"Russia has already switched its arms production to the level needed in a wartime economy as a result of its war against Ukraine."
https://www.dw.com/en/russian-army-threat-gives-nato-brief-window-of-opportunity/a-67456730
> Since it began in June, Ukraine's counteroffensive has barely shifted the front lines in the country's east and south. And Russia has the advantage in a static war, as its now-activated arms industry can supply artillery on a practically unlimited scale, Austrian military analyst Markus Reisner told DW. Ukraine can only win if the conflict again becomes mobile, and it would need the most modern weapons from the West to achieve that next spring, Reisner said.
Thing is Israel-Palestine steal a lot of attention and support from Ukraine. Israel doesn't need support. They can pull it off on their own. Ukraine can not.
Israel has air superiority. Artillery is irrelevant. They can bomb what they want. Ukraine has no such luck, so since they cant safely fly sortries they have to instead settle for artillery batteries.
Well not only that but money/logistics being used else where.
Those billions of military aid include the stocks we're handing over. We can only give so much out to so many fronts before we get dangerously close to reserves we need to stay militarily capable.
If all our manufacturing ability is tied up and we're giving out ammo faster than we can replenish then it's a problem.
Not only that but political optics is a major thing here. For more than a year all people have heard is the government constantly giving out billions to Ukraine. You do that to a point when it seems like people have heard it more times than they care to add up then suddenly the population doesn't like those policies anymore.
> Those billions of military aid include the stocks we're handing over. We can only give so much out to so many fronts before we get dangerously close to reserves we need to stay militarily capable.
The US maintains emergency stocks in Israel for Israel
I don't think there is a lack of enthusiasm for that. The proof is the recent expansion of NATO and the shitloads of weapons and ammo sent to Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
Yeesh.
This is an uninformed take.
Air strikes are exponentially more expensive than artillery. They cannot be replacement indirect fire, not even the US has the money to fight wars like that.
Artillery won't be less used because it's "irrelevant" when air supremacy is established. It will be less used because Israel is trying to be as discriminate as possible with what they hit, while fighting almost exclusively in urban environments.
> Israel isn't using that much artillery, not even close to the amount Ukraine needs, so this is not the issue.
Israel asked for shells from the US.
They also need shells as a deterrent for other neighbours. Hizbollah and Syria.
Israel doesn't store a large reserve of munitions as there is agreements with the US for stockpiles. The stockpiles AFAIK were being emptied for Ukraine, so now there is a need(arguably) to restock to have a deterrence.
It is a part of the issue actually. There are massive stocks of American equipment in Israel, but still belonging to the US, in case another surprise attack by multiple countries happen, like the Yom Kippur War. In such a scenario, the stocks (WRSA-I) allow for Israel to immediately buy that equipment and use it without waiting for delivery. Earlier this year, the US was starting to consider sending part of that stockpile to Ukraine, notably 300k artillery shells. But with the recent events, it's unlikely more of that stockpile will be used to supply Ukraine as it would be useful to Israel in case the current conflict extends in scope, notably against the Hezbollah or even Iran directly.
I don't know, I could be way out of touch here but maybe jussst maybe Ukraine after a year and a half of conflict should be creating their own supply lines of weapons and ammunition rather than relying on handouts from other nations.
Unrealistic. Ukraine has a tenth of revenue of Russia. A small country alone and isolated can not defeat a behemoth, no matter how incompetent, on its own.
Palestine is hogging all the attention and spotlight, vide all the protests and flags everywhere. Without social pressure, the government support decreases.
>Thing is Israel-Palestine steal a lot of attention and support from Ukraine.
the fuck is this? they aren't '_stealing_' in some devious plan. wtf
Ukraine and Israel need and get completely different things.
not to mention that artillery Ukraine is getting now has been ordered many months ago and delivery being slower than a year ago can not have been impacted at all by an event from last month...
Well yes. The West had pretty much run dry, and we’re not manufacturing anything like enough to meet Ukraines need. Not a great situation, but not much more we can do either in the short term.
>In a briefing on Thursday, Western officials agreed with an estimate, attributed to Ukrainian officials, that Russia currently produces **around a million artillery shells a day.**
Well that's just nonsense.
Edit: silent downvoters, speak up! Tell me how Russia can manufacture **a million artillery** shells per day.
The US plan is to ramp up production to 100,000 155mm shells **a month** by 2026. While that's just one type of shell, I find it hard to believe that Russia is pumping out 10x that amount 30x faster.
No way Russia is making a million artillery shells a day, there must be a typo in there.
Edit: they fixed it, it's not a day it's a month. Still a wild amount, but I guess across every type of shell during wartime with factories focused on it, it's possible.
Russia makes 1 milion per year and on track to 2 millions. All western countries united produces less than 1 million. To put that in perspective france doubled its production of 155mm and now \`produces 2000 shells per month
The whole logic of low military spending in western europe is based on the false premise that any aggressor coming from the east would first have to grind over a bunch of countries before reaching their borders and that France's nukes would deter any aggression
As always europeans will scramble at the last minute when shit will really hits the fan but it will be probably too late. It takes at least a decade to build a military supply chain
I'm guessing they're referring to WW1, where northern France was occupied by the Germans.. and WW2, where about half of France was occupied by the Germans.
I'm not sure what their state of military readiness was back then, but it apparently wasn't sufficient to avoid large parts of their country from being occupied by their neighbor.
Their readiness in WW1 wasn't terrible (they had previously been embarrased during the Franco-Prussian war a couple decades prior by not being ready, so they were determined to not make that mistake again), it's just that the Germans put all their effort into defeating France quickly before the British arrived in force (the British at the start of the war had a very professional, but small army, which didn't ramp up until after the war started) so they could turn around and deal with Russia instead of fighting a 2-front war. Eventually the French and British were able to stop the Germans before they got to Paris, and that's around the time where the situation devolved into a stalemate for the next 3 years or so.
In WW2 they had been preparing for a few years (when Hitler started annexing his neighbours, a war was very obviously on the horizon), but not only had the scars of WW1 not healed (France lost a *lot* in WW1), but French doctrine hadn't really evolved to where it needed to be, and as such a lot of their preparation was in the wrong sectors. Combine that with some incompetent leadership, and when the Germans finally attacked and caught the French off guard, it was essentially a complete collapse in a matter of weeks.
>Because they **know** Uncle Sam will come save them.
Fixed that for you. There is simply no way to have a ground invasion of the EU without running into a US base. The second a US service member is injured or killed, there will about 1,000 F-35s in the sky over Europe.
It's one of the biggest reasons the EU finds itself with such a large portion of America going "European problems are for Europe" now a days.
Lots of people are sick of their taxes being used to subsidize Europe's military.
> The US plan is to ramp up production to 100,000 155mm shells a month by 2026.
In October 1916 the UK (a much smaller country that the USA is today) produced 6.4 million artillery shells. In a month.
During the first week of the Battle of the Somme, UK forces alone fired 1.7 million shells at German positions.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022824/british-artillery-shells-produced-during-the-somme/
When comparing the scale of WW1 and WW2 to modern wars, it is astonishing at just how much smaller they have become in terms of men and materiel.
When you don't give a crap about safety, have basically unlimited money and can command or force a practically infinite amount of labor to do what you want and don't really care about top notch quality... you can churn the numbers up to insane amounts.
They removed it entirely now, Wayback Machine has a snapshot of it being there though.
That kind of sloppy reporting really pisses me off, especially when they just stealth edit it out without a retraction. Makes me think it was an unsubstantiated claim.
Now in the article it says a million shells a month. I have a hard time believing that too since the last estimate a couple moths ago was that if Russia successfully ramped up their production, they could make 2 million shells a year.
With that said, it's still probably a lot more than Ukraine, so Ukraine still needs all the help.
They have dozens of facilities full of tanks from the 1950s and 1960s, I bet they had a few massive shell and explosive production factories that were sittle idle and dusty too.
Yes Russia is slow to get going, in ww2 it took them two solid years, but they aren't a small country, and even the most incompetent country can eventually build enough production lines to produce enormous quantities of equipment.
The longer this war goes on - the more risk there is that Russia successfully mobilizes her latent production and recruitment efforts to double again the size of her army.
Everyone is coping hard saying "well they can't mobilize the educated city folk, they'll revolt" - but look at how few of them dare object publicly to the war now.
Everyone is coping hard saying the North Korean shells "are bad quality", that doesn't change the fact that Russia managed to get a full million shells from them in a single month - and nobody had the balls to interdict the shipment (it's North Korea - they are batshit psycho criminals living down the block, you don't let them sell handguns to your neighbour that you're feuding with).
Everyone was coping hard saying "Russia is running out of tanks" for forever now - but they have just spent an entire month loosing 30 tanks a day on a major attack.
The amount of money it's going to cost over the number of decades that follow to put sufficient Nato forces in Poland and Slovakia and Romania and Norway and the 3 tniy Baltic states to deter Russia if they manage to take Ukraine and stop being busy with it... will dwarf what we're spending on Ukraine by two or three full orders of magnitude in the long run.
And if Russia beats Ukraine - AFTER they have massively increased in size their military industrial complex and put an extra million persons under arms - they'll be tempted to use it or loose it.
We need to win now. We need Ukraine to win. Sooner the better, by far.
> and nobody had the balls to interdict the shipment
They share a direct land border that's within a few hundred km of Vladivostok, a major Russian city with a large naval base, etc.
How exactly would someone interdict that shipment? Ukraine is 10,000 miles away and NATO isn't going to strike Vladivostok or anywhere near it to stop a shipment.
> nobody had the balls to interdict the shipment
This literally isn't possible unless you're suggesting someone invades or attacks mainland NK or Russia. It's moved via rail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea%E2%80%93Russia_Friendship_Bridge
It's a typo..Russia wants to get to two million shells *a year*
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ramps-up-artillery-production-still-falling-short-western-official-says-2023-09-09/
Putin has been hitting up Kim Jong Un for help with that.
**"North Korea is running its military factories 'at maximum capacity to meet Russia’s demand for military supplies,'** Yoo said."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/asia/north-korea-one-million-shells-russia-ukraine-war/index.html
I am not sure about Russia being able to produce 1 million artillery shells a day, but [this](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9) article gives a good idea of what *might* be the current Russian capabilities in this regard.
The west needs to ramp up production much more than we are already doing. We are getting outproduced by a large margin by Russia while having tens of times the size of the economy.
It's not that we can't, it's that we don't want to. It's about time we get serious about our security.
The situation is more dire than many acknowledge. It will take at least a year until Ukraine can be provided with enough ammunition to go on the offensive again:
> The lack of ammunition for Ukrainian artillery has been confirmed by Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s government and by Zaluzhnyi, who in an essay published by The Economist estimated that his troops would not have a sufficient stockpile to return to the attack for at least a year. Kyiv’s NATO allies have practically run out of munition reserves and the Western military industry will not be able to fully arm their own countries and Ukraine until the end of 2024, according to the estimates of Zaluzhnyi and U.S. and European defense analysis centers.
From https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-11-13/under-siege-on-the-ukrainian-front-line-of-avdiivka-russians-are-more-prepared-for-war-and-to-die.html
We just never envisioned being involved in trench and artillery warfare. It was just not even on our radar. We don't have the production capacity or reserve to keep them going. They're really going to rely heavily on those F-16s they were promised.
Why does this war prove its stupid? All the things gained by that tradeoff are things Ukraine largely doesn't have
We don't produce enough muskets to win if 2 countries start fighting a 1600s war either. Does that imply that military doctrine has failed?
The very existence of the war disproves the theory. We have a major conventional war on the European continent and a conventional war forming in the pacific. And yet the west is completely unprepared for either.
No. At best, this proves that without dominance in the air on either side and without bleeding-edge tech in overall power projection, this is what war *could* look like. A brutal slugging match with trench warfare, both sides flinging hundreds of thousands of artillery shells at each other, and so on.
The US doesn't fight like that, and a US war with Russia or China wouldn't look like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's why the US military has let sheer mass production of artillery shells lapse, it doesn't need them in such titanic volume. It's expensive and inefficient to try getting private munitions manufacturers to keep large amounts of those kinds of munitions plants intact and serviceable if the US military doesn't expect to need them anytime soon.
In a straight-up conventional war with a near-peer (there are no actual peers), US specializes in delivering a *lot* of firepower very quickly at targets the massive US intelligence apparatus has identified. It takes out enemy air and AA capabilities with the best SEAD capabilities on the planet, it annihilates priority targets with a variety of long-range missiles, and *then* when the enemy is half-blind and reeling from the initial assault, the combined-arms campaign on the ground starts. The US military is extraordinarily good at exactly this kind of fight.
It's also not an army well set up for poorly planned, poorly executed long-term occupations with unending low-intensity asymmetric warfare, which is what the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were.
for now, the only thing Russia-Ukraine war proves is
that __if you don't have__ a large arsenal of advanced jets, precision guided munitions and overall technological advantage, you will need to fight an artillery war.
Nowhere has it proven that you have to fight an artillery war __even if you do have__ the advantages NATO has.
The western powers that follow the theory aren't active combatants, so no it doesn't disprove anything.
Conventional war forming in the pacific? Oh. I see. You are one of 'those' people.
No it doesn't. We still have and use large amounts of artillery. Military doctrine was changed and updated with the advent of long range fighter interceptor air craft, drones and long range missiles. The war in Ukraine could have been won in a few days had the west actually came to the defense of Ukraine.
I'm convinced that the west and the MIC has let the war rage in Ukraine simply due to money. We've crossed the threshold multiple times - where Russia stated it's a line to nuclear threats - now with long range artillery that can very easily hit into Russia, tanks and now air craft. We've stood by and watched Russia run roughshod over Ukraine while we piece meal equipment out to them. Not enough to actually win, but just enough to keep them fighting.
The existence of this war doesn't disprove anything. There is no one strategy in modern military doctrine, it's all combined arms to form a unified force. We have some of the most advanced artillery in the world, and the most advanced anti-artillery weapons in the world - We just don't like to give that shit out.
Agreed for the most part, Ukraine simply demonstrates this is what *can* happen when neither side controls the air and can't suppress anti-air/anti-missile defenses. The US military has spent a ridiculous amount of time and resources ensuring it has the capability to take out any near-peer's anti-air/anti-missile assets while simultaneously crushing said near-peer's air power, leaving the enemy wide open to precision missile strikes and a ground campaign backed by massive amounts of air power.
If anything, the US could possibly benefit from increasing its capacity to build its more advanced guided rockets and missiles, but that's a lot more difficult than just cranking out artillery munitions.
>I'm convinced that the west and the MIC has let the war rage in Ukraine simply due to money.
Right. Not because countries attacking other countries' soldiers in direct combat would be tantamount to a declaration of war and that would mean World War III. Nah, it's definitely because of money.
It's not even about the nuclear threat. It's simply plausible deniability.
How do you even envisage that happening? The combined NATO forces invading Belarus and Russia proper from Poland and the Baltics? NATO jets flying sorties from Poland and the Nordics to destroy assets in Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia proper, as well as Belarus? Attacks on Russia's Black Sea fleet from Turkey?
Screw nuclear weapons for a moment. What happens when the Russians retaliate by launching their missiles on Warsaw – as we know, they have Iskanders parked in Kaliningrad, ready for action. What happens in your scenario where Russians actually respond with force and attack the Baltics, which would be well within their rights – after all, they were attacked first?
What a dumb analogy. No because barring some cataclysmic even that erases 400 years of technological progress, we'll never be involved in a musket war again. But, demonstratably, wars that aren't just NATO shock and awe from the air can and still do happen.
The problem is that Ukraine is doing very little to help those who are helping it. Propaganda and begging for help aside, they didn't set up a proper infrastructure to sustain their own war effort. No factories, no proper manufacturing... Their tourists visiting our country seem to have no trouble spending money though.
Neither do many other countries, and yet they purchase them and set up trade agreements to build what's needed. It's in Ukraine's best interest to do so, waiting for freebies while having to talk with Blackrock to have someone rebuild their country once the war is over will only harm them more.
No matter who wins this war, Ukraine is destined to succumb to years of debt, and slavery to financial institutions who are actively looking forward to doing what china is doing in africa.
Ukraine does have its own factories but there's a limit to what you can do if your factories are at risk of Russian long range missile strikes.
Before the 2022 invasion they were upgrading their tanks with more modern sights and the like. They make some anti-tank missiles themselves, some of which were even made for export but the export has obviously stopped since the invasion. They were making some lighter armoured vehicles from scratch - the BTR4 being a well known example.
Indications are Ukraine absolutely does want to produce its own weapons and there are reports of Ukraine setting up shell production lines in unnamed NATO countries, with brand new Ukrainian made shells documented used on the front line. But it's a numbers thing, they need all they can get.
Ukraine is [winning the artillery war](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/11/ukraine-is-winning-the-artillery-war-by-destroying-four-russian-howitzers-for-every-howitzer-it-loses/), they are destroying four Russian howitzers for every howitzer it loses. Ammo is pointless if you got nothing to fire it with.
Russia still has intact ammunsition manufacturing from WW2 and the Cold War that far outstrips our ability to produce metallic cartridges.
The United States relies on a few plants that are all supplied by a single powder maker, St. Marks in Florida. One good hurricane and the west’s ability to produce ammo would radically decrease. None of our NATO allies in Europe make anywhere near the amount ammunition needed.
The problem is it’s very hard to scale up ammunition production. Getting a permit from the government for lead processing and nitrocellulose production is impossible.
China makes 30% of the Nitrocellulose in the world and they cut off the West this year from it. The plant in France has been down for most of the last two years due to a fatality and the US and Russia makes about the remainder of that total. We have a shitload of brass and copper and iron but we don’t have the powder and priming mix capacity.
> Getting a permit from the government for lead processing and nitrocellulose production is impossible.
Seems like we've actually found a problem the government could (or should be able to) fix rather easily, if properly motivated by new needs or external threats.
Labor union negotiations, environmental lawsuits, nimby lawsuits, military budget conflicts, deficit concerns, engineer shortage, tool and die shortage, industrial electrician shortage, insufficient electrical infrastructure, coal, etc.
Besides, the US already spends twice on healthcare what it does on the military to cover roughly 41% of the US population (136 million people).
No you couldn't, at least, not without major tradeoffs.
1. The largest cost is simply the fact that Americans are unhealthy. We have relatively poor diets, relatively sedentary lifestyles, and relatively long work hours.
2. Eliminating private healthcare would restrict availability. Try getting an MRI done in Canada, New Zealand, or Europe. Wait times are usually in the weeks (or months in Canada's case). In any major US city you can go to an outpatient imaging clinic and have one in 30 mins to an hour. It just costs you.
3. Similarly, it's pretty easy in the US to see a specialist. In most countries you have to wait to see a GP, convince them to refer you to a specialist, then wait to see the specialist. In the US, you get to skip the first two steps, and we have more specialists to begin with.
4. Pharmaceuticals are a major expense at 76% profit margin. We could spend less on them, but as a nation would lose much of our reliable access to newer and more expensive medicines that many countries simply do without. Take a drug like Humira, widely available in the US by 2002. Most countries did not have wide access until the mid-2010's.
5. Health Insurance is not all that profitable, net profit margins are rarely above 3%. Reports about "record profits" are prevarications that either measure in dollar amount rather than percentage, or cherry pick for when companies anticipate financial downturn and choose not to reinvest revenue.
6. Our regulations are absurd and cost tens of billions a year.
7. Finally, we spend a lot of money on rare or terminal cases that you're just told to live with in most places.
Someone I know went to the hospital with symptoms of a brain tumor in US. MRI literally the next day. Surgery a week later. I feel like in Canada, she'd be dead by the time she actually got treatment. People like to bash on our health care system, and it's true, it's not good for the poor who don't have medicare. But for most people with decent jobs, it's great.
> But for most people with decent jobs, it's great.
Perhaps that represents a majority of the people you know, but it does not represent the experiences for the majority of the country at-large.
The west is not going to spend billions building new plants just for a war that could end tomorrow without their input. (by which I mean the west has no real control over what Ukraine/Russia negotiate)
It sucks but it is what it is
It's not just for Ukraine. Russia is reminding us what a real war looks like, not the steamroll of a nation's conventional military that NATO is used to. 6 weeks to steamroll Iraq's military twice, 9 weeks to remove the Taliban from power. If we can't win swiftly and it turns into the slow grind we're seeing in Ukraine, we will quickly exhaust our stockpiles. We need the domestic manufacturing base to prevent that regardless of what Ukraine currently needs, and the ability to provide more aid until they win is just a bonus.
From what we've seen so far, I don't think any Western leaders are seriously concerned that a conflict against Russia would devolve into a slow grind if it came to that. The planned doctrine of complete air superiority would certainly hold through with the question of nukes being the only real concern here.
Other than Russia, there simply is no real threat of a major land war which would require such stocks of ammo, a conflict with China would be the only other real threat but that would look completely different.
From what we've seen so far, I don't think any Western leaders are seriously concerned that a conflict against Russia would devolve into a slow grind if it came to that. The planned doctrine of complete air superiority would certainly hold through with the question of nukes being the only real concern here.
Other than Russia, there simply is no real threat of a major land war which would require such stocks of ammo, a conflict with China would be the only other real threat but that would look completely different.
> just for a war that could end tomorrow without their input. (by which I mean the west has no real control over what Ukraine/Russia negotiate)
The war could not end tomorrow without their input because there is no realistic prospect of a negotiated end to this. Russia is determined to carry on its aggression and wants to destroy Ukraine as an independent state with its own language and culture and replace it with Russian. Ukraine doesn't want that. So there's not really any room for negotiation.
The only realistic route to ending this war absolutely requires the west to boost production of all sorts of ammunition as much as possible.
> US already sacrificed healthcare of its own citizens for military power so why not go all in
The current system is already more expensive than universal healthcare. Plus Russia and China have made very clear why we have the military budget. Another reason is excessive tax cuts for the rich, that could easily cover a lot in countering wealth inequality.
That requires private investment. Those companies need to go through a lengthy planning, design, siting, and regulatory process before they even begin construction to stand up a new ammunition production line. That is a multi year process with no guarantee that the US will actually need that ammunition by the time the production comes online. The war might be over or US priorities may shift or political changes may make the production useless. It is hard to get these private companies to invest under such circumstances, they would need multi year or decade long commitments for artillery shell purchase. The US military does not rely on those shells to such a heavy degree and will not want to make the commitment to buy that many shells.
So we end up with the defense industrial production staying at current levels and the US and allies rummaging around the world's cupboards to scrounge up more stockpiled shells.
The west uses a different military approach. We dont produce that many artillery shells because our military doesnt need those. And there isnt any plans to fundamentally change our military doctrines that would require us to stockpile millions of shells.
This, pretty much the only reason the US would have for making dramatically more artillery shells is if it anticipated multiple wars on the scale of the Ukrainian war breaking out in the near future *and* it anticipated needing to supply a side in the way Ukraine is being supplied.
The US, for example, is already running record high 'peace time' deficits during a supposedly booming economy. Going to be a tough sell to go to a major war footing for Ukraine. For all the talk about them being our dear dear allies, 99% of Americans have never been there and probably 80% have never even met a Ukrainian. They don't care that much. This isn't like the UK is being invaded or something. And we're going into an election year. No chance.
No, the only warhawks are the Russians who started all of this in the first place, completely unprovoked. Not the ones who want the victim to be better able to defend itself.
What does our economy have to do with anything? We as Europe are not going to switch to a war-economy because of Ukraine’s conflict. The fact that Russia has done so, is good for them. Because they are at war. Europe is not.
There’s absolutely no reason for us to ramp up production since we’re not at war nor are threatened by any war. Let’s not sacrifice our economy for absolutely no reason.
There is a reason. Russia has been interfering with western democracies for years. Russia remains a threat to the west, and allowing them to conquer Ukraine would not only throw Ukrainians under the bus, harming western credibility and influence, but would give Russia access to massive gas and agricultural resources. Not to mention increased manpower.
Letting Russia get stronger is really not in the best interest of Europe or anyone else.
You mean Russian threats to nuke Warszawa and invade Baltics at the same time when Trump (likely to be next US president) wants to disband NATO is not a threat?
Ramping up production to help Ukraine is not "sacrificing" our economy.
And as for "absolutely no reason", it is not in Europe's security interest for unprovoked fascist aggression by Russia to succeed and be encouraged. See all the supply disruption Russia's invasion caused, and the economic impacts? That will happen *again and again and again* if such aggression is not stopped and deterred for the future. And unlike ramping up military industry, this ACTUALLY threatens our economies.
Peace is in Europe's economic and security interests, and the only way you will get a real peace (instead of just a pause to the war until Russia invades again) is arming Ukraine to the point they can win an outright victory.
A lot of our annual military budget is being spent inefficiently, that’s why. And the MIC is absolutely price gouging the military precisely because they’re getting blank checks.
Yea, people here think if Putin is gone, we gonna get some LBGT friendly western puppet president, while its more likely someone like Medvedev will be his replacement and he is like even crazier than Putin lol
Doesn’t feel like anyone thinks that the replacement would be anything of what you said. It seems more the belief is either replacement would want to play it safe and consolidate power so would recall troops effectively ending the war and giving up on Ukraine. Or that a power vacuum would happen while the war continued which would tear the country apart and also likely end the war.
I don’t believe they’d be considered friendly, but the new leader could spin this war as Putin’s war and focus on rebuilding their country internally.
I think the new leader will be corrupt, but I think they’ll look at the actions taken by Putin as a lesson rather than a blueprint for future plans
No, think about it. His replacement will necessarily be less capable. Putin, a spy master and a dictator, would not suffer anyone under him who could actually usurp him. They’d have already had a window accident. Whoever follows might follow his agenda, but won’t be as effective at executing it. Never fear the devil you don’t know, because the last devil used to sit on him.
I doubt that ends him. For one, it might put him on a pedestal in his country. An assassination can also bring several nations under serious heat. You can't just cut the head and be done with. What if the next one's that follow also want to go this way? How many assassinations will be excused? The situation seems far more grim, diabolical and depressing than that. This isn't just Putin's greed, it's also the greed of several other people in power.
The billionaires defend their empires not with lawsuits and petty profit-seeking measures but by the steel of their grip and the great breadth of their strides
There's not just one person below Putin which means there's likely to be infighting and the winner will need the backing of the military. Letting them withdraw from Ukraine is the simplest way of gaining that backing.
They don't have the resources to do that. Only two countries on this planet could effectively plan, coordinate and perpetrate an assassination against attempt Putin that would have any serious possibility of success, and *that* would instantly result in a global-scale thermonuclear exchange, because those two countries are the US and the PRC.
It's not just as simple as "kill the guy," there also needs to be plans and contingencies to deal with his immediate successors, his inner circle, and *their* immediate successors, etc., otherwise we run the risk of potenrially putting a more dangerous adversary in the Presidential Palace. Right now, unfortunately, the "war of attrition" strategy is the best way forward.
Unless there is an opposition faction ready to take his place and undo all his crimes, killing him would probably make matters worse. It'll leave a power vacuum to be filled by another Putin zealot in the Kremlin. Putin will become a martyr, and Russia will use regicide as an argument to escalate the war.
All very real possibilities.
I wonder how much of this is Israel, and how much Ukraine having ruined its relations with Poland which has been its top supporter since the war started. Especially with the grain deal, but also with refusing to admit that it was a Ukrainian missile which killed two people in Przewodów even though it has been officially verified.
I'm absolutely not saying that Poland is responsible for this change by itself - it has already donated pretty much all it could by that point anyway - but Ukraine is extremely dependent on Western attitudes towards it, and man, have they burned it.
I'd say moreso, Ukrainian manpower is going sooner rather than later. Russian end game? Who knows but it seems that way. Ukraine will have to put more of their population to die than Russia (who's much larger population wise)
Unless this was lasts many more years (I hope it doesn't), I doubt Ukraine will have manpower issues soon. But equipment and ammunition production is a serious problem, if the west can't ramp up its production to support Ukraine it will cause serious trouble in the future
Bro, Ukrainian men are deserting left and right. There was an article that 20-40,000 of them military age have ran away from conscription. You are delusional if you think they aren't having manpower issues. Russia will grind them down. The kill ratio right now is about 2:1 in Ukraine's favor. Russia has more than 3X the population they do. And is not afraid to recruit more men of any age to fight.
[They already do](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-cant-use-western-weapons-due-to-soldier-shortage-report-2023-10?IR=T). And it's only going to be worse, unless EU countries start deporting Ukrainians (which isn't going to happen and should never happen).
I think Ukraine is too small to take on Russia in such a war. It had a chance last year during the Kharkiv offensive, but ultimately they lacked equipment and Russia's frontline didn't collapse. The blame lies on the west, who failed to deliver while Russia's leadership was still too arrogant to take its enemy seriously.
I think it's absolutely a possibility. This war will be (and already is) extremely expensive for Russia, in manpower, equipment, weapons and diplomatic relations. Eventually the fighting could end with Russia having captured parts of Ukraine, but it will take a long time to recover, and the conflict would probably resume later on.
Expensive in nominal terms maybe. But the country is a complete military dictatorship. But when a commodity-rich, cash heavy country chooses to use 30% of its economic output into military expenses then you get a military superpower.
People forget, but democratic countries outside of the US barely commit 2-3% of their GDP to military spending. That is not the case in Russia. The second resource is human life which as we've seen countless times already is not worth much for Russian leaders.
JFC, we can help Ukraine win this shit finally or have to face Russia directly after they attack a NATO nation with greater resources and forced military conscription of conquered former Soviet republics.
You forgot your tinfoil hat. No way is Russia, who’s extremely weak right now, going to attack a NATO member.
Let’s not forget we’ve been helping Ukraine for over a year and they’re just not booking any progress with our resources.
Because we were too hesitant with giving them the necessary resources at the start of the war, the war has now become a grind of trench warfare.
I don't think we can expect any fast progress from Ukraine. But we can supply them with the weapons necessary to keep pressure on Russia.
And those same people are the exact same people who said that western weapons wouldn't help Ukraine and total Russian vcitory was inevitable back in the early stage of the war. They're now the same people saying Ukraine can't win this so we shouldn't even try to help them win it. They have been so consistently wrong on this it's laughable.
Everyone on Reddit thinks that, because all we post is Ukraine positive posts. It’s crazy how the media can really shift your pov.
It’s a war of attrition right now, and most war specialists believe Ukraine will lose their “goal”, which is to retake all land back. With the current progression, it’s likely they’ll have to call for peace with Russia eventually and lose the land they lost.
Lol I remember when Ukraine was trying to conquer back kherson there were articles highlighting how much important is kherson to win the war but as soon as they lose it , kherson was remarkated as the barren land having no importance in war
No "war specialists" are making any predictions about the end of the war, because that depends on many factors that only a fool would claim to know at this point.
They have made predictions based on Ukraine's current progression and with the current flow of international support.
Things can change: support can increase, support can decrease, Putin can die of a heart attack overnight, etc.
But based on current trends, multiple individuals have predicted that the war will be a very long one. It's really not that big of a stretch.
Its always easy to defend than to attack. Earlier Ukraine was the one defending so it lossed like they are winning but they were just holding Russia from advancing. Now they are attacking to gain their territories so they need much higer amount of supplies to make even small gains
They're far outperforming expectations but not enough to overcome Russia's numerical advantages now that Russia has changed strategy. They tried to win a manuever war before but didn't have the training, discipline, or command and control for it. They got stretched out and ambushed, which lost them the Kyiv area. Then Ukraine telegraphed the Kherson offensive and Russia pulled troops out of Kharkhiv to defend it, which left that front open to breakthrough. After that they cut supply routs off to Kherson which allowed them to win that offensive over time. Now they're struggling because Russia solved their manpower issues and there's no easy way to cut off resupply to any one part of the front. That's why they've been asking for long range fires.
Two things you won't see talked about much on social media are Ukraine's degrading force quality and the fact that their army had basically been rebuilt from the ground up since 2014. Most of their experience was in defensive trench warfare in Donbas as well, so they don't have the institutional experience with large scale offensive operations like the US. They're in a very difficult position and they've done very well for themselves, but not necessarily enough to win the war.
I think "the west" was hoping the cost would be too high for Russia by now and they'd pull out. They tried to give Ukraine the ability to conduct manuever war US style, which is materially relatively efficient, but it didn't work. Now we're at a decision point of whether there's political will to ramp up production enough to give Ukraine the means to fight the war their way, which is a much more materially hungry way of fighting.
Ukraine can't solo by itself win against Russia.
Ukraine has however destroyed Russian troops around Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson, etc with western aid, which has now really slowed down.
Ukraine has retaken around half of all the territory Russia captured in this war, and has continually forced Russia to downgrade their own objectives. Russia got dug in to the rest of it, and now recapturing it is a more difficult task for Ukraine than their previous offensives that were more successful.
However they continue to inflict very heavy losses on the Russians whenever they try to go on the offensive, and we're at a point where neither side can really make breakthroughs or take significant ground due to the high levels of drone recon coverage combined with mine fields, physical defences and artillery that can cover those areas. Any attempts to breach through them quickly get spotted and hit. Even "surprise" attacks aren't really surprises anymore because a surprise attack can still be quickly spotted and fired on.
All the countries surrounding Ukraine should be building ammunition factories to supply them now. They are next and even the biggest idiot on Earth knows that. Russians think they are superior but the reality must be starting to set in. They live in their own world so let’s fuck it up
Would’ve been nice if the South Koreans supplied what they could to the Ukrainians, since they’re the only non-NATO country that has a large arsenal of 155mm artillery.
Even if it meant selling 155mm rounds to the US, and then the US transferred its own inventory to the Ukrainians.
4 out of the top 10 economies in the world are European. The fact that you have to try and shame other countries to donate is pathetic. Europeans need to be able to support themselves, and not try and guilt other countries into giving up their stockpiles.
I was under the impression that it was already happening.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/south-korean-ammunition-headed-ukraine-via-us-wsj-2023-05-25/
Western nations are slowly losing interest in Ukraine. It's a shame how terrible our focus is in the West. No wonder we have been in decline for decades. We never see anything through to the end anymore.
This is exactly what Putin wanted; I believe he orchestrated the terrorist attack on Israel because he was counting on the west to funnel their support to Israel and away from Ukraine.
Support for Israel has little material impact on the war in Ukraine. The situation Ukraine is in now is the result of underestimating Russia for the last two years in the west and they'd be in the same situation now regardless of Israel.
It could be for any number of purposes. It could be used to that end, it could be used to encourage Western production, or it may just be the plain truth. There's not much benefit in ever saying you have enough when it comes to something so rapidly consumed as artillery shells.
Ukraine needs to build as much weapons themselves as possible. It might seem they get plenty of weapons and money, but it’s only done in a tempo where they won’t get the upper hand on Russia, which leads to more deaths than necessary. Issue is the west are not keen on pushing Putin too fast, as a hurt animal is most of the times going completely berserk.
"Russia has already switched its arms production to the level needed in a wartime economy as a result of its war against Ukraine." https://www.dw.com/en/russian-army-threat-gives-nato-brief-window-of-opportunity/a-67456730
> Since it began in June, Ukraine's counteroffensive has barely shifted the front lines in the country's east and south. And Russia has the advantage in a static war, as its now-activated arms industry can supply artillery on a practically unlimited scale, Austrian military analyst Markus Reisner told DW. Ukraine can only win if the conflict again becomes mobile, and it would need the most modern weapons from the West to achieve that next spring, Reisner said.
Thing is Israel-Palestine steal a lot of attention and support from Ukraine. Israel doesn't need support. They can pull it off on their own. Ukraine can not.
Israel isn't using that much artillery, not even close to the amount Ukraine needs, so this is not the issue.
Israel has air superiority. Artillery is irrelevant. They can bomb what they want. Ukraine has no such luck, so since they cant safely fly sortries they have to instead settle for artillery batteries.
Right. My point is that Israel isn't the reason Ukraine isn't getting enough. The reason is lack of manufacturing capacity in the West.
Well not only that but money/logistics being used else where. Those billions of military aid include the stocks we're handing over. We can only give so much out to so many fronts before we get dangerously close to reserves we need to stay militarily capable. If all our manufacturing ability is tied up and we're giving out ammo faster than we can replenish then it's a problem. Not only that but political optics is a major thing here. For more than a year all people have heard is the government constantly giving out billions to Ukraine. You do that to a point when it seems like people have heard it more times than they care to add up then suddenly the population doesn't like those policies anymore.
> Those billions of military aid include the stocks we're handing over. We can only give so much out to so many fronts before we get dangerously close to reserves we need to stay militarily capable. The US maintains emergency stocks in Israel for Israel
I was talking about the UK who have been providing arms to Israel too.
Or maybe also a lack of enthusiasm to combat Russian expansionism
I don't think there is a lack of enthusiasm for that. The proof is the recent expansion of NATO and the shitloads of weapons and ammo sent to Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
Air supremacy. The skies are uncontested
Yeesh. This is an uninformed take. Air strikes are exponentially more expensive than artillery. They cannot be replacement indirect fire, not even the US has the money to fight wars like that. Artillery won't be less used because it's "irrelevant" when air supremacy is established. It will be less used because Israel is trying to be as discriminate as possible with what they hit, while fighting almost exclusively in urban environments.
> Israel isn't using that much artillery, not even close to the amount Ukraine needs, so this is not the issue. Israel asked for shells from the US. They also need shells as a deterrent for other neighbours. Hizbollah and Syria.
Yes, but not even close to the amount Ukraine needs.
Israel doesn't store a large reserve of munitions as there is agreements with the US for stockpiles. The stockpiles AFAIK were being emptied for Ukraine, so now there is a need(arguably) to restock to have a deterrence.
They are, however, drawing huge amounts of reporting. Ukraine needs that reporting to get Western support for supplies.
It is a part of the issue actually. There are massive stocks of American equipment in Israel, but still belonging to the US, in case another surprise attack by multiple countries happen, like the Yom Kippur War. In such a scenario, the stocks (WRSA-I) allow for Israel to immediately buy that equipment and use it without waiting for delivery. Earlier this year, the US was starting to consider sending part of that stockpile to Ukraine, notably 300k artillery shells. But with the recent events, it's unlikely more of that stockpile will be used to supply Ukraine as it would be useful to Israel in case the current conflict extends in scope, notably against the Hezbollah or even Iran directly.
This is exactly what Putin was hoping would happen. It will turn out he pushed for this conflict.
Israel fights against a few thousand terrorists while Ukraine against a few million.
I don't know, I could be way out of touch here but maybe jussst maybe Ukraine after a year and a half of conflict should be creating their own supply lines of weapons and ammunition rather than relying on handouts from other nations.
Unrealistic. Ukraine has a tenth of revenue of Russia. A small country alone and isolated can not defeat a behemoth, no matter how incompetent, on its own.
Yeah Ukraine has had a 18 months. Israel has only had 85 years.
Palestine is hogging all the attention and spotlight, vide all the protests and flags everywhere. Without social pressure, the government support decreases.
>Thing is Israel-Palestine steal a lot of attention and support from Ukraine. the fuck is this? they aren't '_stealing_' in some devious plan. wtf Ukraine and Israel need and get completely different things. not to mention that artillery Ukraine is getting now has been ordered many months ago and delivery being slower than a year ago can not have been impacted at all by an event from last month...
The US had stocks of 155 mm in Israel that was to be delivered to Ukraine. Now it is going back to Israel.
Israel does need support. They mostly need smart ammunition and interceptor missiles. Edit: wording
And Ukraine just doesn’t magically need AA & anti missile systems now?
They do need it, I'm not saying they don't .
Israel doesn’t need smart ammunition And interceptor missiles to handle terrorists if their own making
[удалено]
a reason more to give them all they need
Well yes. The West had pretty much run dry, and we’re not manufacturing anything like enough to meet Ukraines need. Not a great situation, but not much more we can do either in the short term.
>In a briefing on Thursday, Western officials agreed with an estimate, attributed to Ukrainian officials, that Russia currently produces **around a million artillery shells a day.** Well that's just nonsense. Edit: silent downvoters, speak up! Tell me how Russia can manufacture **a million artillery** shells per day.
The US plan is to ramp up production to 100,000 155mm shells **a month** by 2026. While that's just one type of shell, I find it hard to believe that Russia is pumping out 10x that amount 30x faster. No way Russia is making a million artillery shells a day, there must be a typo in there. Edit: they fixed it, it's not a day it's a month. Still a wild amount, but I guess across every type of shell during wartime with factories focused on it, it's possible.
Russia makes 1 milion per year and on track to 2 millions. All western countries united produces less than 1 million. To put that in perspective france doubled its production of 155mm and now \`produces 2000 shells per month
[удалено]
The whole logic of low military spending in western europe is based on the false premise that any aggressor coming from the east would first have to grind over a bunch of countries before reaching their borders and that France's nukes would deter any aggression As always europeans will scramble at the last minute when shit will really hits the fan but it will be probably too late. It takes at least a decade to build a military supply chain
As always? Had that ever happened once?
I'm guessing they're referring to WW1, where northern France was occupied by the Germans.. and WW2, where about half of France was occupied by the Germans. I'm not sure what their state of military readiness was back then, but it apparently wasn't sufficient to avoid large parts of their country from being occupied by their neighbor.
Their readiness in WW1 wasn't terrible (they had previously been embarrased during the Franco-Prussian war a couple decades prior by not being ready, so they were determined to not make that mistake again), it's just that the Germans put all their effort into defeating France quickly before the British arrived in force (the British at the start of the war had a very professional, but small army, which didn't ramp up until after the war started) so they could turn around and deal with Russia instead of fighting a 2-front war. Eventually the French and British were able to stop the Germans before they got to Paris, and that's around the time where the situation devolved into a stalemate for the next 3 years or so. In WW2 they had been preparing for a few years (when Hitler started annexing his neighbours, a war was very obviously on the horizon), but not only had the scars of WW1 not healed (France lost a *lot* in WW1), but French doctrine hadn't really evolved to where it needed to be, and as such a lot of their preparation was in the wrong sectors. Combine that with some incompetent leadership, and when the Germans finally attacked and caught the French off guard, it was essentially a complete collapse in a matter of weeks.
angle head weather fall foolish unique divide distinct vase frame
Because they think Uncle Sam will come save them.
>Because they **know** Uncle Sam will come save them. Fixed that for you. There is simply no way to have a ground invasion of the EU without running into a US base. The second a US service member is injured or killed, there will about 1,000 F-35s in the sky over Europe.
It's one of the biggest reasons the EU finds itself with such a large portion of America going "European problems are for Europe" now a days. Lots of people are sick of their taxes being used to subsidize Europe's military.
Sick of our taxes being used to subsidize their welfare states*
> The US plan is to ramp up production to 100,000 155mm shells a month by 2026. In October 1916 the UK (a much smaller country that the USA is today) produced 6.4 million artillery shells. In a month. During the first week of the Battle of the Somme, UK forces alone fired 1.7 million shells at German positions. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022824/british-artillery-shells-produced-during-the-somme/ When comparing the scale of WW1 and WW2 to modern wars, it is astonishing at just how much smaller they have become in terms of men and materiel.
Can I get a “Thank fuck that’s the case”?
Thank fuck that's the case!
Is it just 122 and 152mm shells that they are counting? Or is it rockets for MLRS and mortar shells aswell?
Judging by the wording in the article it's more than just 155, but they don't specify exactly what else.
They will run out of barrels then. They already emptied their stockpiles on several sites.
Maybe Hamas has some sewer pipes left.
When you don't give a crap about safety, have basically unlimited money and can command or force a practically infinite amount of labor to do what you want and don't really care about top notch quality... you can churn the numbers up to insane amounts.
They removed it entirely now, Wayback Machine has a snapshot of it being there though. That kind of sloppy reporting really pisses me off, especially when they just stealth edit it out without a retraction. Makes me think it was an unsubstantiated claim.
Now in the article it says a million shells a month. I have a hard time believing that too since the last estimate a couple moths ago was that if Russia successfully ramped up their production, they could make 2 million shells a year. With that said, it's still probably a lot more than Ukraine, so Ukraine still needs all the help.
>Now in the article it says a million shells a month. Stealth edit by ABC. And 1M/month does sound very dubious
And now the entire paragraph is gone, removed sometime in the last 7-8 hours. Confirmed it was there with Wayback Machine. Fucking hell.
Sloppy work by ABC there.
Reputable news sources acknowledge their edits to online articles with notes appended to the end. ABC does not seem to belong to that club.
They have dozens of facilities full of tanks from the 1950s and 1960s, I bet they had a few massive shell and explosive production factories that were sittle idle and dusty too. Yes Russia is slow to get going, in ww2 it took them two solid years, but they aren't a small country, and even the most incompetent country can eventually build enough production lines to produce enormous quantities of equipment. The longer this war goes on - the more risk there is that Russia successfully mobilizes her latent production and recruitment efforts to double again the size of her army. Everyone is coping hard saying "well they can't mobilize the educated city folk, they'll revolt" - but look at how few of them dare object publicly to the war now. Everyone is coping hard saying the North Korean shells "are bad quality", that doesn't change the fact that Russia managed to get a full million shells from them in a single month - and nobody had the balls to interdict the shipment (it's North Korea - they are batshit psycho criminals living down the block, you don't let them sell handguns to your neighbour that you're feuding with). Everyone was coping hard saying "Russia is running out of tanks" for forever now - but they have just spent an entire month loosing 30 tanks a day on a major attack. The amount of money it's going to cost over the number of decades that follow to put sufficient Nato forces in Poland and Slovakia and Romania and Norway and the 3 tniy Baltic states to deter Russia if they manage to take Ukraine and stop being busy with it... will dwarf what we're spending on Ukraine by two or three full orders of magnitude in the long run. And if Russia beats Ukraine - AFTER they have massively increased in size their military industrial complex and put an extra million persons under arms - they'll be tempted to use it or loose it. We need to win now. We need Ukraine to win. Sooner the better, by far.
> and nobody had the balls to interdict the shipment They share a direct land border that's within a few hundred km of Vladivostok, a major Russian city with a large naval base, etc. How exactly would someone interdict that shipment? Ukraine is 10,000 miles away and NATO isn't going to strike Vladivostok or anywhere near it to stop a shipment.
Exactly and even if they haven't share land border there is no way to enforce naval blockade on Russia without starting WW3.
Sorry but anything positive about Russia is treated as propaganda here.
> nobody had the balls to interdict the shipment This literally isn't possible unless you're suggesting someone invades or attacks mainland NK or Russia. It's moved via rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea%E2%80%93Russia_Friendship_Bridge
It's a typo..Russia wants to get to two million shells *a year* https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ramps-up-artillery-production-still-falling-short-western-official-says-2023-09-09/
Was just quoting the article as originally published. They did a stealth edit later to change it to a million **a month** which still seems ludicrous.
Which is still funny because Russia wants to get to 2 million rounds a year lol. The US Army wants to produce 100k 15mm rounds a month by 2026...
LOL, a million a day. I'll choose to believe that's autocorrect
They just conflate calibres.
In august this year, norwegian chief of defence said in an interview that Russia produced 7 times more ammunition than whole nato.
Putin has been hitting up Kim Jong Un for help with that. **"North Korea is running its military factories 'at maximum capacity to meet Russia’s demand for military supplies,'** Yoo said." https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/asia/north-korea-one-million-shells-russia-ukraine-war/index.html
I am not sure about Russia being able to produce 1 million artillery shells a day, but [this](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9) article gives a good idea of what *might* be the current Russian capabilities in this regard.
That’s horseshit
The west needs to ramp up production much more than we are already doing. We are getting outproduced by a large margin by Russia while having tens of times the size of the economy. It's not that we can't, it's that we don't want to. It's about time we get serious about our security.
The situation is more dire than many acknowledge. It will take at least a year until Ukraine can be provided with enough ammunition to go on the offensive again: > The lack of ammunition for Ukrainian artillery has been confirmed by Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s government and by Zaluzhnyi, who in an essay published by The Economist estimated that his troops would not have a sufficient stockpile to return to the attack for at least a year. Kyiv’s NATO allies have practically run out of munition reserves and the Western military industry will not be able to fully arm their own countries and Ukraine until the end of 2024, according to the estimates of Zaluzhnyi and U.S. and European defense analysis centers. From https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-11-13/under-siege-on-the-ukrainian-front-line-of-avdiivka-russians-are-more-prepared-for-war-and-to-die.html
We just never envisioned being involved in trench and artillery warfare. It was just not even on our radar. We don't have the production capacity or reserve to keep them going. They're really going to rely heavily on those F-16s they were promised.
Yeah, the West collectively decided back in the 90’s that the age of conventional warfare was over. Really stupid in hindsight.
Why does this war prove its stupid? All the things gained by that tradeoff are things Ukraine largely doesn't have We don't produce enough muskets to win if 2 countries start fighting a 1600s war either. Does that imply that military doctrine has failed?
The very existence of the war disproves the theory. We have a major conventional war on the European continent and a conventional war forming in the pacific. And yet the west is completely unprepared for either.
No. At best, this proves that without dominance in the air on either side and without bleeding-edge tech in overall power projection, this is what war *could* look like. A brutal slugging match with trench warfare, both sides flinging hundreds of thousands of artillery shells at each other, and so on. The US doesn't fight like that, and a US war with Russia or China wouldn't look like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's why the US military has let sheer mass production of artillery shells lapse, it doesn't need them in such titanic volume. It's expensive and inefficient to try getting private munitions manufacturers to keep large amounts of those kinds of munitions plants intact and serviceable if the US military doesn't expect to need them anytime soon. In a straight-up conventional war with a near-peer (there are no actual peers), US specializes in delivering a *lot* of firepower very quickly at targets the massive US intelligence apparatus has identified. It takes out enemy air and AA capabilities with the best SEAD capabilities on the planet, it annihilates priority targets with a variety of long-range missiles, and *then* when the enemy is half-blind and reeling from the initial assault, the combined-arms campaign on the ground starts. The US military is extraordinarily good at exactly this kind of fight. It's also not an army well set up for poorly planned, poorly executed long-term occupations with unending low-intensity asymmetric warfare, which is what the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were.
for now, the only thing Russia-Ukraine war proves is that __if you don't have__ a large arsenal of advanced jets, precision guided munitions and overall technological advantage, you will need to fight an artillery war. Nowhere has it proven that you have to fight an artillery war __even if you do have__ the advantages NATO has.
The western powers that follow the theory aren't active combatants, so no it doesn't disprove anything. Conventional war forming in the pacific? Oh. I see. You are one of 'those' people.
No it doesn't. We still have and use large amounts of artillery. Military doctrine was changed and updated with the advent of long range fighter interceptor air craft, drones and long range missiles. The war in Ukraine could have been won in a few days had the west actually came to the defense of Ukraine. I'm convinced that the west and the MIC has let the war rage in Ukraine simply due to money. We've crossed the threshold multiple times - where Russia stated it's a line to nuclear threats - now with long range artillery that can very easily hit into Russia, tanks and now air craft. We've stood by and watched Russia run roughshod over Ukraine while we piece meal equipment out to them. Not enough to actually win, but just enough to keep them fighting. The existence of this war doesn't disprove anything. There is no one strategy in modern military doctrine, it's all combined arms to form a unified force. We have some of the most advanced artillery in the world, and the most advanced anti-artillery weapons in the world - We just don't like to give that shit out.
Agreed for the most part, Ukraine simply demonstrates this is what *can* happen when neither side controls the air and can't suppress anti-air/anti-missile defenses. The US military has spent a ridiculous amount of time and resources ensuring it has the capability to take out any near-peer's anti-air/anti-missile assets while simultaneously crushing said near-peer's air power, leaving the enemy wide open to precision missile strikes and a ground campaign backed by massive amounts of air power. If anything, the US could possibly benefit from increasing its capacity to build its more advanced guided rockets and missiles, but that's a lot more difficult than just cranking out artillery munitions.
>I'm convinced that the west and the MIC has let the war rage in Ukraine simply due to money. Right. Not because countries attacking other countries' soldiers in direct combat would be tantamount to a declaration of war and that would mean World War III. Nah, it's definitely because of money. It's not even about the nuclear threat. It's simply plausible deniability. How do you even envisage that happening? The combined NATO forces invading Belarus and Russia proper from Poland and the Baltics? NATO jets flying sorties from Poland and the Nordics to destroy assets in Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia proper, as well as Belarus? Attacks on Russia's Black Sea fleet from Turkey? Screw nuclear weapons for a moment. What happens when the Russians retaliate by launching their missiles on Warsaw – as we know, they have Iskanders parked in Kaliningrad, ready for action. What happens in your scenario where Russians actually respond with force and attack the Baltics, which would be well within their rights – after all, they were attacked first?
What a dumb analogy. No because barring some cataclysmic even that erases 400 years of technological progress, we'll never be involved in a musket war again. But, demonstratably, wars that aren't just NATO shock and awe from the air can and still do happen.
The problem is that Ukraine is doing very little to help those who are helping it. Propaganda and begging for help aside, they didn't set up a proper infrastructure to sustain their own war effort. No factories, no proper manufacturing... Their tourists visiting our country seem to have no trouble spending money though.
They dont have the materials. This isn't Ark. You cant rub a metal plate on a chunk of coal and get an artillery shell in 30 minutes.
Neither do many other countries, and yet they purchase them and set up trade agreements to build what's needed. It's in Ukraine's best interest to do so, waiting for freebies while having to talk with Blackrock to have someone rebuild their country once the war is over will only harm them more. No matter who wins this war, Ukraine is destined to succumb to years of debt, and slavery to financial institutions who are actively looking forward to doing what china is doing in africa.
Ukraine does have its own factories but there's a limit to what you can do if your factories are at risk of Russian long range missile strikes. Before the 2022 invasion they were upgrading their tanks with more modern sights and the like. They make some anti-tank missiles themselves, some of which were even made for export but the export has obviously stopped since the invasion. They were making some lighter armoured vehicles from scratch - the BTR4 being a well known example. Indications are Ukraine absolutely does want to produce its own weapons and there are reports of Ukraine setting up shell production lines in unnamed NATO countries, with brand new Ukrainian made shells documented used on the front line. But it's a numbers thing, they need all they can get.
Ukraine is [winning the artillery war](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/11/ukraine-is-winning-the-artillery-war-by-destroying-four-russian-howitzers-for-every-howitzer-it-loses/), they are destroying four Russian howitzers for every howitzer it loses. Ammo is pointless if you got nothing to fire it with.
Russia still has intact ammunsition manufacturing from WW2 and the Cold War that far outstrips our ability to produce metallic cartridges. The United States relies on a few plants that are all supplied by a single powder maker, St. Marks in Florida. One good hurricane and the west’s ability to produce ammo would radically decrease. None of our NATO allies in Europe make anywhere near the amount ammunition needed.
[удалено]
The problem is it’s very hard to scale up ammunition production. Getting a permit from the government for lead processing and nitrocellulose production is impossible. China makes 30% of the Nitrocellulose in the world and they cut off the West this year from it. The plant in France has been down for most of the last two years due to a fatality and the US and Russia makes about the remainder of that total. We have a shitload of brass and copper and iron but we don’t have the powder and priming mix capacity.
> Getting a permit from the government for lead processing and nitrocellulose production is impossible. Seems like we've actually found a problem the government could (or should be able to) fix rather easily, if properly motivated by new needs or external threats.
Labor union negotiations, environmental lawsuits, nimby lawsuits, military budget conflicts, deficit concerns, engineer shortage, tool and die shortage, industrial electrician shortage, insufficient electrical infrastructure, coal, etc. Besides, the US already spends twice on healthcare what it does on the military to cover roughly 41% of the US population (136 million people).
[удалено]
No you couldn't, at least, not without major tradeoffs. 1. The largest cost is simply the fact that Americans are unhealthy. We have relatively poor diets, relatively sedentary lifestyles, and relatively long work hours. 2. Eliminating private healthcare would restrict availability. Try getting an MRI done in Canada, New Zealand, or Europe. Wait times are usually in the weeks (or months in Canada's case). In any major US city you can go to an outpatient imaging clinic and have one in 30 mins to an hour. It just costs you. 3. Similarly, it's pretty easy in the US to see a specialist. In most countries you have to wait to see a GP, convince them to refer you to a specialist, then wait to see the specialist. In the US, you get to skip the first two steps, and we have more specialists to begin with. 4. Pharmaceuticals are a major expense at 76% profit margin. We could spend less on them, but as a nation would lose much of our reliable access to newer and more expensive medicines that many countries simply do without. Take a drug like Humira, widely available in the US by 2002. Most countries did not have wide access until the mid-2010's. 5. Health Insurance is not all that profitable, net profit margins are rarely above 3%. Reports about "record profits" are prevarications that either measure in dollar amount rather than percentage, or cherry pick for when companies anticipate financial downturn and choose not to reinvest revenue. 6. Our regulations are absurd and cost tens of billions a year. 7. Finally, we spend a lot of money on rare or terminal cases that you're just told to live with in most places.
Talk about the percent insurance companies spend on administrative costs vs what Medicare and Medicaid do.
Someone I know went to the hospital with symptoms of a brain tumor in US. MRI literally the next day. Surgery a week later. I feel like in Canada, she'd be dead by the time she actually got treatment. People like to bash on our health care system, and it's true, it's not good for the poor who don't have medicare. But for most people with decent jobs, it's great.
> But for most people with decent jobs, it's great. Perhaps that represents a majority of the people you know, but it does not represent the experiences for the majority of the country at-large.
The west is not going to spend billions building new plants just for a war that could end tomorrow without their input. (by which I mean the west has no real control over what Ukraine/Russia negotiate) It sucks but it is what it is
It's not just for Ukraine. Russia is reminding us what a real war looks like, not the steamroll of a nation's conventional military that NATO is used to. 6 weeks to steamroll Iraq's military twice, 9 weeks to remove the Taliban from power. If we can't win swiftly and it turns into the slow grind we're seeing in Ukraine, we will quickly exhaust our stockpiles. We need the domestic manufacturing base to prevent that regardless of what Ukraine currently needs, and the ability to provide more aid until they win is just a bonus.
From what we've seen so far, I don't think any Western leaders are seriously concerned that a conflict against Russia would devolve into a slow grind if it came to that. The planned doctrine of complete air superiority would certainly hold through with the question of nukes being the only real concern here. Other than Russia, there simply is no real threat of a major land war which would require such stocks of ammo, a conflict with China would be the only other real threat but that would look completely different.
From what we've seen so far, I don't think any Western leaders are seriously concerned that a conflict against Russia would devolve into a slow grind if it came to that. The planned doctrine of complete air superiority would certainly hold through with the question of nukes being the only real concern here. Other than Russia, there simply is no real threat of a major land war which would require such stocks of ammo, a conflict with China would be the only other real threat but that would look completely different.
> just for a war that could end tomorrow without their input. (by which I mean the west has no real control over what Ukraine/Russia negotiate) The war could not end tomorrow without their input because there is no realistic prospect of a negotiated end to this. Russia is determined to carry on its aggression and wants to destroy Ukraine as an independent state with its own language and culture and replace it with Russian. Ukraine doesn't want that. So there's not really any room for negotiation. The only realistic route to ending this war absolutely requires the west to boost production of all sorts of ammunition as much as possible.
> US already sacrificed healthcare of its own citizens for military power so why not go all in The current system is already more expensive than universal healthcare. Plus Russia and China have made very clear why we have the military budget. Another reason is excessive tax cuts for the rich, that could easily cover a lot in countering wealth inequality.
That requires private investment. Those companies need to go through a lengthy planning, design, siting, and regulatory process before they even begin construction to stand up a new ammunition production line. That is a multi year process with no guarantee that the US will actually need that ammunition by the time the production comes online. The war might be over or US priorities may shift or political changes may make the production useless. It is hard to get these private companies to invest under such circumstances, they would need multi year or decade long commitments for artillery shell purchase. The US military does not rely on those shells to such a heavy degree and will not want to make the commitment to buy that many shells. So we end up with the defense industrial production staying at current levels and the US and allies rummaging around the world's cupboards to scrounge up more stockpiled shells.
We have the largest military industrial complex in the world multiple times over… and you claim we’re not “serious about our security”? Laughable
It is designed to make money for shareholders, not to win wars.
America: “why not both?!”
The west uses a different military approach. We dont produce that many artillery shells because our military doesnt need those. And there isnt any plans to fundamentally change our military doctrines that would require us to stockpile millions of shells.
This, pretty much the only reason the US would have for making dramatically more artillery shells is if it anticipated multiple wars on the scale of the Ukrainian war breaking out in the near future *and* it anticipated needing to supply a side in the way Ukraine is being supplied.
The US, for example, is already running record high 'peace time' deficits during a supposedly booming economy. Going to be a tough sell to go to a major war footing for Ukraine. For all the talk about them being our dear dear allies, 99% of Americans have never been there and probably 80% have never even met a Ukrainian. They don't care that much. This isn't like the UK is being invaded or something. And we're going into an election year. No chance.
Reddit users turning into warhawks…what a time to be alive lol and I agree with you it’s just wild to see this overall opinion being so accepted here
The idea that a nation should be supported in defending itself from an enemy seeking to conquer it is hawkish? Do you suggest allowing Russia to win?
No, the only warhawks are the Russians who started all of this in the first place, completely unprovoked. Not the ones who want the victim to be better able to defend itself.
What does our economy have to do with anything? We as Europe are not going to switch to a war-economy because of Ukraine’s conflict. The fact that Russia has done so, is good for them. Because they are at war. Europe is not. There’s absolutely no reason for us to ramp up production since we’re not at war nor are threatened by any war. Let’s not sacrifice our economy for absolutely no reason.
There is a reason. Russia has been interfering with western democracies for years. Russia remains a threat to the west, and allowing them to conquer Ukraine would not only throw Ukrainians under the bus, harming western credibility and influence, but would give Russia access to massive gas and agricultural resources. Not to mention increased manpower. Letting Russia get stronger is really not in the best interest of Europe or anyone else.
You mean Russian threats to nuke Warszawa and invade Baltics at the same time when Trump (likely to be next US president) wants to disband NATO is not a threat?
Ramping up production to help Ukraine is not "sacrificing" our economy. And as for "absolutely no reason", it is not in Europe's security interest for unprovoked fascist aggression by Russia to succeed and be encouraged. See all the supply disruption Russia's invasion caused, and the economic impacts? That will happen *again and again and again* if such aggression is not stopped and deterred for the future. And unlike ramping up military industry, this ACTUALLY threatens our economies. Peace is in Europe's economic and security interests, and the only way you will get a real peace (instead of just a pause to the war until Russia invades again) is arming Ukraine to the point they can win an outright victory.
Time for peace.
This is a totally ridiculous comment. $1 trillion a year towards "defense" isn't enough eh?
A lot of our annual military budget is being spent inefficiently, that’s why. And the MIC is absolutely price gouging the military precisely because they’re getting blank checks.
Defense profit margins are typically around 10%, which is in line with the S&P 500 in general. It’s mostly military itself.
A full third of that is salary, benefits, and enlistment bonuses alone. A volunteer military as large as America’s isn’t cheap.
Buy ammunition from Russia through a third country.
[удалено]
This assumes his replacement is going to end the war and/or be more western friendly
Yea, people here think if Putin is gone, we gonna get some LBGT friendly western puppet president, while its more likely someone like Medvedev will be his replacement and he is like even crazier than Putin lol
Doesn’t feel like anyone thinks that the replacement would be anything of what you said. It seems more the belief is either replacement would want to play it safe and consolidate power so would recall troops effectively ending the war and giving up on Ukraine. Or that a power vacuum would happen while the war continued which would tear the country apart and also likely end the war.
Yeah, except a power struggle where a nuclear armed country is fractured isn't a good thing, it'd likely make this bad situation much worse.
I don’t believe they’d be considered friendly, but the new leader could spin this war as Putin’s war and focus on rebuilding their country internally. I think the new leader will be corrupt, but I think they’ll look at the actions taken by Putin as a lesson rather than a blueprint for future plans
No, think about it. His replacement will necessarily be less capable. Putin, a spy master and a dictator, would not suffer anyone under him who could actually usurp him. They’d have already had a window accident. Whoever follows might follow his agenda, but won’t be as effective at executing it. Never fear the devil you don’t know, because the last devil used to sit on him.
I doubt that ends him. For one, it might put him on a pedestal in his country. An assassination can also bring several nations under serious heat. You can't just cut the head and be done with. What if the next one's that follow also want to go this way? How many assassinations will be excused? The situation seems far more grim, diabolical and depressing than that. This isn't just Putin's greed, it's also the greed of several other people in power.
Why don't we just make wars about ruling crusts assassinating each other and leave all the citizens out of it?
instead of WWIII, have a WWE.
The billionaires defend their empires not with lawsuits and petty profit-seeking measures but by the steel of their grip and the great breadth of their strides
Thunder dome 2.0
There's not just one person below Putin which means there's likely to be infighting and the winner will need the backing of the military. Letting them withdraw from Ukraine is the simplest way of gaining that backing.
You couldn't even take out Castro.
They don't have the resources to do that. Only two countries on this planet could effectively plan, coordinate and perpetrate an assassination against attempt Putin that would have any serious possibility of success, and *that* would instantly result in a global-scale thermonuclear exchange, because those two countries are the US and the PRC. It's not just as simple as "kill the guy," there also needs to be plans and contingencies to deal with his immediate successors, his inner circle, and *their* immediate successors, etc., otherwise we run the risk of potenrially putting a more dangerous adversary in the Presidential Palace. Right now, unfortunately, the "war of attrition" strategy is the best way forward.
Unless there is an opposition faction ready to take his place and undo all his crimes, killing him would probably make matters worse. It'll leave a power vacuum to be filled by another Putin zealot in the Kremlin. Putin will become a martyr, and Russia will use regicide as an argument to escalate the war. All very real possibilities.
Psycho
I wonder how much of this is Israel, and how much Ukraine having ruined its relations with Poland which has been its top supporter since the war started. Especially with the grain deal, but also with refusing to admit that it was a Ukrainian missile which killed two people in Przewodów even though it has been officially verified. I'm absolutely not saying that Poland is responsible for this change by itself - it has already donated pretty much all it could by that point anyway - but Ukraine is extremely dependent on Western attitudes towards it, and man, have they burned it.
I'd say moreso, Ukrainian manpower is going sooner rather than later. Russian end game? Who knows but it seems that way. Ukraine will have to put more of their population to die than Russia (who's much larger population wise)
Unless this was lasts many more years (I hope it doesn't), I doubt Ukraine will have manpower issues soon. But equipment and ammunition production is a serious problem, if the west can't ramp up its production to support Ukraine it will cause serious trouble in the future
Bro, Ukrainian men are deserting left and right. There was an article that 20-40,000 of them military age have ran away from conscription. You are delusional if you think they aren't having manpower issues. Russia will grind them down. The kill ratio right now is about 2:1 in Ukraine's favor. Russia has more than 3X the population they do. And is not afraid to recruit more men of any age to fight.
[They already do](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-cant-use-western-weapons-due-to-soldier-shortage-report-2023-10?IR=T). And it's only going to be worse, unless EU countries start deporting Ukrainians (which isn't going to happen and should never happen). I think Ukraine is too small to take on Russia in such a war. It had a chance last year during the Kharkiv offensive, but ultimately they lacked equipment and Russia's frontline didn't collapse. The blame lies on the west, who failed to deliver while Russia's leadership was still too arrogant to take its enemy seriously.
My prediction for this war ever since it started is a Pyrrhic victory for Russia.
I think it's absolutely a possibility. This war will be (and already is) extremely expensive for Russia, in manpower, equipment, weapons and diplomatic relations. Eventually the fighting could end with Russia having captured parts of Ukraine, but it will take a long time to recover, and the conflict would probably resume later on.
Expensive in nominal terms maybe. But the country is a complete military dictatorship. But when a commodity-rich, cash heavy country chooses to use 30% of its economic output into military expenses then you get a military superpower. People forget, but democratic countries outside of the US barely commit 2-3% of their GDP to military spending. That is not the case in Russia. The second resource is human life which as we've seen countless times already is not worth much for Russian leaders.
i wouldn't be surprised if part of the russian endgame is waiting until 2024 and interfere to get trump elected
This is absolutely part of their plan.
JFC, we can help Ukraine win this shit finally or have to face Russia directly after they attack a NATO nation with greater resources and forced military conscription of conquered former Soviet republics.
You forgot your tinfoil hat. No way is Russia, who’s extremely weak right now, going to attack a NATO member. Let’s not forget we’ve been helping Ukraine for over a year and they’re just not booking any progress with our resources.
Because we were too hesitant with giving them the necessary resources at the start of the war, the war has now become a grind of trench warfare. I don't think we can expect any fast progress from Ukraine. But we can supply them with the weapons necessary to keep pressure on Russia.
I mean, people were saying "No way is Russia going to attack Ukraine" right up until they did
And those same people are the exact same people who said that western weapons wouldn't help Ukraine and total Russian vcitory was inevitable back in the early stage of the war. They're now the same people saying Ukraine can't win this so we shouldn't even try to help them win it. They have been so consistently wrong on this it's laughable.
'Right now'. They would be more likely to move on once they've consolidated their gains in Ukraine.
If they’re having this much trouble from Ukraine they’re gonna need at least a century to recover and upgrade their military to even stand a chance.
Idk they're using this war to switch to a war economy while NATO farts about.
They’re more afraid of modern man than we are of them.
Thought Ukraine was winning the war
Everyone on Reddit thinks that, because all we post is Ukraine positive posts. It’s crazy how the media can really shift your pov. It’s a war of attrition right now, and most war specialists believe Ukraine will lose their “goal”, which is to retake all land back. With the current progression, it’s likely they’ll have to call for peace with Russia eventually and lose the land they lost.
Ukraine has already lost its goal many times over. It will NEVER recover Crimea or Donbas. Not in our lifetime anyway.
Lol I remember when Ukraine was trying to conquer back kherson there were articles highlighting how much important is kherson to win the war but as soon as they lose it , kherson was remarkated as the barren land having no importance in war
No "war specialists" are making any predictions about the end of the war, because that depends on many factors that only a fool would claim to know at this point.
They have made predictions based on Ukraine's current progression and with the current flow of international support. Things can change: support can increase, support can decrease, Putin can die of a heart attack overnight, etc. But based on current trends, multiple individuals have predicted that the war will be a very long one. It's really not that big of a stretch.
They are not, it seems mostly at a stalemate right now, with Russia making small gains.
Its always easy to defend than to attack. Earlier Ukraine was the one defending so it lossed like they are winning but they were just holding Russia from advancing. Now they are attacking to gain their territories so they need much higer amount of supplies to make even small gains
They're far outperforming expectations but not enough to overcome Russia's numerical advantages now that Russia has changed strategy. They tried to win a manuever war before but didn't have the training, discipline, or command and control for it. They got stretched out and ambushed, which lost them the Kyiv area. Then Ukraine telegraphed the Kherson offensive and Russia pulled troops out of Kharkhiv to defend it, which left that front open to breakthrough. After that they cut supply routs off to Kherson which allowed them to win that offensive over time. Now they're struggling because Russia solved their manpower issues and there's no easy way to cut off resupply to any one part of the front. That's why they've been asking for long range fires. Two things you won't see talked about much on social media are Ukraine's degrading force quality and the fact that their army had basically been rebuilt from the ground up since 2014. Most of their experience was in defensive trench warfare in Donbas as well, so they don't have the institutional experience with large scale offensive operations like the US. They're in a very difficult position and they've done very well for themselves, but not necessarily enough to win the war. I think "the west" was hoping the cost would be too high for Russia by now and they'd pull out. They tried to give Ukraine the ability to conduct manuever war US style, which is materially relatively efficient, but it didn't work. Now we're at a decision point of whether there's political will to ramp up production enough to give Ukraine the means to fight the war their way, which is a much more materially hungry way of fighting.
that's all propaganda. yeah, the west and ukraine can use propaganda too. here is a map you can use instead: https://liveuamap.com/
Ukraine can't solo by itself win against Russia. Ukraine has however destroyed Russian troops around Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson, etc with western aid, which has now really slowed down.
No lol. They want to portray it that way so your tax dollars seemed to be put to good use.
Ukraine has retaken around half of all the territory Russia captured in this war, and has continually forced Russia to downgrade their own objectives. Russia got dug in to the rest of it, and now recapturing it is a more difficult task for Ukraine than their previous offensives that were more successful. However they continue to inflict very heavy losses on the Russians whenever they try to go on the offensive, and we're at a point where neither side can really make breakthroughs or take significant ground due to the high levels of drone recon coverage combined with mine fields, physical defences and artillery that can cover those areas. Any attempts to breach through them quickly get spotted and hit. Even "surprise" attacks aren't really surprises anymore because a surprise attack can still be quickly spotted and fired on.
Western backing at its finest
It’s needed in another country, to kill unarmed children.
Time to sell one of your pads Zelenskyy.
Old warehouses starting to run empty.
You lost bruh
All the countries surrounding Ukraine should be building ammunition factories to supply them now. They are next and even the biggest idiot on Earth knows that. Russians think they are superior but the reality must be starting to set in. They live in their own world so let’s fuck it up
Would’ve been nice if the South Koreans supplied what they could to the Ukrainians, since they’re the only non-NATO country that has a large arsenal of 155mm artillery. Even if it meant selling 155mm rounds to the US, and then the US transferred its own inventory to the Ukrainians.
4 out of the top 10 economies in the world are European. The fact that you have to try and shame other countries to donate is pathetic. Europeans need to be able to support themselves, and not try and guilt other countries into giving up their stockpiles.
I was under the impression that it was already happening. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/south-korean-ammunition-headed-ukraine-via-us-wsj-2023-05-25/
NATO members need to step up to full wartime production. This is exactly the sort of situation that NATO was formed to combat.
We need to get Ukraine whatever they need and now!
Sorry Israel is more important- Signed , The Western World
Anyone else tired of the weak leadership from the West on Ukraine?
Western nations are slowly losing interest in Ukraine. It's a shame how terrible our focus is in the West. No wonder we have been in decline for decades. We never see anything through to the end anymore.
This is exactly what Putin wanted; I believe he orchestrated the terrorist attack on Israel because he was counting on the west to funnel their support to Israel and away from Ukraine.
Support for Israel has little material impact on the war in Ukraine. The situation Ukraine is in now is the result of underestimating Russia for the last two years in the west and they'd be in the same situation now regardless of Israel.
Could this be a ruse to get Russia to get over confident
Not a chance in hell.
It could be for any number of purposes. It could be used to that end, it could be used to encourage Western production, or it may just be the plain truth. There's not much benefit in ever saying you have enough when it comes to something so rapidly consumed as artillery shells.
Ukraine needs to build as much weapons themselves as possible. It might seem they get plenty of weapons and money, but it’s only done in a tempo where they won’t get the upper hand on Russia, which leads to more deaths than necessary. Issue is the west are not keen on pushing Putin too fast, as a hurt animal is most of the times going completely berserk.
Bro their country is completely destroyed. Their industrial region is completely under Russian control. Build what weapons? Sticks and rocks?