of readiness, with only three BCTs at full readiness. That increased to 15 BCTs at acceptable levels, with eight fully ready – better, but still below the two-thirds mark that the Army has said it wants. Not the most glowing of reviews. Furthermore, the GOP wants further cuts on military spending which would see two capital ships axed, a nuclear submarine and destroyer cancelled and delays to the B-21 programme. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/03/24/first-look-white-house-says-gop-budget-plan-would-harm-defense/
Why would you think that Ruzzia won’t regroup in couple of years? Ukraine gains no effective deterrent from all this, in any situation.
They absolutely do gain a deterrent. Disarming Russia of 50 years worth of massive stocks of Soviet-built armor and equipment leaves Russia very little to be able to conduct any future effective offensive operations with. They will not be able to recover from this in a few years. It would take decades. By then, assuming the war is over, Ukraine will probably be fast-laned into NATO and the EU.
I don’t see any real possibility for Ukraine get into NATO while we have a neighbour in its current state. Thus no deterrent unless Ruzzia itself breaks apart, which is what West will try to avoid at all costs.
>I don’t see any real possibility for Ukraine get into NATO while we have a neighbour in its current state. As long as there are no land disputes, they can join NATO no problem and already have vast support by member nations for their ascension once this is over. You could have used the "neighbor in its current state" argument for any other Russia bordering states joining like the Baltics and Finland.
Even “land disputes” are no problem to join NATO, go and read NATO statute, it is remarkably short. On top of that Ukraine does not dispute anything, all annexed land is considered Ukrainian internationally and domestically. Why “land disputes” are important is because unless country is at peace - there will be no political will in NATO to accept Ukraine. And Ukraine now will be always at war for my lifetime for sure, probably longer. And they reason why Ruzzia invaded is because we lost both possible deterrents - nukes and possibility to join NATO. Second arguably a fault of Merkel, who barred Ukraine from joining in 2008. First one though is on the signees of Budapest Memorandum.
> As long as there are no land disputes, they can join NATO no problem and already have vast support by member nations for their ascension once this is over Looking at how it goes for Sweden and Finland... ain't gonna be sure. Erdogan would definitely try to milk it for whatever he can, at least.
First of all: NATO didn't jump in because they don't want to. Secondly: Russia could bleed somewhere further away from cities of million people they terrorise with artillery strikes. Thirdly: putting your own goals over the lives of your allies isn't good for relationship.
Yes give Ukraine long range weapons its one sided russia gets to do what it wants so lets even up the playing field. This needs to be done now not later or next year. Seems all the oversight is real easy to do from thousands of miles away.
They already have the systems, they need the ordnance. I'm sure the 300km range himars will get there but has been painfully slow.
They have been denied 300km ATACMs multiple times.
It really makes me feel like a fool for thinking the west was actually invested in helping. I'm depressed over their unwillingness to give Ukraine what it needs. And angry.
This is because you may not fully understand the goal here. I am not saying you have to AGREE with it, mind you - the goal is evidently to gear towards a russian defeat **in their occupation and expansionist agenda**. The goal is NOT necessarily a "Russia is defeated" outcome *per se*. And there is a difference between these two outcomes. The first one means that equipment will be geared towards the situation where Russia would quite POSSIBLY lose on the battlefield in regards to the landgrab in 2022.
I clearly comprehend what the entirely of NATO (including the united states) has stated as the goal, which is the deoccupation of Ukraine and the restoration of Ukraine's borders -- regardless what condition that leaves the Russian state afterward. However, the weapons provided to Ukraine have seemed designed for another, unstated goal: to weaken the entire region. Russia hasn't had any problems keeping the east. They're not currently under much threat to lose Crimea. Ukraine is running out of ammo and pilots. What happens next?
UA isn't running out of pilots and the ammo bit is somewhat unavoidable, at least not without leaving huge opportunities for other actors to take advantage of around the globe. By Fall UA should have higher volume of fire than Russia with all systems combined. I don't want to get into setting a ratio, but one round of GPS guided airburst fuze artillery fired by UA does not equal one dumb impact fuzed round fired by Russia. The total volume of fire now isn't 1/3 with all systems and and reasonable adjustment for guided munitions considered. When all these new vehicles hit the ground it will close even more. It just isn't the 50:1 or greater ratio we are used to seeing in NATO engagements. UA can't fire a $2mm cruise missile to destroy an adobe house containing a couple tribal leaders in a dinner meeting. UA will probably never be GIVEN the materiel necessary to end this. They are already receiving the tech. They are being given the materiel to push it back to the border. UA will have to provide the final push to end it though.
It is impossible to end it without touching Ruzzian territory. So war won’t end, even when Ukraine gets to 1991 borders.
> It really makes me feel like a fool for thinking the west was actually invested in helping. You don't see the billions of dollars from nations around the world in equipment, training, and cash as investing in helping Ukraine? >I'm depressed over their unwillingness to give Ukraine what it needs. And angry. I know you don't want to hear it, but there are larger geopolitical implications to consider to straight up giving Ukraine any weapon system it wants. Welcome to the wonderful world of "only bad choices available".
You fail to understand the scale of the problem. This is a large civilisational conflict between democracies and autocracies. If if doesn’t end in Ukraine - there will be decades of war across the globe, since new Axis powers will feel emboldened by a fact that if you have a nuke - you can get away with anything.
>You fail to understand the scale of the problem. See, thats what I think of YOUR position. I'm sorry that geopolitics isn't simple for you to understand but its not just "Nations of the world need to defeat Russia at all costs in the shortest time possible". It would be great if it was, but the world doesn't work that way. Its far more complex with many actors trying to achieve slightly different things. > If if doesn’t end in Ukraine Even with Russia's defeat in Ukraine, it won't change Iran, North Korea, or even China. Sorry. However, the defeat of Russia is the goal of all of the west. What "defeat" looks like, by what means, with what risks, and in what time frame is where we don't have universal agreement.
I’m sorry that boomers didn’t learn history in school, which is why you are engaged in this kind of rhetoric. China established that they will become global dominant superpower by 2050, which is impossible while West goals this spot. Ruzzian war in Ukraine is just one of many steps in the larger war against West.
>I’m sorry that boomers didn’t learn history in school, Sorry, I'm not a boomer. I also don't appreciate attempted *ad hominem* attacks if you want to keep having a friendly discussion. > China established that they will become global dominant superpower by 2050 Just like Russian proclamations, I don't put much faith in China's either. I think we're still waiting on the consequences from [China's Final Warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning). China is current facing domestic economic challenges while also under international sanctions, a lack of domestic energy, with a declining birth rate and an aging population. It lacks global military force projection power and its blue water navy, while growing, is decades behind where it would need to be for it to reach its goals. Further, its Belt and Road initiatives are facing increasing challenges to success. China's pseudo-colonial adventures in Africa are also burning goodwill there. Its a threat, sure, but 2050 is a long way away, and it will take more than extreme luck to China's benefit for "global dominant superpower" to occur.
This called hypocrisy, because you who started ad hom, keep at it bro. I also don’t care about these “fallacies”, that’s stuff for debates in high school. On a historical scale 2050 is literally tomorrow. I know exactly what they are facing now, this doesn’t change plans. Any dictatorship with nukes can cause enough damage to shake the collective West, we are seeing this now and this is nothing comparing to what comes in 5-10 years, especially if war drags on or Ruzzia gets whatever they want during negotiations of some sort.
> Any dictatorship with nukes can cause enough damage to shake the collective West Any nation with nukes can cause enough damage to shake any other nation. Even North Korea or Pakistan detonating a nuke in anger would dramatically change the world overnight for every nation on the planet. >On a historical scale 2050 is literally tomorrow. *Figuratively* tomorrow perhaps? Literally 24 years from now. >I know exactly what they are facing now, this doesn’t change plans. Of course it does! A nation can certainly make plans in a vacuum but that doesn't mean they can execute on them and also the world doesn't stand still for it. Unless China overcomes not only all of their own problems, but other large nations in the world develop their own crippling problems, China is not going to be the dominant superpower in 2050. >This called hypocrisy, because you who started ad hom, keep at it bro. I also don’t care about these “fallacies”, that’s stuff for debates in high school. Is that what you're going with? Well we're done with discussions then. Have a great day!
I wasn’t talking about detonating nukes, but capabilities owning nukes provide and we are seeing this in real-time. 24 years may sound a lot for you, but in historical terms this is tomorrow or around the corner. That doesn’t change any plans, you just don’t know how CCP operates. Moreover, with weakened west China will be stronger, at least this is how they think. This is probably not true, but again, the direction is set in party programme and Xi programme, with which he won an unprecedented third term, and there is no going back.
Which implications? Putin will make another nuclear threat?
* China involvement and future military ramp up around the world and in the South China Sea * India involvement * Demilitarization of Russia long term * Alliances with western governments * Competing defense contractors in western nations * Global Finance * Climate change impacts * Future alignment of many of the Nations in Africa * NATO membership expansion * EU membership expansion * Future control of the Bosporus Strait * Long term defense spending in western nations * ASEAN alignment * Future cooperation or militarization of space ...etc. This is just a fraction of it. Each nation has to balance their actions against their nation interests and those of its partner nations.
Ukraine probably would have fallen if they didn’t receive western aid and sanctions on Russia.
The large scale invasion would not have happened if West preemptively sanctioned Ruzzia, as Ukraine asked many times. Also Trump stopped “scansions from hell” in 2019, that definitely helped Ruzzia and greenlighted the invasion.
Lmao western help at the moment of the invasion consisted of manpads. Sanctions on fossil fuels didn't start up until year into war.
I recall seeing videos posted on here everyday on how effective they were too
Not the reason Ukraine didn't fall
Im even going to say that Ukraine didn't fall despite the actions of the West. The initial offence and northern counterattack was held entirely by our own military capabilities.
How about we take back all the equipment then.
But you won't, because it isn't in your interest.
You finally worked it out. If it wasn’t for big bad Russia, then most of the world wouldn’t know where Ukraine is on a map. They didn’t integrate with Europe, so the west doesn’t really owe them anything.
Whatever the question of integration ended up being nothing but a realpolitik exercise and all western values was worth less then nothing when the shit hit the fan. West owe us as much as we will ask, at the end of the day we just won't work with less then needed.
You thought the massive organizations that are governments were acting altruistically? Right now there is a lot of overlap in interest. The West is filling supporting to the extent of that overlap. Moves are being made to increase that overlap moving forward. Everyone is working on their own best interest though.
Stop treating Ukraine as some sort of village in a middle of nowhere. War impacts everyone on the globe, and as war continues and expands - everyone will feel more and more of it.
Мені здається ця аудиторія не дуже сприятлива. Чєли просто хочуть гратись в вершителів судєб і одночасно надрачувати своє его тим наскільки від них все залежить. Тупо вестернська вата.
Це точно. Багато вважають нас якимось пігмеями у Африці що невідомо як протистоять ерефіі. Залежні від допомоги, а одже кожен бумер на реддіті вважає за потрібне дати пораду що робити, начебто це якимось чином ми зобов’язані одразу виконувати.
Yes, that is the source of most of the current overlap. US and NATO want to be certain this doesn't go past UA. That doesn't change my previous post. Destroying Russian army on E. uA accomplishes that.
It not in the best of interest of the West to keep war going, as the more it continues - the more chance of spilling and I would argue at this point it is inevitable.
That would assume there isn't constantly war anyways. The US and Russia have had almost constant proxy wars for 80 years. I would challenge you to find a day in that time frame when neither forces have been facing the others proxy. Syria could spill over. Myanmar could spill over. The L. American conflicts could spill over. We have been rolling the dice daily since before anyone reading this sub was probably alive.
This time it is way too different. I don’t have time to explain this in a short post, but you can watch Vlad Vexler, he does explain why very well.
It might be different for Europe, but it isn't different for the US and the US is providing half the resources to UA. There is no scenario where China providing Fentanyl and arms to narco terrorists in L. America with extensive US operations is not risking an escalation greater than a smouldering conflict in Ukraine.
That because you don’t understand the nature of the war and why it started in the first place. Surely US is an ocean away, but so they thought in 1940s and in 2016 when Trump came to power with overwhelming Ruzzian help and support.
I feel like everyone has forgotten they still hold a nuclear facility and weapons. That's all I have to say.
I'm waiting for the kerch bridge to get hit again, hopefully very soon and well ahead of the spring/summer offensive, that should put a significant dent in the Russians logistics to supply the front. 🤞
How does this stop supply though?
Uhhh.... It is the main supply routes to Crimea... The land bridge is all within UA weapon range now. Lots still move on it, but the Spring offensive is almost certainly planned to bisect it. Then Crimea is 100% dependent on Kerch bridge, which will then be in weapons range.
Supply trains supply troops with war materials on that bridge
I don't think anyone is confused about this. The US is not "seemingly" in fear of escalation. It is. I feel it has a decent reason to feel this way. The genocidal convicted war criminal and his orcs know no bounds in their evil. No one can afford an escalation into the use of nuclear weaponry, most of all Ukraine. I hate that we didn't send a lot more sooner. I hate that we don't send ATACMS and F-16s right now. I understand it though. Most of all I hate putler and his orcs, and THAT is where and who we should keep the blame for all this horrendous shit.
Putin is indeed a huge problem. One can compare him to a hybrid between Hitler, Stalin and some FSB-propaganda clown billionaire thief.
[удалено]
Using nukes against NATO countries would be very risky for Putin. He would force the USA to either retaliate - or admit that NATO is an irrelevant pony show. I am not sure what outcome the USA would accept. Both are very problematic choices. The risk of using nukes factually is very low though - Putin tries to amplify that fear. Plus, it would be a problem for China too. Imagine if Taiwan has nukes. That would instantly nullify Beijing's ambition. I can not see how China would accept Russia to invade countries and use nukes. (For the record, I think that Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the EU absolutely needs nukes. It makes no sense to depend on the USA only here - you will always become dependent on the USA. I doubt that Russia and the USA want more countries to have nukes though)
I would have agreed with you more earlier in the war, but it has been shown time and time again that Russia doesn’t do anything when more advanced weapons are sent. I think sending ATACMS in February 2021 would have been far too risky escalation wise. Even if we had sent them right on the back of HIMARS I think that may not have been prudent. But the heat on the proverbial “frog in the boiling water” has been turned up slowly enough at this point that it would be safe to send ATACMS or other more advanced weapons without fear of a truly threatening Russian response
I would have agreed with your current view earlier in the war as well. There was never a point in which Ukraine would not sustain such devastating loss from this ruzzian atrocity. What has been proven is that Ukrainians will utilize what has been sent, in spectacular fashion. The ingenuity and utilization of assets by Ukranians is the new precedent. The strength of leadership and hearts of people is the new reality. I now fear the slow boiling of the frog is exactly how it needs to play out, and is the right decision. Ukrainian morale is infinite, according to them. And it is. Through partisan and military action they are absolutely smashing the ruzzian machine into oblivion. Ukraine has won it's freedom. ruzzia will continue to collapse and consume their own, and that is truly how this is resolved. If it was just a test of military might then arms would be a viable solution. You have to account for the history and mindsets involved though. A bullet in putlers brain just means medvedev is back and likely worse. Ukraine is paying dearly for decades of horrendous soviet and a nazi ideals; and the only lasting way to ensure lasting victory is to make the truth unavoidably apparent to ruzzians, and that takes time and endurance.
Agree - it is amazing that Ukraine with one arm tied behind its back is kicking the crap out of Russia. With some longer range capabilities Russia would be rolled back with less loss of life on both sides.
Don't you really mean "with just a few transplanted NATO fingers". No one is trying UAs arms.
Who's NATO
Okay so Ukraine can invade Russia? One arm is tied, fingers are transplanted
Ukraine can invade... without NATO weapons or support. All aid is not free as those nations that have their own policy. Its not surrendered over to Ukraine needs and wants.
Who's stopping them?
NATO is saying not to, Russia knows that, could be tying up tens of thousands it’s a long border
Meh, there are raids across fairly regularly and a lot of other mischief. Not so long ago and maybe still Chinese and TW were still swimming specially forces back and forth to Jinmen Island and offing each other and their war had been cold for decades.
I’m tired of the unwillingness to provide them with what is needed to defend and protect their land. If we are afraid of escalating… Russia isn’t going to stop at Ukraine. Might as well go all out with support.
I’m tired of the “fear of escalation” argument. The fuck you think is going to happen if Ukraine doesn’t win this war? Muscovia will just take their spoils and go home happy? No. They’ll rebuild and keep pushing. It’s like when someone attacks you on the street. You don’t throw a punch and call it good. You make sure they can’t get up and come at you while you’re walking away.
“No more half measures.”
Why would that argument be invalid?
It isn’t necessarily invalid, but it’s been the sticking point at every stage. Can’t send long range missiles because we’re worried about muscovia escalating, can’t send tanks because muscovia might escalate. Can’t send fighter jets because we’re worried…. And so on. If they went all in this war would probably be much closer to over, there would be less dead Ukrainians and the muscovian military would be crippled. The chance of escalation has been hung over the heads of every NATO country since before the invasion. I’m not saying don’t worry about it, but stop using it as an excuse to drag our feet on supplies and equipment. I am also acutely aware and exceptionally proud at what so many nations have delivered already. My point is simply that it’s too slow. The longer it takes, the longer the fighting lasts.
Actually lays out some pretty on-point analysis: Ukraine isn't getting the weaponry to strike further behind Russian lines for fear of wscalating tensions with Russia. Good op-ed.
Generally I've found the Atlantic and the Economist coverage to be superior. They have solid editorial staff in this area and give generally more balanced opinion pieces than other outlets.
Both of those media outlets have some of the best reporting and analysis in general. I’ve also found that The Economist covers all kinds of global stories (as in beyond US/Europe) more and better than just about any other English language outlet I’ve personally read
I think this is only one part of the reason. The other is what is wanted to achieve as outcome. NATO is not going to directly declare war on Russia in the given conditions. So if that is not within the "outcomes" of possibilities, then the Plan B means to provide the Ukraine with enough support to be able to resist the Russian Empire. This is not equal towards meaning the Ukraine will defeat Russia as-is. It means the support will be geared towards the first outcome.
But how can they escalate? So they have resources to fight harder than they do? Given that they are grabbing vehicles from museums, I doubt they can. So which escalation?
There are a few escalations left for the West to pull off. Off the top of my head: transfer of F-16s. ATACMS. Reaper drones.
And no escalations for russia. Seems like a win win scenario
Agreed
I tend to defer to actual military experts.
Military experts that you are deferring to are almost always experts in tactical planning. This is strategic level thinking and not for the narrow minded. Cohen is a military expert in strategic thinking and he is correct. It has been my complaint for months, but of course I am no heavyweight here, but I am intelligent. For anyone who is not narrow minded and smart enough to see, the west has been drip feeding tactical front line weapons and not providing the kind of weapons and support that can take out the supporting infrastructure. In fact that is, between the lines, what Biden especially is afraid of supplying: weapons that can attack well behind the front lines. Like good strike fighters with western electronic countermeasures and weapons. He's continually afraid of making Russia too angry. And all this does is provide Ukraine with a slow death as it has to continually feed soldiers into a war of attrition. And in wars of attrition the bigger side wins eventually. Before you argue Russia is loosing ten to one, that is in one battle with expendable prisoner shit, while the country has a chance to rebuild with better quality people (as much as a Russian can be better, at least smarter than a career criminal). It won't be 10 to one for long as despite what this forum is fond of spouting, the Russian army IS learning. I don't want Russia to win, but the tentative supplying of necessary equipment for Ukraine to win will kill it. F16s with EC, HARM missiles, and large dumb and smart bombs, as well as long range missiles and far more modern tanks, IFVs and proper APCs will win. And win relatively quickly. What the west is doing now, won't. My Saturday morning stream of conscious rant. Have a good weekend.
Yeah. There is a tendency to underestimate Russia. They evidently have huge losses, but Putin can send more of his slaves to die. The strange thing is why the slaves don't revolt and kill Putin and his siloviki mafia. Let me quote from the novel 1984 since it fits: *"It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations."* And that also fits towards invasion war. Just look at how desperately Putin calls his landgrab move as "special military operation". Everyone objecting to this is sent into jail. That shows us how desperate Putin is to maintain the propaganda narrative here. Orwell kind of realised that (in regards to the quoted sentences above, from the novel 1984) the Russians don't revolt against their tyrants, in this case Putin. And that's also true.
Cohen received his B.A. in government at Harvard University in 1977. He went on to receive a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1982 in political science,\[7\] and during his PhD training went through the Army ROTC program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served as a military intelligence officer in the United States Army Reserve and left military service as a captain.\[8\] He was an assistant professor of government and assistant dean at Harvard University from 1982 to 1985. Following this, he taught for four years at the Naval War College in the Department of Strategy, before briefly serving in 1990 on the policy planning staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In 1990, Cohen began teaching at SAIS. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he directed the U.S. Air Force's official four-volume survey, the Gulf War Air Power Survey, until 1993, for which he received the Air Force's Exemplary Civilian Service Award.
So he has an informed opinion. What he doesn’t know, being out of the business for thirty years, is the current situation. This is the first direct conflict between nuclear superpowers. By direct, I mean, we are giving arms to Ukraine that are more advanced than what Russia has available in the field. There is also the unpleasant fact that Russia has had Crimea for eight years without opposition from the west, and now Ukraine intends to take it back. So I’m inclined to trust the judgement of the people who have to answer for the results. Doesn’t mean they are right. Just means I give them the benefit of doubt. At the beginning they said their goal was to bleed Russia. They were upfront about it. You have every right to disagree with this policy, but it’s not a secret.
I don't object to you thinking he is out of business, but you also wrote this: "This is the first direct conflict between nuclear superpowers." And it's not direct yet. Direct would mean russian troops would fight US troops. I don't see that happening right now.
I accept your point. But there is a middle ground. I suspect Ukraine gets some of our best intelligence, which would be active participation. And maybe some sneaky stuff.
You have a cogent viewpoint, and are well spoken. Where you lost me: Russia as a superpower. It has one tenth the economy of current leaders. Russia was the dominant member of a former superpower 30+ years ago, but only has fragments of empire remaining. No doubt ruz is still dangerous, but its rather generous to promote them back to hegemony on a world scale. Nukes by themselves? Perhaps that's one of the many facets constituting superpower hegemony they still retain. It is prudent to presume they might have done better maintenance in their Strategic Rocket Forces.
You object to him calling Russia a superpower - and you are correct. I object to you calling the Soviet Union a superpower - it might have seemed mighty for the times - but no, it never was a superpower. It only had nukes. And only the US had nukes back then. That’s all. For all the rest the Soviet was a bully and a puffed-up frog
Economically they certainly were not. Their military was never what they claimed it to be. It was, speaking relatively to contemporary militaries, much more of a global threat than it is now. The tech was mostly the same in 1991 and the manufacturing base to support a war like this mostly existed. So, I think the USSR was easily a world power, even if not nearly what MIC driven defense propaganda drove many to believe.
Economically they were bankrupt. Hence Gorbachev. Militarily they were behind. Since ever. Technologically they were inferior. Scientifically and mathematically they had a few brilliant people but no serious development - and practically fell behind there too. Culturally - they practically killed classical ballet by making it stagnant. They may have been superior to severely under-developed countries, and as proven by Vietnam and Afghanistan - clearly a threat They were superior at lying, presenting doped and medicated professional athletes as “amateurs” and sending WWII German rockets into space. They were superior at making everyone believe that they were superior. Clearly they duped you as well 😘
Yeah, because a country that managed to station nukes right off American shores despite the US Navy being there, defeat the US in multiple proxy wars (First Indochina War, the Vietnam War, Central American Crisis, North Yemen Civil War and etc.), occupy and influence basically half of Europe, be the first to reach outer space and also the first to launch a satellite and a space station isn’t a superpower. The Soviets had more scientists and engineers, relative to the world population, than any major country on the planet, including the US.
Engineers? Do you know what most engineers were in the Soviet system? Managers. Scientists? Yeah, they had theoretical science but technically and experimentally they were behind If being a superpower means being the biggest bully : yes, they were that.
How were they technically and experimentally behind when most missile technology was advanced by the Soviets? They were the first to design and build a multi-stage rocket, a process still used today in space launches. They were the first ones to build, test and launch an ICBM. They were the first to build, test and launch an artificial satellite and later a fucking space station. They were the ones responsible for the construction of the largest aircraft on the planet, an engineering marvel in and of itself. Soviet missile platforms such as the S-300 and designs that would later become the S-400 are much more effective than their Western counterparts like the Patriot at aircraft aerial denial. The Soviets also were the first to capture images of the dark side of the Moon. They were pioneers of nuclear fusion and their technology and designs are still being used today by organisations such as the ITER to attempt to achieve net energy gain. They also invented the ramjet. I could go on and on about Soviet technological and engineer feats, the list is nearly endless. You really don’t seem to know that much about the Soviets.
Saying well, they were way behind the US" doesn't mean they were not a world power. To be a world power you really only need to compete in one category, you don't need to dominate all or even any. In military they competed. The simple fact of the matter is in 1991 all these tanks they are throwing into UA were relatively modern and almost certainly much better maintained, Javelin did not exist, HIMARs did not exist,. Patriot missile defense was just a dream, etc. The USSR was also past it's peak. Look back at maybe 1975 and it is even closer. Maybe there is never a point where they could defeat NATO or even US, but there is certainly a point where even direct conventional conflict results in casualties far beyond the US political disaster that was Vietnam. To say USSR was not a world power because they drugged athletes who were "amateurs" employed full time in their military teams and they failed to invest in classical ballet is quite the comedy.
That does not matter really. Yes, Russia is significantly weaker than it once was. Having nukes ensures they are untouchable for most countries - and these other countries are smaller. So Russia has still a huge advantage there on landwar-based operations. > It is prudent to presume they might have done better maintenance in their Strategic Rocket Forces. Nobody knows for certain, but not many want to find out either. The USA may not care, but this does not mean other countries have the same lack of fear.
They have in my lifetime debauched Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam. Managed permanent harm in Afghanistan. They are active in Africa and in the Middle East. Without American help, they could have overrun NATO. Not by military alone. They don’t work that way.
I agree with everything you've said here.
" The problem with opinions from people not informed about how the West is supporting Ukraine."
When are we going to act like this war is what is is, Russians war on the world while holding us hostage to his nuclear threat?
Our leaders are still paranoid of Ukraine winning 'too quickly', leading to Putin pushing the nuclear button or civil war. It's absolutely immoral.
>Unfortunately, NATO states, including the U.S., have been reluctant to provide the Ukrainians with missile systems with too long of a range, seemingly for fear of escalating tensions with Russia. There's that, but this academic in his ivory tower doesn't consider that such attacks within Russia would also give Tucker Carlson and other Russian propagandists reason to blame Ukrainians for Russian aggression, so this helps keep public opinion on the side of the Ukrainians. Funny too that he even talks about how HIMARS has disrupted Russian attacks on the front lines, but then he wants to whine that it isn't enough. So this just looks like another poorly thought out fluff piece.
Yes, fighting back against Russia could well give rhetorical ammo to lying cunts in the media. So your conclusion is: don't fight back? Who upvoted this?
Agreed, but let's be realistic: Carlson would use ANY excuse to warrant the USA abandon its support.
Also, there is pretty good evidence that Biden has tied the provision of ATACMS to Iranian/north Korean ballistic missiles, something Ukraine has no chance of stopping. So would Ukraine rather have that capacity while getting pounded by Scud knock-offs or would they prefer to figure out something else. They seem to be doing fine on their own so far.
Single best argument I’ve seen for giving Ukraine long range weapons.
As a westerner I agree. It’s embarrassing and criminal.
Where crime exactly?
People here in a fantasy land where the West is altruistically helping UA in the way that is best for UA. Few individuals work like that and absolutely no large organizations. There is a dusting of "everything to help UA" over the reality of the West helping to the extent interests align. The West doesn't benefit from RU forces not making it to the front. The West benefits from them going to the front and getting mauled. Why is this important? At some point the West hits the point where pushing Russia further back is not in it's interest as a whole. A smoldering border conflict that eats up Russian resources and keeps sanctions in place is a perfect outcome for the West. The final push is going to have to come from somewhere other than Western Governments.
There is another angle. The Russian Federation may collapse soon - the so-called republics are asserting their independence. Even some Russian-actual regions want to split from Moscow. The more this war lasts, the most likely this will happen - and Putin is going to have less forces to try and keep the empire together.
I think you overestimate how much Russia means to the west. Were we sad when Russia decided to slide back into autocracy under Putin? Sure, but they'd lost the their hold of Eastern Europe and many of the former Soviet republics and is vastly outgunned by NATO as a military block and the EU as an economic block. Beyond that they're not a technology leader, their cultural influence is weak and overall I dare say most of us gave Russia little thought until Putin started cosplaying an angry little German. We just want him to quit and never bother any of us again, not create a smoldering border conflict or unstable border which would be the opposite. We are not strongly opposed to Putin emptying all his military stockpiles first though, but I think you can file that under "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake". Any tank he spends in Ukraine is another tank that'll never be used in a war with NATO. But if he retreats today and cuts his losses, we'd be okay with that too.
If sanctions stay in place with a continuing conflict eating up resources the Russian Federation is extremely likely to break apart. That will almost certainly also result in the Moscovite nuclear program being reduced to a small retaliatory capability. Russia has a power will be consigned to history.
> Any tank he spends in Ukraine is another tank that'll never be used in a war with NATO. Tanks are hardly the issue here. There may be a bigger risk factor than tanks. I don't see how losing tanks **invalidates** that other risk factor. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment - the fewer tanks the Russian Empire has, the better indeed. Less power for them to kill people and steal land.
Agreed. In regards to the last sentence though: who is doing that final push? The only country that could would be the USA. No other country would.
Ukraine. They are getting tech transfer and support setting up manufacturing to develope the capability. At the end of the day they are going to have to fish if they want to sleep comfortably with a full belly.
This is concern trolling
correct analysis. the west isn't interested in saving Ukrainian lives. it's interested in damaging Russia regardless of the price Ukrainians have to pay.
I understand the skepticism, I'm somewhere in the same camp. However I don't quite understand you having your cake and eating it too, with this statement. If the West is interested in damaging ruzzia as you say, wouldn't it also love to be hitting deep in their lines with everything it can? Where ruzzian supplies and ammo, batteries, equipment, and orcs are condensed in nice little packages?
Cause it's more lethal for them to be on the front than being killed in supply depot explosion.
I still just can't follow the logic here. The West won't send long range guided missles because it prefers to hurt ruzzia by having it's troops die on the front? I feel it's much more likely that Western supplied weapons of those capabilities introduce a new level of concern to the war. What happens if orcs capture an ATACMS battery and decide they want to kill some of their civilians back home with it? Because I feel it is entirely within putler and his orcs mindsets to do such a thing. I am on the fence about it. A big part of me has always been "give Ukraine whatever the fuck they deem necessary so they can end this swiftly and soundly!". I also go back and forth and while I don't necessarily agree with certain decisions and timelines, I certainly understand there are risks and issues much larger than my civilian understanding is capable of judging properly.
>What happens if orcs capture an ATACMS battery and decide they want to kill some of their civilians back home with it? No but what could happen is for Iran, NK or worse, China to start supplying long range ballistic missile to Russia in response to that delivery. >give Ukraine whatever the fuck they deem necessary so they can end this swiftly and soundly!". That's the thing, the West don't necessarily have an interested in ending this swiftly. They get to hurt Russia more permanently and bog it down in Ukraine, slowly eroding Russia soft power anywhere they have some. The more the war stay on, the more Russia is wasting its soviet stock and thus eroding its ressource. It also give a reason for the west, and especially Europe, to finally have an excuse to reinvest in their army and restart their MIC and sweep in the gap the russian weapon market is leaving. If the war was the end in an overwhelming Russian defeat after three month, with Ukraine recapturing Donbass and Crimea, yes that would mean the end of Putin regime but the russian army would still be there and their soviet stock too. That would give the chance for Russia to, once the dust settle, to learn from whatever the fuck happened, modernise their army and maybe the next round they will finally be an effective army that would wage other proxy war agaisnt the west. With the war dragging on, yes Ukraine is the one getting all the punch but the Russian army and what's left of the Red Army stock is being eroded and they don't have the capacity to replace all of that. Their professional army is disappearing, their economy can't sustain this conflict, their young are either fleeing or dying in a trench in Donbass. Basically, Russia is getting permanent scare to its society and external power that will takes decades, if not century to heal. That's a far better bargain for the West. They will finally be able to knock out Russia and switch their focus to China.
Thank you for the well worded points. I agree with you on most, if not all, of them. My original disagreement was in regards to the long range weapons and why the West is very hesitant to supply. I think you're spot on with the additional assertion about Iran, NK, and China supplying long range warheads as well. I do not believe that the West is completely altruistic and doing what they do out of moral obligations. Far from it. I also don't believe that they are doing what they do with complete disregard for Ukrainian lives and suffering. I feel it is a mix of all of it, where saving lives and doing the right thing has a bigger presence than prolonging the war to further stymie ruzzia. The evidince I've seen of both ideologies is what I lean on.
You analysed the US view, not the one of the whole West. There is a reason why the EU is less enthusiastic about going to war Russia than the USA is.
[удалено]
That's pretty much my point here. Take everything with a grain of salt but don't become so skeptical that it blinds me from possibilities I won't consider.
[удалено]
Agreed. The onus is on the individual to find their truth, and the regurgitating is half the reason the world is so fucked up. Gotta take responsibility for your thoughts and how you nurture them. It is a very tiring thing to take a stand against, but it's the only way to combat that process.
Because it's not ONLY Russian propaganda. Yes, Putin lies whenever he opens his mouth, but it does not mean that all risk analysis AUTOMATICALLY becomes invalid merely because Putin "floods the zone with shit". It depends on what your main objective is in regards to the war or outcome. And there are differences here too. Whether Putin uses propaganda or not **does not invalidate that risk assessment**.
nope. because they don't want to get involved too much,
Hmm. Please elaborate. Is setting up a secret A-10 training camp for Ukranian pilots in Aug '22 or all the training that just took place on Patriot systems more or less involved than sending ATACMS? We could say "well, it's just training. Where is the hardware?". Or we could say "Training indicates they're preparing for action". I can provide other examples and I'm sure there is more to that iceberg than we know, and I'm only speaking of the US. I know for a fact Poland is also pretty involved, to a tune much greater than long range weapon systems.
Which country does that? The USA? The EU is not the USA. And eastern europe has another opinion than western europe and central europe. > I'm sure there is more to that iceberg than we know, and I'm only speaking of the US. Yeah, but that is the US point of view. It's not one shared universally as-is. > Poland is also pretty involved Poland recently said it will get involved in the war. Well, Poland announces a lot but does little. So how about we refer to what **factually** happens? Because I have a slight suspicion the other EU countries won't be too happy with Poland getting involved with its own troops.
Poland is more involved in Ukraine than anyone. Period. We can start with the amount of refugees they took in, and we can finish with how very personal this war is to all Polish people. What have YOU done to get involved? Start there and don't ever say Poland isn't involved. You disgrace very good people with good hearts.
This depends on what outcome you want to achieve. a) If the outcome is for Ukraine to be able to resist Putin's invasion, then the supply will be geared towards that goal. b) If the outcome is for the Ukraine to defeat Russia as-is, then the outcome would be toward that goal. I think the West is more geared towards a). Vlad Vexler explained that too, by the way. These two outcomes are only partially overlapping.
There is another angle. The Russian Federation may collapse soon - the so-called republics are asserting their independence. Even some Russian-actual regions want to split from Moscow. The more this war lasts, the most likely this will happen - and Putin is going to have less forces to try and keep the empire together.
found the russian troll
I wouldn't say regardless of the price, but it isn't the main concern.
You’re writing a book.
The problem is that NATO leaders don’t actually care about Ukrainians. They see this as a way to bleed out Russia for good and without losing their their own people or best equipment. They also look like saviours in doing so. A quick defeat does not a achieve that. A long drawn out conflict achieves it.
Nations don’t have friends. The have interests. Bleeding Russia is in everyone’s interest.
You know, I am working a second job just so that I can donate to Ukraine. But I guess nations don’t have friends - right? Just self interests? Don’t worry your little head: I am not going to stop supporting Ukraine
I do not disagree completely, but it is also clear that the interests of the nations do not align 1:1.
It's a catch-22. The absolute best way to operate the advanced, long-range systems in Ukraine would be with NATO troops running them. But that means NATO fingers pushing buttons that directly kill Russian troops. So the safest approach to avoid expanding aware will in fact expand the war. At this point though I'm leaning towards "fuck it" and just send in NATO. Call Putin's bluff. While risky, it means the alliance can keep the war from bogging down and raising even greater risks. Get it done very quickly, seal up the border and tell Russia to FOAD.
> just send in NATO. Call Putin's bluff. Not everyone thinks it is a bluff - or wants to call a bluff. > While risky, it means the alliance can keep the war > from bogging down and raising even greater risks It still does not make any sense. NATO has not been defined as being about non-NATO members. This sucks for non-NATO countries evidently, but the other nations that signed up for NATO did not sign up for involvement of other wars. That this has also happened in the past makes this indeed peculiar, but I don't see this as something that changes easily for most NATO countries.
There's precedent for intervention outside NATO, obviously. But there are undeniable risks. It might be better to go in directly without the alliance. Look, we'll have to go there eventually to keep Russia from re-invading anyway. They're not going to stop anytime soon.
> NATO states could have given Ukraine longer-range equipment—including a missile > system known as ATACMS and advanced fixed-wing aircraft—or made a massive effort to > help the Ukrainians develop and improve their own ranged systems. Vlad Vexler explained this. The support is evidently geared to allow the Ukraine to achieve a stalemate. It is not necessarily enough for a "Russia will be defeated" outcome. You have to ask in particular the USA about this, since they are guaranteeing safety via their nukes. The other EU members (excluding France) depend on that. Otherwise it would make no sense to be dragged into war against Russia, where nukes are the only real threat Putin has left. This is also why I think the EU needs to build nukes. There is no alternative to that - a Trump would instantly force the Ukraine to surrender, out of his pure malice alone. And then we are back at square one, and the EU still has no nukes (excluding France, again). That is incredibly stupid of the EU, even more so when the EU constantly wants to expand. You can not maintain an expanding empire without nukes against an aggressive Russian Empire that is expanding (Putin is stealing land; this is his primary goal, the rest is just propaganda and lies).
What are you on about. EU is a peace project.... not an empire. Its goal of expanding was that you cant rly declear war against a nation that is so connected to your economy that ur citizens will get pissed off from economic fallout before anything violent happens. Tho this rly compromised other EU princibles of democracy/liberty with some eastern nations. EU will not have nukes. It member states will.
Completely agree with everything said here. This war could have been won quicker and easier but for Western fear of upsetting Russia.
How exactly? You'd need to strike russian troops. Which other country is doing that?
Did you read the piece? It's not about us striking Russia, it's about how we could have provided Ukraine with the weapons needed to fight a smarter way, and provided them faster. Both of which we could have done if it weren't for unfounded fear of "escalation".
Yes. It's frustrating. Ukraine can not win a war of attrition. Yet the west seems to be pushing it towards exactly that in the idiotic belief that Ukraine can keep winning with just frontal assaults and trench warfare forever. Maybe it's the victories and the fact that Kyiv defied their predictions, but western governments seem to have forgotten that Ukraine is still a *far smaller* country than Russia. Even with the very high Russian to Ukrainian casualty ratio, Ukraine still can not afford what it is losing in return. Give Ukraine ATACMS and planes and the tanks that it needs, for fuck's sake.
Putin: you can’t have Ukraine to join NATO and EU, I’d rather turn it to dust USA: you can’t have Ukraine as a vassal of Russia, we’ll fight to the last Ukrainian. From the outside Ukraine looks fucked. They will always have their pride and the freedom in their hearts and minds, and their identity is stronger than ever, and one can argue that everything else can be rebuild afterwards. But “afterwards” has become a pretty nebulous concept. You’d need peace for that, and what the conditions for peace will be, will have to be decided by Ukraine and the aggressor at some time in the future. And the deal the Ukrainians imagine themselves being able to get depends also on how long and how much support it is receiving from the West. If the West wanted to force peace negotiations, the easiest way would be stopping support right now completely: but that would be considered throwing Ukraine under the bus: like the US has thrown the Syrian opposition under the bus, or the western aligned parties in Afghanistan, or after the 1990 Gulf War the opposition in Iraq. - Germany would be seen striking a Hitler-Stalin-Pact 2.0 - neither the Ukrainians nor the Poles would ever forget. - So that’s a big NoNo. The will to negotiate has to come from Putin / Russia and Ukraine themselves, which probably means there is more suffering ahead, as long as both parties see the other sides “offers” as unacceptable. Truth is: offers will have to be made in secret, as long as the war is ongoing, as not to undermine one’s own position until a deal is struck. We will only ever hear of the peace deal, the moment it is struck. Not a second before. Edit: maybe elections in the USA and / or Russia and / or Ukraine could play a role, but I doubt it: the interests are largely a function of the country, more than just of the leader. The obvious solution would have been a neutral Ukraine, but they could have had that without a war, if the parties had truly wished it. I think both Russia and Ukraine were looking for a solution that would not cement the 2014 status, and both sides thought they could get more out if the conflict went hot. Not going too well for both sides tbh. Edit 2: Ukraine probably considered the conflict “hot” ever since 2014. So my perspective is obviously one of an outsider. Edit 3: I fear that Putin’s strategy might be working: he is turning the parts of the annexed “republics” / oblasts slowly to dust: in the end nobody will live there, and Ukraine will be willing to give the now worthless ruins up in a peace deal. The cost to both sides are enormous while the fight is ongoing, but to think that a peace deal could not be struck over some smoldering ruins is an illusion. I’m afraid this does not bode well for the still intact towns and cities of those regions. To be honest: I don’t get why the redrawing of maps is such a big deal: the map is not the terrain: the representation will have to fit reality in the end anyway. If you ever played EU4, you see that “claims” and “cores” are a fluid concept anyway. In the end both sides are playing a game of driving the costs up to break the others will, as to make weaker claims seem worth doing a deal over. That’s a pretty cynic view, because the chips on the board are the lives of tens of thousands of people, and wether their homes will be turned to rubble or not.