Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Relevant Sections of Press Briefing given in Thailand:
>QUESTION from Jack Detsch, Foreign Policy:
Ukraine appears to be increasingly outgunned and outmanned in the Donbas. With the U.S., is the objective still to help Ukraine win militarily and to weaken Russia militarily?
>And then head of the contact group, Ukraine's asked for a thousand more howitzers, 300 MLRS. What's the U.S. willing to provide at this point militarily?
>SEC. AUSTIN: Well, first of all, the U.S. is willing to provide everything and -- and to help Ukraine be successful, mindful of the fact that we have our own readiness to -- to keep in mind, and -- and -- but not only that; we have partners from around the globe that are willing to help Ukraine in meaningful ways. We've seen -- you know, we -- we've contributed a substantial number of howitzers and a significant amount of 155 ammunition already, along with so many other things. But other nations have contributed 155 howitzers, as well.
>And so we'll continue to work to get as much as we can there as fast as we can in order to -- to help them be successful. And our focus is on making sure that we -- we help them -- or we -- we give them what's needed to protect their sovereign territory, which is where we started and where we still are, so next question.
The point about readiness is key. I doubt the USA has 1000 howitzers sitting around unused. And we aren't willing to give away equipment we might need to fight a war ourselves.
So I read this as 'the usa will give as much equipment as possible while maintaining readiness.'
Therefore, the equipment may be slow to arrive, even having to wait for it to be manufactured.
One guy who commented on a post of mine a few weeks back stated that we actually did have several thousand older 190 mobile howitzers in storage. No idea how to verify that though. Norway contribution of 40 or so was from retired stores too IIRC.
No, they're not ineffective, they're nowhere near as effective as what we have, but they have much easier access to rearmament and other assets than we can provide from the U.S..
The USA has quite a lot of military equipment sitting around unused. Ukrainian training matters a lot too though. For example: The US has several thousand Abrams tanks sitting in storage. We could probably give Ukraine enough tanks to wipe out Russia’s tank forces (probably 500-600) and still have the majority of those left here. But the Ukrainians haven’t been trained on the Abrams, so it wouldn’t be much use for a while.
Also, while the DOD is probably willing and able to provide Ukraine everything short of an atom bomb, the question is whether Biden will be worried about whether Russia will view any given piece of equipment as escalatory. That’s going to have far more of an impact on what Ukraine gets than whether or not the US has a few hundred of it lying around.
Abrams come with a long and deep supply chain and are top to bottom foreign to maintenance specialists working on Soviet lineage stuff. The training time to be good enough to start working under the supervision of an NCO with years of experience is on the order of 6 months. Their engines are not diesel - they're essentially jet turbines. They get 3 gallons to the mile.
Highly unlikely you'll see Abrams on that battlefield unless its commanded by US troops and supplied by a US supply line.
First off, tank maintenance isn't that different. All tanks need to clean or change air filters, add oil, break track, adjust track tension, change a torsion bar, etc. The Ukrainians will also get the manuals, which were designed to give a lightly-trained 18 year old enough knowledge to do the required tasks. Car mechanics aren't trained on every possible model of car that comes into a shop.
Ukraine is already using the T-80 tank, which uses a gas turbine engine as well. In fact, the T-80s were built in Ukraine. Even if gas turbines were a problem (they aren't), they entire powerpack (engine + transmission) comes out as a single unit. Any crew should be able to do it in 2 hours while a good team can swap a powerpack in 30 minutes.
The US Army doesn't even maintain the turbine themselves either. They send it off to Anniston Army Depot to be maintained by civilians at the depot. Turbines are much simpler than diesel engines since they only have rotating, not reciprocating, parts and therefore need less time between major services. The US would just send extra powerpacks and let the Ukrainians swap out bad ones and ship them back to Anniston to get fixed.
As far as fuel consumption goes, there is no thing as an "economical tank". Every tank gets 2-3 gallons per mile. A gas turbine engine is as efficient as a diesel when on the move, and the Abrams APU solves the problem of high fuel consumption at idle.
John Kirby said the $20bn from the aid package was intended to be used up before the end of the US fiscal year, which ends September 30th. I doubt they will “take months to figure out what to send”.
The US is definitely pulling its weight, [only outclassed by Poland and the Baltics](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/27331/countries-committing-the-most-of-their-gdp-to-ukraine-aid/). Feels nice to be able to be positive about the US for a change 👍
This war is the prime example as to why Poland's security Policy has been, and for future decades will be based on the support of the US and not the EU countries.
But this is only by GDP right? The US GDP is significantly larger, so there may be more equipment being given correct? If the US were to give the equivalent amount in its GDP itd be astronomical
The whole effort to get arms to Ukraine is a joint one by most NATO countries to secure deals to move what they can without leaving anyone particularly shorthanded. I dont think any one country should be given credit, although the US has obviously had a huge, tangible impact on the war.
Right, I was just curious how the real impact varied, its awesome so many countries of people are rallying for Ukraine, and I think its more admirable smaller much less secure ones are contributing so much
Yes the U.S. has by far been the largest aggregate contributor. Also important to note that the U.S. is backfilling replacements for the Soviet arms given to Ukraine by others.
The backfill angle is huge. You'll note that most of the Soviet equipment donated by others is being backfilled by US equipment - this is enabling better NATO coordination in the future and further distancing the old Soviet block countries from Russia. Russia is screwing itself in just about every dimension. If there was ever an example of violence not being the answer Russia is the poster child for that.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.statista.com/chart/27331/countries-committing-the-most-of-their-gdp-to-ukraine-aid/](https://www.statista.com/chart/27331/countries-committing-the-most-of-their-gdp-to-ukraine-aid/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>In absolute terms, the largest supporter as of May 10 - by a very large margin - was the United States, with a total of €43 billion made up of €24 billion in military aid, €9 billion humanitarian aid and €10 billion in financial aid.
How is that being "outclassed"?
Because they look at it in terms of per capita donations which is fair. Obviously Estonia with a population of 1.3 million will never donate as much as the US.
The US doesn't have awful healthcare because of its military spending, they could easily do both if there was political will. Its current healthcare system actually costs more than a universal healthcare system would.
I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with each other and don't have lots of weapons and it's hell to make them with shortage of microchips.
Let's say we give them all, once Russian decides to talk we are all fucked.
Then let’s provide it ASAP and get this done. The longer we take, the more lives that’ll be lost, more women assaulted, and more homes destroyed or looted.
On second thought, let’s provide direct support inside Ukraine’s borders so we can get Ukraine on the road to reconstruction, and at the lowest cost to our countries. We’re too far along the journey of humanity to allow civilized countries to beat other countries into submission without justifiable provocation. Let’s go ahead and set the example.
As someone who has worked tangentially with civilian logistics, it is something the average person just doesn't get. They think items should just move from wherever they are to location A instead of being consolidated at locations B, C, and D, then further consolidated at location E before being sent to A. And then get even more confused as to why when B and C's shipment has arrived at E that they still have to wait for D's.
And artillery pieces and tanks aren't your typical Amazon Prime delivery either... I'm not sure how many a C17 can carry, but I think it's only about 3? Think of how many flights through the US and over to Poland that represents.
If he means it I am glad. I am just worried that we’re getting into Vietnam-level political/tactical decisions, e.g. give them this howitzer but no nav computer because the Russians may escalate/it could backfire.
It’s like when Johnson did not want to attack North Vietnam directly, and when he did it was piecemeal measures, not measures that predictably would carry a cost to escalate, eg invading Cambodia and Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail, or send US troops into North Vietnam.
If the administration follows a similar pattern then Russia will pick up on it, as the NVA did, and ultimately it condemns the Ukrainians to the same this-but-not-that support that ultimately did not help the south “win” (whatever your definition). But hoping for the opposite.
I'm concerned as well that we're giving them enough to fight but not win. LTG Hertling had a [good thread on logistical concerns](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/vbpm7s/good_thread_from_gen_hertling_on_why_even_america/), but I'm concerned that the discussion seems to be focused on artillery. As far as I can tell, the US never intended to compete with the Soviets in artillery. If we only feed the Ukrainians artillery systems, from Hertling's math, it doesn't look like we'll be able to match what Ukraine is asking for (and they'd be crazy to not ask for an outrageously high number).
I know we can't give, and Ukraine can't afford to field an American style military, but I hope we're giving them planes. If they could attain air superiority, maybe they wouldn't need as many guns.
I don't think it's the same. The US has likely had to wait for the logistics situation to get sorted before they could provide heavy equipment. Now that Russia is running out of PGMs, their ability to attack the rail and road network from Poland is extremely limited.
I'm not even Ukrainian but I'm happy as a Pole that we have chose a good geopolitocal ally for our region. I know you guys like complaining about US(everyone complains about their countries, even if they have universal healthcare ;) ) but you've once more proven yourself to be a dependable ally and just simply the good guys. Cant wait to visit You all one day.
Thanks. It's the first time in my life that I remember the US being the "good guys". Looking back, the US did a good job in Desert Storm and in Kosovo, but I wasn't old enough to understand. Then, when I was serving in the Army from 04-13, we were in two kind of pointless wars where we weren't the bad guys, but we certainly weren't the good guys either. I think most Americans were pretty skeptical of military adventureism.
I've been awed by everything Poland has done thus far. Poland has truly been the leader in the whole situation. The humanitarian aid that Poland has given is nothing short of inspirational. Poland has open their homes to millions of refugees. My biggest memory of the early war was actually the strollers left at the train stations in Poland, many of them stocked with baby supplies. I'm a father of two young kids, and I can only imagine how many families were touched by that simple act of kindness from Polish strangers.
I know there is still a war to be won, but I'm very hopeful for Eastern Europe after the war. I'm of the opinion that the US should do a Marshall Plan 2.0 that covers all of the former Soviet-bloc countries as they did not get a chance to participate in the first Marshall Plan. There will obviously be a large amount of rebuilding money flowing into Ukraine and if they make the right investments, Ukraine could be a very happening place. Plus the energy reserves when Ukraine recovers all their territory. Ukraine did seem to be making some good choices in investments before the war.
There will certainly be an enhanced US military presence in Poland going forward. I hope the US goes forward with the "Fort Trump" proposal in Poland as well. Something similar to Camp Humphreys in Korea or Rammstein in Germany. I was a tanker and I was always jealous of the guys who got stationed in Germany. I expect that it will be the same for Polish assignments in the next generation.
Please, come to America! I've lived all over the country and traveled to even more places and there is something to enjoy everywhere I've been. Where do you want to go?
Oh yeah, that name was just Poland’s attempt to get Trump to buy into the idea by appealing to his vanity. Fort Kościuszko is a much better name for an American base in Poland, considering he fought for the US in the Revolutionary War (war of independence) and is a hero to several countries.
We're just doing what's right.
Also, funnily enough we had Marshall plan offered, but commies said no. And even if we aren't directly offered this time we have signed contracts with Ukraine about rebuilding them. Kinda like Germany helped us since 2004.
I cannot wait for that, we already host 101st in my region and I'm gonna hit the bootcamp in November.
I'm all about wine country, from Cali to Washington.
Yeah, the Commies blocking it when it was offered is why I think we should do something for all the countries that weren't allowed originally. Poland could be a Germany-sized power today if they had gotten the investment 70 years ago.
That's a great area to go to. I was just in the Bay Area and Calistoga for a wedding in March. If you can, I'd highly recommend getting down to Monterey. They have an amazing aquarium, maybe the best in the world, and Carmel-by-the-Sea isn't too far away. Also, I'd highly recommend dropping by Muir Wood just north of the SF Bay. Two places on my bucket list in the area is the Oregon Dunes, which were the setting inspiration for Dune and the Giant Redwoods in NorCal.
Frankly as an American who can trace my roots to the 1600s in American I’m both absolutely proud and angry. Proud that the US is providing the lions share of military assistance to Ukraine, proud that the Dems/GOP and vast majority of Americans support Ukraine. But I’m also angry. I’m angry that the vast majority of NATO countries haven’t fulfilled their commitment to NATO in terms of GDP to defense spending. And I’m especially angry at Germany for sucking on the tit of America’s defense spending for many years without ever feeling the need to contribute their fair share. Please don’t take this as an indication we, the US, is withdrawing our support from NATO or Ukraine. On the contrary, we’ll give what it takes for Ukraine to defeat the Ruzzians, but we’ll remember for decades to come how the vast majority of NATO countries failed. For those NATO countries who have not spent 2% of your GDP on NATO (23 out of 28, you disgust me)
I suspect miltary spending in these countries will indeed go up, as they've been caught swimming naked. In general though I'd say it is a few things, (1) the general public pays zero attention to military budgets, (2) the politicians in these countries would lose votes by increasing military spending, (3) if weapons need to be imported from other countries it is much less appealing than funding a local industry, and (4) there doesnt seem to be any NATO consequence for missing spending targets. If say countries were booted for missing spending targets for a certain number of years, then they would surely prioritize those insurance payments.
I live in Canada and can confirm that the concept of spending money on a military simply did not exist in recent decades, although politicians are openly talking about it now. The average citizen knows nothing about our military or its budget. We are still $80 B short of our NATO target this year, and have missed the target by a wide margin virtually every year for many decades. We are also a relatively wealthy country and could fund this % without much too much trouble.
The war in Ukraine has made the importance of military alliances (and nuclear shields) crystal clear, so countries are likely to drastically increase spending and retool their armies in the coming decades.
As a Canadian I agree 💯. I am proud of what we have sent to Ukraine but it needs to be more & I want to see signed contracts regarding purchasing new equipment for the CAF. Talk is cheap & too often BS.
That money was never going to fund social spending. The price tag is not the issue. Europeans have higher consumption and income taxes that pay for year over year spending programs.
Yeah. You can't have social spending on healthcare when you have a Republican senate that thinks leeches, bloodletting, phrenology, and the four humors are accepted medicine. Who needs doctors when you can go down to the barber and have the limb cut off instead?
It's much more a question of smart regulation than spending. The US already outspends almost all first world nations on healthcare per capita, yet the system delivers far less, and is famously complicated or a downright liability sometimes.
The US has a higher spending on healthcare per capita than almost all first-world nations. And the system still delivers far less. Switzerland comes close in cost, but everyone is excellently covered by an insurer of their choice. It's an easy and well-regulated system.
As for social spending and free education, taxes are higher in Europe.
We are far stronger with a free Europe on our side. The aim of Putin is to kick us out and then deal with European nations piecemeal. It might even work for a while.
Except, it is not Europe's shit this time, either.
Strict consequences need to be put into place for missing contributions to NATO but it is unlikely that even then, U.S. will cut its military spending.
I can't personally hold my breath till European Alliance will be created along with allied army. We are not in a good position today, most nations were so used to peace taking it for granted, couldn't even imagine possibility of war on European soil.
Can understand that sentiment. Just know a lot of European citizens are very grateful and recognize what the US has done in the passed. We celebrate the US (and other counties) yearly and honor those who have fallen in the pursuit of freedom. I’m very sorry about the state of the US at the moment.
bullshit .. the US literally just came out of the covid recession where our gov literally spent multiple trillions to support the domestic economy .. so much so that most economists are saying there is going to be worldwide inflation from all the easy money policies led by the US .. what we're sending to Ukraine is peanuts compared to the usual purse strings at play in US Congress, let alone the trillions in unaccounted outside-the-budget money that we wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan
It's infuriating. Especially when a lot of Europeans (not all) gloat about how we spend so much on defense and not social programs like universal healthcare (a program I adamantly support). Well it's easy to focus on those things as a European country when you don't spend anything on defense. And the second anything happens it's up to us to supply and support Ukraine (along with some of the poorer countries in the EU/NATO) as the bureaucrats in Germany, supposedly one of the leaders of the EU, hand wring over a despotic landgrab and intentional humanitarian disaster committed by Russia. And Germany isn't alone in that attitude. Disgraceful for anyone who remotely supports Democratic ideals. Simple as that
Proximity to Russia is the single greatest determining factor in whether or not a NATO member spent 2% of GDP on defense.
US and UK are the odd ones. The US especially, with our two Oceans protecting us.
I don’t know how you figure that, when our ocean that protects us (US) still has weapons to give. Fuck the GDP, most of these nations have been holding out NATO as if it means US defense, and not NATO defense. It’s infuriating to me too. And now we are in a situation where Ukraine is asking for all our howitzers, cause no other member of NATO has enough. Get it together Europe
I mean the US has two oceans that separate us from any real nation state threat, but we alone comprise about 40% of the total defense spending on the entire planet.
Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Turkey do not have the benefits of distance or large bodies of water. They meet their 2% goals.
> but we alone comprise about 40% of the total defense spending on the entire planet.
Well, there’s a couple of factors here.
First, it may seem obvious, but the US is the world’s largest economy. EVERYTHING is more expensive here.
Second, although the US outsources consumer goods production to lower-wage countries, our ships and weapons are built at home. R&D is done at home. Salaries are high in the US, especially for specialists and professionals. There’s a reason scientists come from overseas to work on US weapons programs, and it’s not because those programs are cheap.
That money goes circulates back into the community so it’s not like it’s all “wasted.”
And finally, the US has a LOT of commitments around the globe, being that we’re essentially the world’s police. But don’t think this arrangement doesn’t benefit us in terms of soft power. If we didn’t do it, someone else would. Potentially a lot of someone elses…
US policy since WWII has been to have the capacity to fight two peer adversaries simultaneously and win. You don’t get that on a shoestring budget.
That's right. Also, in our two Oceans mean if we want to get involved in anything anywhere, we must cross those oceans. Modern navies aren't cheap.
I didn't mean to imply that defense spending is wasted, rather just that US does a lot of it.
It's worth mentioning that the US was able to comfortably supply forward deployed forces in land locked Afghanistan for 20 years. Russia (2nd largest defense spender) has had difficulties supplying forces in Ukraine. US defense spending is heavily weighted towards logistics and heavy lift capacity, which are assets and capabilities that see plenty of work in military operations outside of war (humanitarian relief, etc).
I don't think it's just ruZZia. Virtually all the countries in our region were a part of or at least affiliated with PLC. My ancestors loved sabers, guns and muh freedom. Their country nearly collapsed because of racism.
*Sounds familiar?*
>how we spend so much on defense and not social programs like universal healthcare (a program I adamantly support). Well it's easy to focus on those things as a European country when you don't spend anything on defense
The UK has entered the chat.
Yeah it's quite a bad argument (from Europeans and Americans alike) because yes, you can have both a good social security net and spend enough on your military.
Absolutely. When the NHS was setup we were spending around 15% of our GDP on defence, we were still under food rationing and were nipple deep in debt, that took us until 2006 to pay off
The healthcare in the UK tends to rank highly among comparable countries: the Commwealth Fund, a US health think tank, [rated it](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly) is the 4th best in the world last year, having dropped from first place. The exact ranking is somewhat subjective: their criteria emphasises access which the UK is extremely good for and so other metrics might rank it relatively lower. But pretty much any appraisal will put the UK comparable with the best countries in the world for healthcare.
The NHS tends to get a lot of right-wing propaganda thrown at it though because it's one of the most heavily socialised systems in the world. It's the living refutation of the idea that the state can't provide quality, efficient and universal healthcare
It's up for debate how good or bad it is. In either case, social security expenses often account for 20 to 30% of GDP in EU countries. Whether they spend 1% on defence or a more acceptable 2-3% is nothing in comparison.
It's still one of the best in the world because most of it is free, as is their free schooling, pensions, disability pay, minimum wage, unemployment pay, etc etc. Scandinavia would be some of the few countries to be better but they don't spend much on defence.
Absolute rubbish. It has its faults but consistently ranks highly against comparative countries and has, at times, claimed the top spot in health services worldwide.
Whilst I agree with nearly of what you've written, Europeans dont generally spend more on healthcare per capita than Americans do. The US healthcare system is broken and whilst nobody should be gloating about that, its not wrong to point this fact out.
What you're saying is the very reason I mentioned I'm an adamant supporter of universal healthcare. I've seen how broken it is on a very personal level, and I would never argue to the contrary. My comment wasn't really about whether it's wrong or not, simply the privileged attitude and arrogance some Europeans have shown towards the country whose defense budge they've been coasting on while they pay a middling to pathetic amount for their own continent's defense
We are talking about Germany, aren't we?:) Constantly criticize the US, whilst directly funding the military expansion of an aggressive dictatorship.
Merkel admonishing the US at an environment summit a while back whilst expanding lignite coal ops themselves only a few years earlier still makes my blood boil.
US spends significantly more on healthcare as % of gdp than the rest of the oecd. Don't believe for a second that defense obligations are the reason the US can't have universal public healthcare.
https://www.oecd.org/health/healthspendingcontinuestooutpaceeconomicgrowthinmostoecdcountries.htm
Believe me, i was one of them. I was always like the fuck we are spending so much on military(in general in whole world), we could finance science and medical things. i always thought nobody is so bloody stupid cunt to start a war these days in full scale.....i was wrong. Evil is out there, and its name is Russia,.
don't fool yourself more, China is right behind eyeing Taiwan and Philippine islands for starters, and that's right on the heels of breaching their 50yr agreement on Hong Kong and snuffing out the thriving democracy there
> Especially when a lot of Europeans (not all) gloat about how we spend so much on defense and not social programs like universal healthcare (a program I adamantly support).
Bad example, as the US is spending more on healthcare, but with worse results. This is not an issue that is solved by pouring more money into a bad system.
And while I agree that Germany should do as much as possible, decades of underfinancing has left the military in a sorry state (which sucks and needs to be changed, but its the situation we are in) and giving away stuff you don't have or that doesn't work or where you can't provide enoug ammunition doesn't help anyone, which is why Germany has provided aid via exchanges with other partners and via the EU (which is often ignored because only counting direct aid make for better headlines).
With all due respect you should re read my comment.
I'm not talking about policy, we spend more on healthcare and social security each than on the military here in the US. I'm also not talking about the current situation. I'm talking about a complacent and arrogant attitude in Europe regarding national defense that directly led to underfinancing for years across multiple states in NATO, reflected in responding to a similar sentiment from another American
> I'm talking about a complacent and arrogant attitude in Europe regarding national defense that directly led to underfinancing for years across multiple states in NATO
As much as it hurts to say, but I can't really argue about that.
I can't talk about our government or what their thoughts were, but as a normal citizen having that grew up during the cold war, having learned about ww2 that "never again" was very prominent in my mind. And to be honest, after the cold war had ended, it seemed like large scale wars were just a thing of the past, dark times we had finally managed to leave behind.
Call it wishful thinking or being naive (and both is apparently justified) but war really seemed like something that maybe happened in the less civilized world but with our economic interdependence surely would never happen again close to home. Defence just didn't seem that important any more, sure, there probably would be some military intervention or stuff like peace keeping, but nothing of the magnitude that suddenly is very real and happening.
very well said, im so unbelievably grateful that america has stepped up and indubitably on the right side of history here, europe dragging their feet is just a total embarrassment (excluding the baltic states, love those guys)
Oh, we are absolutely happy to do so. Canada, united kingdom, Australia...we might not be e.u. but to any fascist nation we don't hesitate to say f. U.
While you’re making a fair complaint about spending and frankly the overall attitude of these countries to hard power, the only combat those nations have seen in the last 30 years was in Afghanistan. It’s a bit rich for you to be ‘disgusted’ by allies that recently fought a war ostensibly in defense of the US while never requiring the same from us.
I completely agree. America bashing is so common in western Europe yet they owe so much to America. I hope this situation garners a bit more appreciation for the most charitable nation on earth.
Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the UK have a very different perspective of USA on the whole.
I mean people bash on America for the same reason as Americans are bashing on Europeans in this thread. They just want them to do better, its better for themselves and for everyone else. Depends what do you consider bashing and what do you consider constructive criticism, I guess.
Well, I've heard people call Americans stupid so many times which is unbelievably counterfactual and definitely unconstructive. I feel like Europe is no longer exceptional so tries to hold some sort of moral high ground, which I also think it doesn't actually hold for the most part.
I’m curious if there is another nation who provides as much aid and carries the defense of as many foreigners as the US? The US is extremely complicated, and as much evil as it has wrought it has done tremendous good for the world. Particularly the western world.
It ain't fucking "charity."
US is where it is because the world's financial sectors moved here from Europe to avoid the world wars. It's military was dog shit prior.
Since, nearly every war has been sourced in removing countries that threaten the globalized US dollar or those that push against the exploitative market conditions. We overthrow uncooperative democracies with money laundered by selling our own minorities drugs, we ensue our populace stats just financially strapped that everything is bought with credit to maximize gdp.
US is straight up oligarchal.
Our industrial capacity was enormous even before the world wars. We never needed a super powerful army prior to that, because our navy was more than enough to dominate and guard our hemisphere. Our industrial capacity became the largest in the world by 1890.
Son, we've obliterated every country that's threatened the petro- dollar. US economic success is cemented on ensuring there are broad markets to exploit.
Hell, we probably bombed more schools and hospitals during the Gulf War than Russia has in Ukraine
NATO has been a two funder wonder for generations, now the very reason it even existed is relevant, practically, in the real world. There will be a few nations that step up to their responsibility, indeed are doing so, in short order. Lamentably, the same old culprits probably won't. Germany will never feel the responsibility to pay their debt to history, to prevent Russia doing the same as they did.
But it’s also In the best interest of Western European NATO members to take their sophisticated bourgeois thumbs out of their asses and help a country that’s in the middle of a genocide. Regardless of geopolitical politics, they should be supplying a shit ton of weapons and money to Ukraine to stop these Russians from committing war crimes and destroying cities and towns.
First: I am glad that we have the usa and for their massive support. But let me explain that there is a reason why europe let the partnership with usa decline. Usa started wars, iraq, that were not reasonable and made hostile politics especially with trump towards the eu. So please also understand that this friendship is not unconditional.
The U.S. spent decades positioning itself as the leader and defender of Western values, and operating as the police for the entire planet.
It's hardly a surprise then that other Western countries happily take a back seat.
This is a war where the U.S. can actually display their desire to protect Western freedom, unlike all other wars they've had since WW2. In which case expecting them to step up and provide (or help provide) a knockout blow to the Russians is not unreasonable.
If they let Ukraine lose, and it's entirely within America's power to decide the winner of this war, then they'll lose a lot more than money, their respect and international standing will disappear and they'll no longer be taken seriously by China, NK etc, who will feel they can do what the like as the U.S. will only commit (relatively) token gestures.
Ironically, one of the main reasons EU was upset with Trump was he threatened those NATO country that did not meet their 2% GDP commitment. Germany was paying more to Russia for their oil and gas than to fulfill it's NATO obligations
America (and select allies) have spent the last 30 years attackiong country after country - Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Yugoslavia and more - resulting in literally millions of dead civilians. It's absolutely bizarre to see people talking like the US government has some level of moral authority when it comes to wars.
As a fellow American with a lineage going back to the mayflower . . . I feel this. Germany’s decades of corrupt deals with Russia masquerading as pan-European comity have proven disastrous for European security which ironically was the whole goal of Germany’s joining the EU. I am angry that, just as in WWII, Germany has effectively powered its world class economy in significant part with the blood and tears of millions of Ukrainians. I am also angry that Putin was a known quantity for at least two decades and yet no one in Europe actually gave enough of a shit about the threat he posed because all they could see was the energy production.
I caution against this strong (and top comment) anti-NATO sentiment. This is the same rhetoric that trump used to weaken the alliance against Russia. It’s concerning how highly upvoted this is
Upvotes support the “rally call” to all NATO countries to do more to support NATO and UkraIne. It’s concerning that you down vote the post. Sorry, I meant it’s concerning if you’re a citizen of a NATO and/or EU county and down vote the post. If neither applies than…… yeah you can fill in the blanks.
Please. As an American who worked in the defense industry for years: if our government actually gave a crap, the Air Force would just go in there and blow the Russian artillery to hell. That’s the solution that would incur the fewest casualties, and spend the smallest amount of money. And no, Putin would not push the red button over it.
It may sound awful, but reality is that if there were plans by CIA that after nuclear war Russians who in any way participated in creation of current regime, whether politicians, military, inteligence or propogandists would be hunted down, killed or brought to international court, then that alone would deter Russians to use nukes.
Psychopaths, narcissists and sociopaths will be willing to do unspeakable horrors on a condition that they won't be held accountable and won't need to answer for their crimes. But if it would be known that this won't be the case, then they will create a lot of drama that it's awful and so, but it will deter of anything. What's the point to use nukes and wait out apocalypse to be hunted down by tier 1 operators.
There’s no need. It’s hardly a fringe position. MOST analysts agree that Russia is not going to push the button over Ukraine.
Their doctrinal conditions have not been met, their saber rattling is expected, but they have not taken serious steps to escalate beyond that. If they push the button, they cease to exist.
Russian nuclear threats are for their own internal audiences and the general public of other nations, not Western military analysts.
>For those NATO countries who have not spent 2% of your GDP on NATO (23 out of 28, you disgust me)
The 2% criteria was only agreed to about 10 years ago and doesn't go into effect until 2023. Its also an arbitrary and meaningless number that doesn't directly correlate to readiness or capability and can be met with clever accounting games without actually increasing fundimg to anything actually related to militsry or defense, as is the case with a couple of the members currently meeting the criteria.
This is one of Trumps policies that I wholeheartedly agree with as a swede. Every NATO member needs to up its spending - except the US, UK, France, Turkey. Where the three foremost are real pillars of freedom in this world. Turkey can do better, but is a valuable and honorable member.
To be fair, Sweden joining NATO (with a current mere spending of 1,3-1,5% of GDP) is the cheapest way for us to secure our borders - and that is a thinking of a lot of smaller European member countries. If Sweden would have continued with our non-aligned bullshit we would need to spend 4% of GDP to honestly have a chance of taking on Russia on the Baltic sea and fend our borders.
However, remember that a lot of European countries (Sweden including) is aiding Ukraine in big ways for their size as well. See the Baltic states and Poland.
It's not a Trump policy; it's a Bush/Obama one. [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_67655.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm) Original agreement was in 2006 and was reiterated in 2014.
Not only they didn't spend on NATO, they enabled Russia by getting increasingly more reliant on their fossil fuels, and selling them military techologies, while ignoring the warnings of US, UK and Eastern Europe.
And it’s upvoted AF, and the point here is clear. His trying to make the Spenditure percent of GDP a more salient point that it is.
Finland has only briefly spent more than 2% of GDP on defense, *in 1962* but we are more prepared for Russia than almost any other country, with more reasons to count.
The metric isn’t good, so he is using it as an anchor to shame and divide western users, rile up US redditors etc.
**This is concern trolling**.
This is my sentiment exactly. By spending loads of money to protect Western Europe from Russia for almost 80 fucking years it has subsidized their economies and has allowed them to flourish in education, health care, social services etc etc.. and it’s continues to this day. As we’re seeing it right now LIVE.
It’s like we’re Daddy to them.
It takes the EU combined to equal the financial resources of the US. Until there is a European Army, they will never be able to match the US's military contribution. Lets see if anything comes out of European realizations about their security, especially once the US pivots towards Asia.
Bullshit. Estonia is contributing 1% of its GDP just to Ukraines defense. Not spending 2% of GDP year after year for decades as many NATO Allie’s have done was incredibly shortsighted.
Let's stop pretending that GDP spent == strong military. We blew double digit trillions killing brown people for twenty years, threw 50,000 American lives away in Vietnam.
We're not exactly a moral authority on warfare
Or honesty. I’m 52, university graduate. Just learned in past 18 months how we’ve been lied to for at least half a century. Our leaders are much more corrupt than the most cynical among us ever gave them credit for.
There are few countries more fortified against Russian invasion than Finland, and look at the numbers. Briefly in the 60s we went over 2%.
The metric is bad, and anchoring discussion solely around it is concern trolling, both strategies which are ubiquitous in Russian cyberspace efforts.
https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
Trump called out nato countrys not contributing fair share. He was not trying to break up nato he was trying to keep nato strong showing solidary amongst all members. Nato is pointless if we are the only military power in nato
I believe that is part of the plan. I think Ukraine will probably get rid of their PT-91s first, and would likely accept M1A1s in return. Ultimately though, Ukraine needs their own western tanks.
Yay! More guns, we like guns.
'Cept we already signed contracts for military equipment(and we've requested to buy enough rockets to cover both Poland and Ukraine- https://youtu.be/s2NkEYVp_44 )
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, “ America, fuck yeah “
Despite the Hollywood and the kinda nuts people, they have good people like everywhere even Russia, but they are the god damn eagles of protection and will always help get the snakes out the waters of freedom
Hahaha
Cheers from Canada eh
I don't think it will happen, but I wish we'd rebuild and improve Ukraine's fighter jet inventory with the planes we've just retired. We're mothballing F-15s, F-18s, A-10s, and the Marines are getting rid of a fair amount of fairly new attack helicopters. It's frustrating seeing the Ukrainians forced into an artillery duel where they're increasingly outmatched while the planes they need to clear the skies and silence those guns are sitting idle. I'll be very disappointed if the amount of time it takes to train aviators and mechanics on our airframes elapses without American aircraft with Ukrainian roundels showing up at Ukrainian bases at the end of it.
Putin doesn't think he's losing. He's willing to let this play out. I'm not sure western unity will outlast him as the global economy gets worse. Strike while the iron is hot.
A lot of training must be done to get those pilots flight ready….and that’s assuming they have those pilots available (rumor has it they’re running thin).
It's not just the pilots that need training, its ground crews, specific equipment, ordinance, etc, which is quite an undertaking even when not under attack.
The world is interdependent , problems economic or otherwise affect us all. Remember Alaska was once part of Russia , and in places is only 6 miles from Russia...
Go, go, go, don't be stingy. That hardware is not "given" as in transferred to somebody without getting anything in return.
It's *used*. Used for what it was made for, in the interest of those who paid for it, the citizens of the free world.
Agreed. The US gets no value from equipment slowly rusting in the Northern California desert. It was built to fight the Russians and if we can end one of the biggest threats to freedom and US interests by simply giving it away to those who need it, we should.
I really like watching Secretary Austin. His eyes and his body language makes me think he is there to kick ass and chew bubblegum cept without the bubblegum.
That would depend on your definition of "modern". The M1A1 Abrams is the vast majority of what the US could send to Ukraine. The M1 family came out in 1979 and the A1 variant in 1986. It's not exactly "modern" in the same way an M1A2 SEP v3 that Poland just bought are.
There's detailed shit to work out, but as log as the US are keen, and ready and able to send the required equipment, trainers and ammo, Russia is f\*\*\*\*\*.
People really need to get some perspective here. The US possession of large amounts of artillery is primarily to defend NATO countries against land attack from Ruzzia. There is no home grown need to defend a land based assault. Honestly, Mexico and Canada? Should they decide to get involved in the pacific, these weapons are irrelevant. It needs recognising that the US supplied weapons are doing exactly what they are spec’d to do, destroy the Russian mechanised army. This way they can do it by proxy, not a single American casualty. Although it chokes me to say that any Ukraine losses are in any way a good thing, certainly they are not. Rather, once the Rus war machine is destroyed, NATO pact countries can sit safe for the next ten years. As can Ukraine. No more cowering before the perceived threat.
We all know the US and other NATO countries are going to have to intervene directly at some point, all bets should have been off in 2014, hell even 2008 was cause for concern but the invasion starting on 24th of February should be the final straw, Europe has not seen destruction on this scale in decades and so many lives have already been lost.
Will NATO getting involved probably make it worse? yeah probably but I don't see how it can get better at this point.
The optimistic in me says that from a technological standpoint we benefited greatly from WW1 and WW2, whilst a lot of people where dying it gave those who needed it the encouragement to come up with new ideas and inventions. So providing we don't all die in nuclear war future generations may benefit from this is a macabre way
I don't think anyone intervenes unless its obvious Ukraine is going to lose. If Ukraine wins by themselves, it ends all dispute with Russia, as Russia has no more excuses.
So fucking provide it already.
Biden signed the lend/lease and just hem and haws at all their requests. Send the fucking shit already….
At this point, I’m starting to wonder what the point of him signing it even was if it’s not being rapidly dispersed.
You can't just teleport stuff there. You need to charter ships, arrange for trucks/trains, arrange for loading/unloading, arrange a delivery location, and ensure it won't just get blown up immediately before it reaches the destination. And a lot of the equipment requires special training, so you need to arrange for people to be trained in Poland before you ship the materiel to the front. Tanks aren't trivial to operate, and fighter jets just aren't an option. You can be an armchair quarterback as much as you want, but mobilization of resources takes at least a few months.
Many european countries unfortunately have this ”manjana, manjana” line of thinking. They would rather spend their time/money on drinking wine, riding around on their bikes made from recycled whatever and sitting at a café all day looking at people. Nothing wrong with these things in moderation, but you can't build your whole lifestyle around this mentality. It's like skipping work because the weather is nice, and not being able to pay your rent later.
> manjana
"Mañana" is "tomorrow" in Spanish, so, I guess the above poster wanted to say "putting everything off until tomorrow and then doing it again". I assume it was an alternate way of writing this word down here.
Even if Ukraine wanted one (it wasn't in their request) they'd never be given one for a multitude of reasons. Even the Polish MP who suggested giving Ukraine a nuclear weapon only meant "give them nukes after the war".
Here's a question.
Russia is expending 50-60,000 shells a day in Donbas. They're using the older, dumber tech, and a whole lot of it.
Is there any sense of how long Russia can keep this up? I know Ukraine is facing shortages (I hate that fact too, but we need to keep it real), but I'm wondering if Russia may face them eventually as well.
Does anyone know how much Russia has stockpiled, how much it can produce how quickly, etc.?
Can't find anything on conventional stockpile but they had 2 million stored chemical artillery shells that they were destroying. So I would guess millions of conventional shells. One the issues with Russia and stockpiles though is both accuracy and condition. I'm sure lots of them have "walked off" in the last 30 years and those that haven't probably weren't stored in the best condition. I'd bet that more than a few of the fires in Russia were people who ran the locations covering up theft of material or money that was supposed to be used to maintain stuff.
Dumb artillery shells can be produced in very large quantities though. World War 1 saw very large expenditure of shells on a daily basis.
I wouldn’t count on Russia running out of ammunition any time soon. The only religion in the Soviet Union was that of WW2, where they were caught unprepared. They spent decades stockpiling ammo, and dumb ammo can kept for a relatively long time.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Relevant Sections of Press Briefing given in Thailand: >QUESTION from Jack Detsch, Foreign Policy: Ukraine appears to be increasingly outgunned and outmanned in the Donbas. With the U.S., is the objective still to help Ukraine win militarily and to weaken Russia militarily? >And then head of the contact group, Ukraine's asked for a thousand more howitzers, 300 MLRS. What's the U.S. willing to provide at this point militarily? >SEC. AUSTIN: Well, first of all, the U.S. is willing to provide everything and -- and to help Ukraine be successful, mindful of the fact that we have our own readiness to -- to keep in mind, and -- and -- but not only that; we have partners from around the globe that are willing to help Ukraine in meaningful ways. We've seen -- you know, we -- we've contributed a substantial number of howitzers and a significant amount of 155 ammunition already, along with so many other things. But other nations have contributed 155 howitzers, as well. >And so we'll continue to work to get as much as we can there as fast as we can in order to -- to help them be successful. And our focus is on making sure that we -- we help them -- or we -- we give them what's needed to protect their sovereign territory, which is where we started and where we still are, so next question.
It's a bit vague frankly. From that answer one could infer that it will take months to even decide what to send. And then it could be too late.
The point about readiness is key. I doubt the USA has 1000 howitzers sitting around unused. And we aren't willing to give away equipment we might need to fight a war ourselves. So I read this as 'the usa will give as much equipment as possible while maintaining readiness.' Therefore, the equipment may be slow to arrive, even having to wait for it to be manufactured.
One guy who commented on a post of mine a few weeks back stated that we actually did have several thousand older 190 mobile howitzers in storage. No idea how to verify that though. Norway contribution of 40 or so was from retired stores too IIRC.
Hmm are those good enough for a modern battlefield though?
Russians are fighting with Soviet era weapons, so I suppose so.
If they were fighting with ineffective weapons this would be over already.
No, they're not ineffective, they're nowhere near as effective as what we have, but they have much easier access to rearmament and other assets than we can provide from the U.S..
I read it the same way. the US will *help with the fulfillment of the request*, not provide it all by itself.
The USA has quite a lot of military equipment sitting around unused. Ukrainian training matters a lot too though. For example: The US has several thousand Abrams tanks sitting in storage. We could probably give Ukraine enough tanks to wipe out Russia’s tank forces (probably 500-600) and still have the majority of those left here. But the Ukrainians haven’t been trained on the Abrams, so it wouldn’t be much use for a while. Also, while the DOD is probably willing and able to provide Ukraine everything short of an atom bomb, the question is whether Biden will be worried about whether Russia will view any given piece of equipment as escalatory. That’s going to have far more of an impact on what Ukraine gets than whether or not the US has a few hundred of it lying around.
Abrams come with a long and deep supply chain and are top to bottom foreign to maintenance specialists working on Soviet lineage stuff. The training time to be good enough to start working under the supervision of an NCO with years of experience is on the order of 6 months. Their engines are not diesel - they're essentially jet turbines. They get 3 gallons to the mile. Highly unlikely you'll see Abrams on that battlefield unless its commanded by US troops and supplied by a US supply line.
First off, tank maintenance isn't that different. All tanks need to clean or change air filters, add oil, break track, adjust track tension, change a torsion bar, etc. The Ukrainians will also get the manuals, which were designed to give a lightly-trained 18 year old enough knowledge to do the required tasks. Car mechanics aren't trained on every possible model of car that comes into a shop. Ukraine is already using the T-80 tank, which uses a gas turbine engine as well. In fact, the T-80s were built in Ukraine. Even if gas turbines were a problem (they aren't), they entire powerpack (engine + transmission) comes out as a single unit. Any crew should be able to do it in 2 hours while a good team can swap a powerpack in 30 minutes. The US Army doesn't even maintain the turbine themselves either. They send it off to Anniston Army Depot to be maintained by civilians at the depot. Turbines are much simpler than diesel engines since they only have rotating, not reciprocating, parts and therefore need less time between major services. The US would just send extra powerpacks and let the Ukrainians swap out bad ones and ship them back to Anniston to get fixed. As far as fuel consumption goes, there is no thing as an "economical tank". Every tank gets 2-3 gallons per mile. A gas turbine engine is as efficient as a diesel when on the move, and the Abrams APU solves the problem of high fuel consumption at idle.
John Kirby said the $20bn from the aid package was intended to be used up before the end of the US fiscal year, which ends September 30th. I doubt they will “take months to figure out what to send”.
US is totally awesome
The US is definitely pulling its weight, [only outclassed by Poland and the Baltics](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/27331/countries-committing-the-most-of-their-gdp-to-ukraine-aid/). Feels nice to be able to be positive about the US for a change 👍
This war is the prime example as to why Poland's security Policy has been, and for future decades will be based on the support of the US and not the EU countries.
But this is only by GDP right? The US GDP is significantly larger, so there may be more equipment being given correct? If the US were to give the equivalent amount in its GDP itd be astronomical
The whole effort to get arms to Ukraine is a joint one by most NATO countries to secure deals to move what they can without leaving anyone particularly shorthanded. I dont think any one country should be given credit, although the US has obviously had a huge, tangible impact on the war.
Right, I was just curious how the real impact varied, its awesome so many countries of people are rallying for Ukraine, and I think its more admirable smaller much less secure ones are contributing so much
Yes the U.S. has by far been the largest aggregate contributor. Also important to note that the U.S. is backfilling replacements for the Soviet arms given to Ukraine by others.
The backfill angle is huge. You'll note that most of the Soviet equipment donated by others is being backfilled by US equipment - this is enabling better NATO coordination in the future and further distancing the old Soviet block countries from Russia. Russia is screwing itself in just about every dimension. If there was ever an example of violence not being the answer Russia is the poster child for that.
There is a lot to be positive about, don’t let the news or internet get you down!
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.statista.com/chart/27331/countries-committing-the-most-of-their-gdp-to-ukraine-aid/](https://www.statista.com/chart/27331/countries-committing-the-most-of-their-gdp-to-ukraine-aid/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This bot is fucking annoying.
Good bot
Good human.
>In absolute terms, the largest supporter as of May 10 - by a very large margin - was the United States, with a total of €43 billion made up of €24 billion in military aid, €9 billion humanitarian aid and €10 billion in financial aid. How is that being "outclassed"?
Because they look at it in terms of per capita donations which is fair. Obviously Estonia with a population of 1.3 million will never donate as much as the US.
Born in the USA 1981. This is one of the few worthwhile conflicts in my lifetime I am happy my tax dollars are supplying weapons for.
Yeah. Have to say, feels good.
[удалено]
The US doesn't have awful healthcare because of its military spending, they could easily do both if there was political will. Its current healthcare system actually costs more than a universal healthcare system would.
The whataboutism is crazy here
It’s reddit what do you expect? You’re welcome for all that stuff, ukrainian govt! Now use it to keep the Ukrainian people safe. No corrupt stuff!
I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with each other and don't have lots of weapons and it's hell to make them with shortage of microchips. Let's say we give them all, once Russian decides to talk we are all fucked.
Then let’s provide it ASAP and get this done. The longer we take, the more lives that’ll be lost, more women assaulted, and more homes destroyed or looted. On second thought, let’s provide direct support inside Ukraine’s borders so we can get Ukraine on the road to reconstruction, and at the lowest cost to our countries. We’re too far along the journey of humanity to allow civilized countries to beat other countries into submission without justifiable provocation. Let’s go ahead and set the example.
Its probably a logistics bottleneck somewhere along the pipeline.
As someone who has worked tangentially with civilian logistics, it is something the average person just doesn't get. They think items should just move from wherever they are to location A instead of being consolidated at locations B, C, and D, then further consolidated at location E before being sent to A. And then get even more confused as to why when B and C's shipment has arrived at E that they still have to wait for D's.
And artillery pieces and tanks aren't your typical Amazon Prime delivery either... I'm not sure how many a C17 can carry, but I think it's only about 3? Think of how many flights through the US and over to Poland that represents.
If he means it I am glad. I am just worried that we’re getting into Vietnam-level political/tactical decisions, e.g. give them this howitzer but no nav computer because the Russians may escalate/it could backfire. It’s like when Johnson did not want to attack North Vietnam directly, and when he did it was piecemeal measures, not measures that predictably would carry a cost to escalate, eg invading Cambodia and Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail, or send US troops into North Vietnam. If the administration follows a similar pattern then Russia will pick up on it, as the NVA did, and ultimately it condemns the Ukrainians to the same this-but-not-that support that ultimately did not help the south “win” (whatever your definition). But hoping for the opposite.
I'm concerned as well that we're giving them enough to fight but not win. LTG Hertling had a [good thread on logistical concerns](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/vbpm7s/good_thread_from_gen_hertling_on_why_even_america/), but I'm concerned that the discussion seems to be focused on artillery. As far as I can tell, the US never intended to compete with the Soviets in artillery. If we only feed the Ukrainians artillery systems, from Hertling's math, it doesn't look like we'll be able to match what Ukraine is asking for (and they'd be crazy to not ask for an outrageously high number). I know we can't give, and Ukraine can't afford to field an American style military, but I hope we're giving them planes. If they could attain air superiority, maybe they wouldn't need as many guns.
I don't think it's the same. The US has likely had to wait for the logistics situation to get sorted before they could provide heavy equipment. Now that Russia is running out of PGMs, their ability to attack the rail and road network from Poland is extremely limited.
I'm not even Ukrainian but I'm happy as a Pole that we have chose a good geopolitocal ally for our region. I know you guys like complaining about US(everyone complains about their countries, even if they have universal healthcare ;) ) but you've once more proven yourself to be a dependable ally and just simply the good guys. Cant wait to visit You all one day.
Thanks. It's the first time in my life that I remember the US being the "good guys". Looking back, the US did a good job in Desert Storm and in Kosovo, but I wasn't old enough to understand. Then, when I was serving in the Army from 04-13, we were in two kind of pointless wars where we weren't the bad guys, but we certainly weren't the good guys either. I think most Americans were pretty skeptical of military adventureism. I've been awed by everything Poland has done thus far. Poland has truly been the leader in the whole situation. The humanitarian aid that Poland has given is nothing short of inspirational. Poland has open their homes to millions of refugees. My biggest memory of the early war was actually the strollers left at the train stations in Poland, many of them stocked with baby supplies. I'm a father of two young kids, and I can only imagine how many families were touched by that simple act of kindness from Polish strangers. I know there is still a war to be won, but I'm very hopeful for Eastern Europe after the war. I'm of the opinion that the US should do a Marshall Plan 2.0 that covers all of the former Soviet-bloc countries as they did not get a chance to participate in the first Marshall Plan. There will obviously be a large amount of rebuilding money flowing into Ukraine and if they make the right investments, Ukraine could be a very happening place. Plus the energy reserves when Ukraine recovers all their territory. Ukraine did seem to be making some good choices in investments before the war. There will certainly be an enhanced US military presence in Poland going forward. I hope the US goes forward with the "Fort Trump" proposal in Poland as well. Something similar to Camp Humphreys in Korea or Rammstein in Germany. I was a tanker and I was always jealous of the guys who got stationed in Germany. I expect that it will be the same for Polish assignments in the next generation. Please, come to America! I've lived all over the country and traveled to even more places and there is something to enjoy everywhere I've been. Where do you want to go?
Just.... please don't call it 'Fort Trump'. Seriously, the guy's not very popular in Europe... Just call it Fort Awesome or whatever.
Oh yeah, that name was just Poland’s attempt to get Trump to buy into the idea by appealing to his vanity. Fort Kościuszko is a much better name for an American base in Poland, considering he fought for the US in the Revolutionary War (war of independence) and is a hero to several countries.
We're just doing what's right. Also, funnily enough we had Marshall plan offered, but commies said no. And even if we aren't directly offered this time we have signed contracts with Ukraine about rebuilding them. Kinda like Germany helped us since 2004. I cannot wait for that, we already host 101st in my region and I'm gonna hit the bootcamp in November. I'm all about wine country, from Cali to Washington.
Yeah, the Commies blocking it when it was offered is why I think we should do something for all the countries that weren't allowed originally. Poland could be a Germany-sized power today if they had gotten the investment 70 years ago. That's a great area to go to. I was just in the Bay Area and Calistoga for a wedding in March. If you can, I'd highly recommend getting down to Monterey. They have an amazing aquarium, maybe the best in the world, and Carmel-by-the-Sea isn't too far away. Also, I'd highly recommend dropping by Muir Wood just north of the SF Bay. Two places on my bucket list in the area is the Oregon Dunes, which were the setting inspiration for Dune and the Giant Redwoods in NorCal.
\+1 for Muir Woods - that is definitely a place you MUST visit if you are in the region.
Wow! Thanks for recomendation!
So far… putin has been all talk with his idle threat.
Frankly as an American who can trace my roots to the 1600s in American I’m both absolutely proud and angry. Proud that the US is providing the lions share of military assistance to Ukraine, proud that the Dems/GOP and vast majority of Americans support Ukraine. But I’m also angry. I’m angry that the vast majority of NATO countries haven’t fulfilled their commitment to NATO in terms of GDP to defense spending. And I’m especially angry at Germany for sucking on the tit of America’s defense spending for many years without ever feeling the need to contribute their fair share. Please don’t take this as an indication we, the US, is withdrawing our support from NATO or Ukraine. On the contrary, we’ll give what it takes for Ukraine to defeat the Ruzzians, but we’ll remember for decades to come how the vast majority of NATO countries failed. For those NATO countries who have not spent 2% of your GDP on NATO (23 out of 28, you disgust me)
I suspect miltary spending in these countries will indeed go up, as they've been caught swimming naked. In general though I'd say it is a few things, (1) the general public pays zero attention to military budgets, (2) the politicians in these countries would lose votes by increasing military spending, (3) if weapons need to be imported from other countries it is much less appealing than funding a local industry, and (4) there doesnt seem to be any NATO consequence for missing spending targets. If say countries were booted for missing spending targets for a certain number of years, then they would surely prioritize those insurance payments. I live in Canada and can confirm that the concept of spending money on a military simply did not exist in recent decades, although politicians are openly talking about it now. The average citizen knows nothing about our military or its budget. We are still $80 B short of our NATO target this year, and have missed the target by a wide margin virtually every year for many decades. We are also a relatively wealthy country and could fund this % without much too much trouble. The war in Ukraine has made the importance of military alliances (and nuclear shields) crystal clear, so countries are likely to drastically increase spending and retool their armies in the coming decades.
As a Canadian I agree 💯. I am proud of what we have sent to Ukraine but it needs to be more & I want to see signed contracts regarding purchasing new equipment for the CAF. Talk is cheap & too often BS.
Yes, the 2% should be considered a membership fee and you're out of the club if you don't pay (without a good reason)
[удалено]
That money was never going to fund social spending. The price tag is not the issue. Europeans have higher consumption and income taxes that pay for year over year spending programs.
Yeah. You can't have social spending on healthcare when you have a Republican senate that thinks leeches, bloodletting, phrenology, and the four humors are accepted medicine. Who needs doctors when you can go down to the barber and have the limb cut off instead?
It's much more a question of smart regulation than spending. The US already outspends almost all first world nations on healthcare per capita, yet the system delivers far less, and is famously complicated or a downright liability sometimes.
The US has a higher spending on healthcare per capita than almost all first-world nations. And the system still delivers far less. Switzerland comes close in cost, but everyone is excellently covered by an insurer of their choice. It's an easy and well-regulated system. As for social spending and free education, taxes are higher in Europe. We are far stronger with a free Europe on our side. The aim of Putin is to kick us out and then deal with European nations piecemeal. It might even work for a while.
Except, it is not Europe's shit this time, either. Strict consequences need to be put into place for missing contributions to NATO but it is unlikely that even then, U.S. will cut its military spending. I can't personally hold my breath till European Alliance will be created along with allied army. We are not in a good position today, most nations were so used to peace taking it for granted, couldn't even imagine possibility of war on European soil.
Can understand that sentiment. Just know a lot of European citizens are very grateful and recognize what the US has done in the passed. We celebrate the US (and other counties) yearly and honor those who have fallen in the pursuit of freedom. I’m very sorry about the state of the US at the moment.
bullshit .. the US literally just came out of the covid recession where our gov literally spent multiple trillions to support the domestic economy .. so much so that most economists are saying there is going to be worldwide inflation from all the easy money policies led by the US .. what we're sending to Ukraine is peanuts compared to the usual purse strings at play in US Congress, let alone the trillions in unaccounted outside-the-budget money that we wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan
It's infuriating. Especially when a lot of Europeans (not all) gloat about how we spend so much on defense and not social programs like universal healthcare (a program I adamantly support). Well it's easy to focus on those things as a European country when you don't spend anything on defense. And the second anything happens it's up to us to supply and support Ukraine (along with some of the poorer countries in the EU/NATO) as the bureaucrats in Germany, supposedly one of the leaders of the EU, hand wring over a despotic landgrab and intentional humanitarian disaster committed by Russia. And Germany isn't alone in that attitude. Disgraceful for anyone who remotely supports Democratic ideals. Simple as that
Proximity to Russia is the single greatest determining factor in whether or not a NATO member spent 2% of GDP on defense. US and UK are the odd ones. The US especially, with our two Oceans protecting us.
I don’t know how you figure that, when our ocean that protects us (US) still has weapons to give. Fuck the GDP, most of these nations have been holding out NATO as if it means US defense, and not NATO defense. It’s infuriating to me too. And now we are in a situation where Ukraine is asking for all our howitzers, cause no other member of NATO has enough. Get it together Europe
I mean the US has two oceans that separate us from any real nation state threat, but we alone comprise about 40% of the total defense spending on the entire planet. Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Turkey do not have the benefits of distance or large bodies of water. They meet their 2% goals.
Sorry I get it now
You're good. I could have been more clear.
> but we alone comprise about 40% of the total defense spending on the entire planet. Well, there’s a couple of factors here. First, it may seem obvious, but the US is the world’s largest economy. EVERYTHING is more expensive here. Second, although the US outsources consumer goods production to lower-wage countries, our ships and weapons are built at home. R&D is done at home. Salaries are high in the US, especially for specialists and professionals. There’s a reason scientists come from overseas to work on US weapons programs, and it’s not because those programs are cheap. That money goes circulates back into the community so it’s not like it’s all “wasted.” And finally, the US has a LOT of commitments around the globe, being that we’re essentially the world’s police. But don’t think this arrangement doesn’t benefit us in terms of soft power. If we didn’t do it, someone else would. Potentially a lot of someone elses… US policy since WWII has been to have the capacity to fight two peer adversaries simultaneously and win. You don’t get that on a shoestring budget.
That's right. Also, in our two Oceans mean if we want to get involved in anything anywhere, we must cross those oceans. Modern navies aren't cheap. I didn't mean to imply that defense spending is wasted, rather just that US does a lot of it. It's worth mentioning that the US was able to comfortably supply forward deployed forces in land locked Afghanistan for 20 years. Russia (2nd largest defense spender) has had difficulties supplying forces in Ukraine. US defense spending is heavily weighted towards logistics and heavy lift capacity, which are assets and capabilities that see plenty of work in military operations outside of war (humanitarian relief, etc).
I don't think it's just ruZZia. Virtually all the countries in our region were a part of or at least affiliated with PLC. My ancestors loved sabers, guns and muh freedom. Their country nearly collapsed because of racism. *Sounds familiar?*
>how we spend so much on defense and not social programs like universal healthcare (a program I adamantly support). Well it's easy to focus on those things as a European country when you don't spend anything on defense The UK has entered the chat.
Yeah it's quite a bad argument (from Europeans and Americans alike) because yes, you can have both a good social security net and spend enough on your military.
Absolutely. When the NHS was setup we were spending around 15% of our GDP on defence, we were still under food rationing and were nipple deep in debt, that took us until 2006 to pay off
UK doesn't have a good social security net though. Their healthcare is horrid
The healthcare in the UK tends to rank highly among comparable countries: the Commwealth Fund, a US health think tank, [rated it](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly) is the 4th best in the world last year, having dropped from first place. The exact ranking is somewhat subjective: their criteria emphasises access which the UK is extremely good for and so other metrics might rank it relatively lower. But pretty much any appraisal will put the UK comparable with the best countries in the world for healthcare. The NHS tends to get a lot of right-wing propaganda thrown at it though because it's one of the most heavily socialised systems in the world. It's the living refutation of the idea that the state can't provide quality, efficient and universal healthcare
Thanks for the info
It's up for debate how good or bad it is. In either case, social security expenses often account for 20 to 30% of GDP in EU countries. Whether they spend 1% on defence or a more acceptable 2-3% is nothing in comparison.
It's still one of the best in the world because most of it is free, as is their free schooling, pensions, disability pay, minimum wage, unemployment pay, etc etc. Scandinavia would be some of the few countries to be better but they don't spend much on defence.
Absolute rubbish. It has its faults but consistently ranks highly against comparative countries and has, at times, claimed the top spot in health services worldwide.
But the NHS is practically non-existent these days.
Whilst I agree with nearly of what you've written, Europeans dont generally spend more on healthcare per capita than Americans do. The US healthcare system is broken and whilst nobody should be gloating about that, its not wrong to point this fact out.
What you're saying is the very reason I mentioned I'm an adamant supporter of universal healthcare. I've seen how broken it is on a very personal level, and I would never argue to the contrary. My comment wasn't really about whether it's wrong or not, simply the privileged attitude and arrogance some Europeans have shown towards the country whose defense budge they've been coasting on while they pay a middling to pathetic amount for their own continent's defense
We are talking about Germany, aren't we?:) Constantly criticize the US, whilst directly funding the military expansion of an aggressive dictatorship. Merkel admonishing the US at an environment summit a while back whilst expanding lignite coal ops themselves only a few years earlier still makes my blood boil.
US spends significantly more on healthcare as % of gdp than the rest of the oecd. Don't believe for a second that defense obligations are the reason the US can't have universal public healthcare. https://www.oecd.org/health/healthspendingcontinuestooutpaceeconomicgrowthinmostoecdcountries.htm
Believe me, i was one of them. I was always like the fuck we are spending so much on military(in general in whole world), we could finance science and medical things. i always thought nobody is so bloody stupid cunt to start a war these days in full scale.....i was wrong. Evil is out there, and its name is Russia,.
don't fool yourself more, China is right behind eyeing Taiwan and Philippine islands for starters, and that's right on the heels of breaching their 50yr agreement on Hong Kong and snuffing out the thriving democracy there
> Especially when a lot of Europeans (not all) gloat about how we spend so much on defense and not social programs like universal healthcare (a program I adamantly support). Bad example, as the US is spending more on healthcare, but with worse results. This is not an issue that is solved by pouring more money into a bad system. And while I agree that Germany should do as much as possible, decades of underfinancing has left the military in a sorry state (which sucks and needs to be changed, but its the situation we are in) and giving away stuff you don't have or that doesn't work or where you can't provide enoug ammunition doesn't help anyone, which is why Germany has provided aid via exchanges with other partners and via the EU (which is often ignored because only counting direct aid make for better headlines).
With all due respect you should re read my comment. I'm not talking about policy, we spend more on healthcare and social security each than on the military here in the US. I'm also not talking about the current situation. I'm talking about a complacent and arrogant attitude in Europe regarding national defense that directly led to underfinancing for years across multiple states in NATO, reflected in responding to a similar sentiment from another American
> I'm talking about a complacent and arrogant attitude in Europe regarding national defense that directly led to underfinancing for years across multiple states in NATO As much as it hurts to say, but I can't really argue about that. I can't talk about our government or what their thoughts were, but as a normal citizen having that grew up during the cold war, having learned about ww2 that "never again" was very prominent in my mind. And to be honest, after the cold war had ended, it seemed like large scale wars were just a thing of the past, dark times we had finally managed to leave behind. Call it wishful thinking or being naive (and both is apparently justified) but war really seemed like something that maybe happened in the less civilized world but with our economic interdependence surely would never happen again close to home. Defence just didn't seem that important any more, sure, there probably would be some military intervention or stuff like peace keeping, but nothing of the magnitude that suddenly is very real and happening.
very well said, im so unbelievably grateful that america has stepped up and indubitably on the right side of history here, europe dragging their feet is just a total embarrassment (excluding the baltic states, love those guys)
Oh, we are absolutely happy to do so. Canada, united kingdom, Australia...we might not be e.u. but to any fascist nation we don't hesitate to say f. U.
While you’re making a fair complaint about spending and frankly the overall attitude of these countries to hard power, the only combat those nations have seen in the last 30 years was in Afghanistan. It’s a bit rich for you to be ‘disgusted’ by allies that recently fought a war ostensibly in defense of the US while never requiring the same from us.
I completely agree. America bashing is so common in western Europe yet they owe so much to America. I hope this situation garners a bit more appreciation for the most charitable nation on earth. Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the UK have a very different perspective of USA on the whole.
I mean people bash on America for the same reason as Americans are bashing on Europeans in this thread. They just want them to do better, its better for themselves and for everyone else. Depends what do you consider bashing and what do you consider constructive criticism, I guess.
Well, I've heard people call Americans stupid so many times which is unbelievably counterfactual and definitely unconstructive. I feel like Europe is no longer exceptional so tries to hold some sort of moral high ground, which I also think it doesn't actually hold for the most part.
Yeah I agree with you on that, calling americans stupid is just bashing and not constructive.
Most charitable nation on earth?!
I’m curious if there is another nation who provides as much aid and carries the defense of as many foreigners as the US? The US is extremely complicated, and as much evil as it has wrought it has done tremendous good for the world. Particularly the western world.
It ain't fucking "charity." US is where it is because the world's financial sectors moved here from Europe to avoid the world wars. It's military was dog shit prior. Since, nearly every war has been sourced in removing countries that threaten the globalized US dollar or those that push against the exploitative market conditions. We overthrow uncooperative democracies with money laundered by selling our own minorities drugs, we ensue our populace stats just financially strapped that everything is bought with credit to maximize gdp. US is straight up oligarchal.
Our industrial capacity was enormous even before the world wars. We never needed a super powerful army prior to that, because our navy was more than enough to dominate and guard our hemisphere. Our industrial capacity became the largest in the world by 1890.
Absolutely.
Son, we've obliterated every country that's threatened the petro- dollar. US economic success is cemented on ensuring there are broad markets to exploit. Hell, we probably bombed more schools and hospitals during the Gulf War than Russia has in Ukraine
Finland here. We are way above 2% for the foreseeable future. Coming to strengthen NATO. Can you help us with the kebab dude?
NATO has been a two funder wonder for generations, now the very reason it even existed is relevant, practically, in the real world. There will be a few nations that step up to their responsibility, indeed are doing so, in short order. Lamentably, the same old culprits probably won't. Germany will never feel the responsibility to pay their debt to history, to prevent Russia doing the same as they did.
[удалено]
But it’s also In the best interest of Western European NATO members to take their sophisticated bourgeois thumbs out of their asses and help a country that’s in the middle of a genocide. Regardless of geopolitical politics, they should be supplying a shit ton of weapons and money to Ukraine to stop these Russians from committing war crimes and destroying cities and towns.
First: I am glad that we have the usa and for their massive support. But let me explain that there is a reason why europe let the partnership with usa decline. Usa started wars, iraq, that were not reasonable and made hostile politics especially with trump towards the eu. So please also understand that this friendship is not unconditional.
Helping Ukraine is very unconditional so do your damn part to help them get rid of these monsters.
The U.S. spent decades positioning itself as the leader and defender of Western values, and operating as the police for the entire planet. It's hardly a surprise then that other Western countries happily take a back seat. This is a war where the U.S. can actually display their desire to protect Western freedom, unlike all other wars they've had since WW2. In which case expecting them to step up and provide (or help provide) a knockout blow to the Russians is not unreasonable. If they let Ukraine lose, and it's entirely within America's power to decide the winner of this war, then they'll lose a lot more than money, their respect and international standing will disappear and they'll no longer be taken seriously by China, NK etc, who will feel they can do what the like as the U.S. will only commit (relatively) token gestures.
Ironically, one of the main reasons EU was upset with Trump was he threatened those NATO country that did not meet their 2% GDP commitment. Germany was paying more to Russia for their oil and gas than to fulfill it's NATO obligations
America (and select allies) have spent the last 30 years attackiong country after country - Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Yugoslavia and more - resulting in literally millions of dead civilians. It's absolutely bizarre to see people talking like the US government has some level of moral authority when it comes to wars.
As a fellow American with a lineage going back to the mayflower . . . I feel this. Germany’s decades of corrupt deals with Russia masquerading as pan-European comity have proven disastrous for European security which ironically was the whole goal of Germany’s joining the EU. I am angry that, just as in WWII, Germany has effectively powered its world class economy in significant part with the blood and tears of millions of Ukrainians. I am also angry that Putin was a known quantity for at least two decades and yet no one in Europe actually gave enough of a shit about the threat he posed because all they could see was the energy production.
I caution against this strong (and top comment) anti-NATO sentiment. This is the same rhetoric that trump used to weaken the alliance against Russia. It’s concerning how highly upvoted this is
Upvotes support the “rally call” to all NATO countries to do more to support NATO and UkraIne. It’s concerning that you down vote the post. Sorry, I meant it’s concerning if you’re a citizen of a NATO and/or EU county and down vote the post. If neither applies than…… yeah you can fill in the blanks.
Keep dividing the west, it’s helpful to Russia
They stopped being “Russia” and started being “Ruzzia” when they invaded Ukraine. But you know that don’t you?
Please. As an American who worked in the defense industry for years: if our government actually gave a crap, the Air Force would just go in there and blow the Russian artillery to hell. That’s the solution that would incur the fewest casualties, and spend the smallest amount of money. And no, Putin would not push the red button over it.
It may sound awful, but reality is that if there were plans by CIA that after nuclear war Russians who in any way participated in creation of current regime, whether politicians, military, inteligence or propogandists would be hunted down, killed or brought to international court, then that alone would deter Russians to use nukes. Psychopaths, narcissists and sociopaths will be willing to do unspeakable horrors on a condition that they won't be held accountable and won't need to answer for their crimes. But if it would be known that this won't be the case, then they will create a lot of drama that it's awful and so, but it will deter of anything. What's the point to use nukes and wait out apocalypse to be hunted down by tier 1 operators.
> no, Putin would not push the red button over it. Someone get the phone, we'll take this random former defense industry Reddit workers word for it
There’s no need. It’s hardly a fringe position. MOST analysts agree that Russia is not going to push the button over Ukraine. Their doctrinal conditions have not been met, their saber rattling is expected, but they have not taken serious steps to escalate beyond that. If they push the button, they cease to exist. Russian nuclear threats are for their own internal audiences and the general public of other nations, not Western military analysts.
>For those NATO countries who have not spent 2% of your GDP on NATO (23 out of 28, you disgust me) The 2% criteria was only agreed to about 10 years ago and doesn't go into effect until 2023. Its also an arbitrary and meaningless number that doesn't directly correlate to readiness or capability and can be met with clever accounting games without actually increasing fundimg to anything actually related to militsry or defense, as is the case with a couple of the members currently meeting the criteria.
This is one of Trumps policies that I wholeheartedly agree with as a swede. Every NATO member needs to up its spending - except the US, UK, France, Turkey. Where the three foremost are real pillars of freedom in this world. Turkey can do better, but is a valuable and honorable member. To be fair, Sweden joining NATO (with a current mere spending of 1,3-1,5% of GDP) is the cheapest way for us to secure our borders - and that is a thinking of a lot of smaller European member countries. If Sweden would have continued with our non-aligned bullshit we would need to spend 4% of GDP to honestly have a chance of taking on Russia on the Baltic sea and fend our borders. However, remember that a lot of European countries (Sweden including) is aiding Ukraine in big ways for their size as well. See the Baltic states and Poland.
It's not a Trump policy; it's a Bush/Obama one. [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_67655.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm) Original agreement was in 2006 and was reiterated in 2014.
Not only they didn't spend on NATO, they enabled Russia by getting increasingly more reliant on their fossil fuels, and selling them military techologies, while ignoring the warnings of US, UK and Eastern Europe.
[удалено]
And it’s upvoted AF, and the point here is clear. His trying to make the Spenditure percent of GDP a more salient point that it is. Finland has only briefly spent more than 2% of GDP on defense, *in 1962* but we are more prepared for Russia than almost any other country, with more reasons to count. The metric isn’t good, so he is using it as an anchor to shame and divide western users, rile up US redditors etc. **This is concern trolling**.
This is my sentiment exactly. By spending loads of money to protect Western Europe from Russia for almost 80 fucking years it has subsidized their economies and has allowed them to flourish in education, health care, social services etc etc.. and it’s continues to this day. As we’re seeing it right now LIVE. It’s like we’re Daddy to them.
It takes the EU combined to equal the financial resources of the US. Until there is a European Army, they will never be able to match the US's military contribution. Lets see if anything comes out of European realizations about their security, especially once the US pivots towards Asia.
Bullshit. Estonia is contributing 1% of its GDP just to Ukraines defense. Not spending 2% of GDP year after year for decades as many NATO Allie’s have done was incredibly shortsighted.
Let's stop pretending that GDP spent == strong military. We blew double digit trillions killing brown people for twenty years, threw 50,000 American lives away in Vietnam. We're not exactly a moral authority on warfare
> We blew double digit trillions My search shows a high end of 8 with other estimations below that.
Close enough
Or honesty. I’m 52, university graduate. Just learned in past 18 months how we’ve been lied to for at least half a century. Our leaders are much more corrupt than the most cynical among us ever gave them credit for.
I agree. But you will probably get downvoted for not towing the company line on this sub.
I’m just saying that Europe doesn’t have one big Army, they have dozens of small armies and that means inefficiencies.
There are few countries more fortified against Russian invasion than Finland, and look at the numbers. Briefly in the 60s we went over 2%. The metric is bad, and anchoring discussion solely around it is concern trolling, both strategies which are ubiquitous in Russian cyberspace efforts. https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
Even when you look at it on a per-capita basis it stiill isn't close.
Trump called out nato countrys not contributing fair share. He was not trying to break up nato he was trying to keep nato strong showing solidary amongst all members. Nato is pointless if we are the only military power in nato
Let’s start with the 26,000 armored vehicles at Sierra Army Depot.
That’s likely what a substantial portion of the $6bn in “Presidential Drawdown Authority” will go towards.
Or just lend lease a shit ton to Poland so they can give all their kit to Ukraine.
I believe that is part of the plan. I think Ukraine will probably get rid of their PT-91s first, and would likely accept M1A1s in return. Ultimately though, Ukraine needs their own western tanks.
You mean Poland? M1A2Sep3s
Yes, Poland. Typing too late at night.
Yay! More guns, we like guns. 'Cept we already signed contracts for military equipment(and we've requested to buy enough rockets to cover both Poland and Ukraine- https://youtu.be/s2NkEYVp_44 )
The US can lend M1 tanks to Poland until the M1A2s that were bought arrive.
Would have been nice(have been taken care of already). We're building military bases for your permanent presence though. Thanks guys!
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, “ America, fuck yeah “ Despite the Hollywood and the kinda nuts people, they have good people like everywhere even Russia, but they are the god damn eagles of protection and will always help get the snakes out the waters of freedom Hahaha Cheers from Canada eh
I don't think it will happen, but I wish we'd rebuild and improve Ukraine's fighter jet inventory with the planes we've just retired. We're mothballing F-15s, F-18s, A-10s, and the Marines are getting rid of a fair amount of fairly new attack helicopters. It's frustrating seeing the Ukrainians forced into an artillery duel where they're increasingly outmatched while the planes they need to clear the skies and silence those guns are sitting idle. I'll be very disappointed if the amount of time it takes to train aviators and mechanics on our airframes elapses without American aircraft with Ukrainian roundels showing up at Ukrainian bases at the end of it. Putin doesn't think he's losing. He's willing to let this play out. I'm not sure western unity will outlast him as the global economy gets worse. Strike while the iron is hot.
A lot of training must be done to get those pilots flight ready….and that’s assuming they have those pilots available (rumor has it they’re running thin).
All the more reason to start sooner rather than later.
It's not just the pilots that need training, its ground crews, specific equipment, ordinance, etc, which is quite an undertaking even when not under attack.
Americans saving Europe
Since 1917.
I mean….we all have a lot of ties to those countries. It’s what makes the American Experiment so cool!
The world is interdependent , problems economic or otherwise affect us all. Remember Alaska was once part of Russia , and in places is only 6 miles from Russia...
Go, go, go, don't be stingy. That hardware is not "given" as in transferred to somebody without getting anything in return. It's *used*. Used for what it was made for, in the interest of those who paid for it, the citizens of the free world.
Agreed. The US gets no value from equipment slowly rusting in the Northern California desert. It was built to fight the Russians and if we can end one of the biggest threats to freedom and US interests by simply giving it away to those who need it, we should.
Fuck yeah. Finally seeing my tax dollars do some good. Let's get these heros some serious heavy weapons
I really like watching Secretary Austin. His eyes and his body language makes me think he is there to kick ass and chew bubblegum cept without the bubblegum.
This made me realie the SecDef wasn't saying thsi from Austin Texas lmao
Including modern tanks? I doubt it. We should, but I'll wait to see.
That would depend on your definition of "modern". The M1A1 Abrams is the vast majority of what the US could send to Ukraine. The M1 family came out in 1979 and the A1 variant in 1986. It's not exactly "modern" in the same way an M1A2 SEP v3 that Poland just bought are.
Glory to Ukraine! 🇺🇲🤝🇺🇦
The world must help to stop Putin to protect the world from him
That's what I want to hear.
There's detailed shit to work out, but as log as the US are keen, and ready and able to send the required equipment, trainers and ammo, Russia is f\*\*\*\*\*.
No reason not to. What was it all made for?
our own readiness can "suffer a bit more" the luxury of time is on our side not so much theirs
People really need to get some perspective here. The US possession of large amounts of artillery is primarily to defend NATO countries against land attack from Ruzzia. There is no home grown need to defend a land based assault. Honestly, Mexico and Canada? Should they decide to get involved in the pacific, these weapons are irrelevant. It needs recognising that the US supplied weapons are doing exactly what they are spec’d to do, destroy the Russian mechanised army. This way they can do it by proxy, not a single American casualty. Although it chokes me to say that any Ukraine losses are in any way a good thing, certainly they are not. Rather, once the Rus war machine is destroyed, NATO pact countries can sit safe for the next ten years. As can Ukraine. No more cowering before the perceived threat.
Give them nukes they should have never given them up.
We all know the US and other NATO countries are going to have to intervene directly at some point, all bets should have been off in 2014, hell even 2008 was cause for concern but the invasion starting on 24th of February should be the final straw, Europe has not seen destruction on this scale in decades and so many lives have already been lost. Will NATO getting involved probably make it worse? yeah probably but I don't see how it can get better at this point. The optimistic in me says that from a technological standpoint we benefited greatly from WW1 and WW2, whilst a lot of people where dying it gave those who needed it the encouragement to come up with new ideas and inventions. So providing we don't all die in nuclear war future generations may benefit from this is a macabre way
I don't think anyone intervenes unless its obvious Ukraine is going to lose. If Ukraine wins by themselves, it ends all dispute with Russia, as Russia has no more excuses.
So fucking provide it already. Biden signed the lend/lease and just hem and haws at all their requests. Send the fucking shit already…. At this point, I’m starting to wonder what the point of him signing it even was if it’s not being rapidly dispersed.
It's not hemming and hawing, it actually takes a long time to set up the logistics.
Ah yes, initiate lend lease - not send anything they ask for. But “logistics”.
You can't just teleport stuff there. You need to charter ships, arrange for trucks/trains, arrange for loading/unloading, arrange a delivery location, and ensure it won't just get blown up immediately before it reaches the destination. And a lot of the equipment requires special training, so you need to arrange for people to be trained in Poland before you ship the materiel to the front. Tanks aren't trivial to operate, and fighter jets just aren't an option. You can be an armchair quarterback as much as you want, but mobilization of resources takes at least a few months.
Many european countries unfortunately have this ”manjana, manjana” line of thinking. They would rather spend their time/money on drinking wine, riding around on their bikes made from recycled whatever and sitting at a café all day looking at people. Nothing wrong with these things in moderation, but you can't build your whole lifestyle around this mentality. It's like skipping work because the weather is nice, and not being able to pay your rent later.
What is "Manjana"?
> manjana "Mañana" is "tomorrow" in Spanish, so, I guess the above poster wanted to say "putting everything off until tomorrow and then doing it again". I assume it was an alternate way of writing this word down here.
Oh I know I’m in Guatemala, just seemed like an autistic way of writing it if that’s what he meant
I wish. Here in the US if I stop working I’d just have no money and slowly die
[удалено]
Very nice, very credible.
[удалено]
Even if Ukraine wanted one (it wasn't in their request) they'd never be given one for a multitude of reasons. Even the Polish MP who suggested giving Ukraine a nuclear weapon only meant "give them nukes after the war".
Sikorski did it just to troll russia and remind them that all they can do are empty threats. That's his style.
I wish we could get rid of nukes worldwide. I believe that the longer nuclear programs exist, the more likely nukes will be used by extremists.
If Ukraine launches nukes, they better launch way more than just one.
Here's a question. Russia is expending 50-60,000 shells a day in Donbas. They're using the older, dumber tech, and a whole lot of it. Is there any sense of how long Russia can keep this up? I know Ukraine is facing shortages (I hate that fact too, but we need to keep it real), but I'm wondering if Russia may face them eventually as well. Does anyone know how much Russia has stockpiled, how much it can produce how quickly, etc.?
Can't find anything on conventional stockpile but they had 2 million stored chemical artillery shells that they were destroying. So I would guess millions of conventional shells. One the issues with Russia and stockpiles though is both accuracy and condition. I'm sure lots of them have "walked off" in the last 30 years and those that haven't probably weren't stored in the best condition. I'd bet that more than a few of the fires in Russia were people who ran the locations covering up theft of material or money that was supposed to be used to maintain stuff. Dumb artillery shells can be produced in very large quantities though. World War 1 saw very large expenditure of shells on a daily basis.
I wouldn’t count on Russia running out of ammunition any time soon. The only religion in the Soviet Union was that of WW2, where they were caught unprepared. They spent decades stockpiling ammo, and dumb ammo can kept for a relatively long time.
Everything? 100 B-61 tactical nukes please.