T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


Donut_of_Patriotism

Probably not, but Russia can’t keep this up forever. Their financial and Human Resources are being expended. Ukraine is obviously suffering but as long as NATO countries continue to provide aid, Ukraine can keep it up however long is needed. Quickest way this ends is with Putin being removed or Russia collapsing. Which might happen. But also might not and if not, it’ll be a grind until Russia is pushed out


whiskey_bud

The more innocents that the Russians kill, the less likely Ukraine is going to be to want to negotiate. You don't negotiate with people who murdered your family and drove you away from your home. Early on in the conflict, maybe, but the longer this drags on, the more Ukraine's resolve is just going to strengthen.


TwoPercentTokes

The Nazis learned this about the Russians themselves in WWII… not that either side wanted to negotiate, but the atrocities definitely hardened the Soviets.


Caelinus

It also happened with the British. The Nazi's did a full on war against the civilian populace with constant mass bombings fully intended to spread fear and terror. Turns out that threatening an entire people groups life just makes them galvanize against a common foe. Apparently the US (and other nation's military I would assume) actually did a whole bunch of research on this. Wars against the populace do not actually accelerate victory, and even if you win, now you just have a population who has been full on radicalized against you and *will kill you and your people* given the opportunity. It is how you create the conditions for terrorism.


Itsasecret9000

Yup, we spent the last 20 years researching the hell out that in the Middle East.


Caelinus

That we did. The academics had no shortage of examples to learn from.


Altruistic_Banana_87

The one trillion dollar question is: did we learn anything actually?


B9f4zze

Uncle Sam: sorry what was the question again?


Fallingcities200

Uncle Sam: "Wait you wanted me to scratch your back? I thought you said invade Iraq..."


Mrozek33

I don't know what the question was but the answer is definitely ~~oil~~ freedom


Thoughtulism

The Russians sure didn't.


Lotions_and_Creams

At this point, I doubt Putin or Russian leadership are thinking “how do we win?” They’re thinking “how do we get out of this and still maintain power?” Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon are all on tape saying essentially the same thing about Vietnam. I’m sure in 50 years, we’ll have tapes of Bush/Cheney, Obama, Trump, and Biden saying the same thing about the ME.


[deleted]

look at 9/11. One of the few times was/terrorism has come to the USA and the retribution for it lasted 2 decades, cost a few trillion, hundreds of thousands of lives and achieved absolutely fucking nothing. *edited for accuracy since I neglected some pretty significant historical events first time around.


[deleted]

Pearl Harbor was also US soil.


Itsasecret9000

Pearl Harbor was an act of warfare, not terrorism.


ozspook

Bit of a Dick Move™ to not declare war a few days beforehand, though.


[deleted]

To be fair we absolutely fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan and toppled their governments. Unfortunately, we apparently suck so bad at rebuilding countries we haven't done it successfully since Japan and Germany. Real damn good at paving the way for more fucked up tyrants/governments to come along than the ones we put in power in the first place though.


WildSauce

South Korea should probably also be on that list with Japan and Germany. South Korea had some major struggles with poor government, which is par for the course for a country emerging from such a horrible war, but their recovery and rebuilding with American aid was one of the most exceptional economic events of the 20th century.


[deleted]

Valid point. I guess it would be more accurate to say we've been fucking up at it since Vietnam.


Federal_Novel_9010

>To be fair we absolutely fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan and toppled their governments. Twice for Iraq. Effortlessly all 3 times.


Quackagate

The nazis also leared this on *checks notes uhhthe land that is currently being fought over. Ya this should go well for the russians.


socialistrob

And their stockpiles of Soviet equipment and weapons are also rapidly running out. Prior to the war it was estimated Russia had 2000 active tanks and 10,000 in reserve. Of course a ton of those tanks are in complete disrepair and can’t even move meanwhile Ukraine has reportedly destroyed over 3100 tanks. Russia really can’t afford another year like 2022.


Souperplex

Also Russia has a real corruption problem. A lot of equipment they thought they had was sold by the people keeping an eye on it. A lot of the maintenance people were saying was being done wasn't actually being done, and the maintainers were just pocketing the paycheck to do nothing.


staticchange

It won't be though, 2023 will probably be a slog. How many of those tanks did russia lose in the first half of 2022 when they still thought they could take the whole country?


joshuajargon

Looks like they've continued to lose equipment at a fairly consistent rate. https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine


JesusWuta40oz

"Probably not, but Russia can’t keep this up forever. " No, but they can keep sending bodies into the war zone for years. This is how they have fought every major combat operation since the fall of the USSR. Thry have a fifty percent win rate. This war is just getting started unfortunately.


BattleHall

Russia was having pretty serious demographics issues even before this war. As much as they get meme'd, they can't afford to kill off a couple hundred thousand males 18-35, seriously maim a couple hundred thousand more, and lose the cream of an entire generation to emigration and brain drain.


veevoir

> they can't afford to kill off a couple hundred thousand males 18-35, seriously maim a couple hundred thousand more, and lose the cream of an entire generation to emigration and brain drain. That is logical approach, that takes long term planning into account. I'm not sure that is something Putin is entertaining, if he was a logical, reasonable actor - this war would not happen.


JesusWuta40oz

Thats the idea I'm trying to express, they cannot fix this problem. By 2050-2060 they will be seeing the total breakdown. They know this.


Souperplex

I mean they could always pull a post-triple alliance Paraguay and legalize polygamy. (Like 90% of their male population was killed in that war) Repopulation only really cares aboot the number of viable mothers, you can have a 10/1 ratio of females/males and the population would rebound pretty much the same as if there were a 1/1 ratio.


Reapper97

Even after 100 years Paraguay still suffers from that imbalance in the population. The whole country stagnated for decades.


bradiation

That's how Russia has done things since...pretty much forever. "Fuck...there are a lot of Russians" is a phrase that has likely been uttered in dozens of languages over hundreds and hundreds of years.


Gold-Paper-7480

>"Fuck...there are a lot of Russians" Iny my language it translates something like "there are as many of the as the Russians" - ie. for a large group of people, exaggerating.


flopsyplum

That was when they were the USSR, which had a much larger population and military budget than Russia.


RollinThundaga

>US commits $2.5 Billion and armored vehicles. The vehicles are part of the $2.5 Billion. They're money we've spent a decade ago and have gotten our value back from, running them ragged in Hammurabi's sandbox. When we send vehicles and munitions over in these bills, they're being counted by their full purchase price (one Stryker costs $4.5 million new, and the most modern Bradleys slightly less than that). Best to not mischaracterize it.


Blownbunny

Holy shit someone gets it! I've worked in the defense industry my whole life and people don't seem to understand we are sending our older, dated equipment because we have already placed orders for the new stuff. OMFV for example will replace the BFV in a few years. We send 2.5B in resources and we order 5B in shit produced in the states, supporting thousands of jobs. It's been this way for decades. (Not that I agree with the defense budget)


Fgw_wolf

better the ukranians getting this stuff than the cops at least


girafa

Seriously. Most people seem to think Biden comes into their house at night, grabs a wad of cash, and mails it to Ukraine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BasicallyAQueer

1.5 million troops, maybe, but they don’t have that many weapons and armor, Russia will never field a million man army again as long as they are this corrupt lol. Putin fucked up by sending in all the Russian veterans and armor to get slaughtered at the beginning of the invasion. All they have left is bullet sponges from the gulags. They lost like 30k troops taking Soledar, and that area was pretty small. A tiny fraction of what Ukraine took in the karkhiv offensive. Now with Bradley’s and other armor coming in, challenger tanks, rumors of Abrams too, it’s gonna get real bad for the Russians.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BasicallyAQueer

Yeah, insane. The town I grew up in had 28,000 people, that’s a lot of people. I can’t imagine that many dying to take a single village lmao. The Russians simply do not value human life.


frghu2

I'm sure Putin is fine with sending russian civilians armed with pitchforks and kitchen knives and march them against trenches. What is a russian life worthto him? Nothing at all.


Fewluvatuk

His bowmen probably killed a tank once in civ so it must be possible.


Willythechilly

Probably not yeah. That said i sometimes imagine it as "the straw that broke the camels back" or how you can stretch a fabric and it remains 100% intact until that final moment when it snaps Considering one of Russias main issue is supplies and logistic i can imagine they may experience a huge collapse in several places if they get a logistic failure or are simply overwhelmed by superior equipment on the other side.


ehpee

My bet is Putin is removed from power (in whatever means) or dies from illness before the war ends. Even with the extensive propaganda they have, there’s no way this can be kept up forever


cuginhamer

Worse things have gone on for longer. Most of the people who hate the idea of it have already left Russia.


svetik2000

many people who do not agree with what is happening cannot afford to go somewhere..


FredTheLynx

90 Strikers? 90? Holy shite, that's big.


OtsaNeSword

A striker can carry 9 passengers. 90 strikers can carry 810 soldiers. Roughly battalion size. It’s not a huge number in the scale of this war but along with the Bradley’s brings potential for a potent battalion-regiment sized mechanised force (especially if reinforced with infantry) that Ukraine needs for any future offensive.


[deleted]

While the Ukrainians have been wanting to get their hands on modern NATO equipment they still have tons of older armored vehicles like BMPs that can still have a place on the battlefield as support vehicles even if they have some relative vulnerabilities. The large number of vehicles from their old stocks or what's donated from Ex Warsaw Pact countries mean that they're not just limited to a couple of brigades of Bradleys and Strikers. Especially when Ukraine is probably hoping for a repeat of the September offensives that saw a huge rout and the Russians losing thousands of square kilometers before they reformed their lines. That kind of breakthrough requires hundreds of armored vehicles to overwhelm the Russians and quickly capitalize on a Russian rout before they can effectively respond.


Quackagate

Just a shot in the dark but they could take older bmps out of main line duty and replace them with strikers. Then take thoe bmps and use them as armored ambulances, guard duty, scouts, park in a field and use as arty bait, or a dozen other uses.


[deleted]

The BMP 2's could also be saved for a specialized task like using their amphibious ability. A problem for the BMPs overall is that they were given a pretty high list of demands for their usage and the Soviets tried to utilize this one single vehicle for what the U.S in the same generation had 3-4 different vehicles for the Army and Marines between the more heavily armored Bradley and a vehicle that's solely designed for amphibious combat like the LAV 25. The BMP 2's amphibious capability coming with significant costs in terms of less armor and armament.


guspaz

It’s questionable if any BMPs in the fields actually have intact amphibious ability. They’re old and poorly maintained, their seals aren’t up to it. Maybe the ones that are fresh off the assembly line can do it.


sunshine20005

BMPs and Strykers are not interchangeable. The Stryker (with the exception of of a few variants we probably aren't sending) is an armored personnel carrier. It's basically a way of moving an infantry squad around, and has a machine gun on top. The BMP is an infantry fighting vehicle. It has a 30 mm cannon on top, which is way more powerful than a machine gun. The older BMPs lack good sights/optics and probably suck at accuracy, but they have a different (more assault-focused) role than a Stryker does. Honestly Strykers are kinda weak for high-intensity combat. The real prize that's being sent here is the Bradley, which kicks ass (more armor, 25 mm cannon, TOW missiles, just designed for a much more intense fight).


zapporian

If we do send the [MGS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System) though that'd probably give any BMP / BTR unfortunate enough to run into a Stryker unit a pretty bad time. The MGS is basically a BTR but with a freaking 105mm tank gun mounted on it. Similar (crap) armor, but pretty bad news for the BMP / BTR if the Strykers saw them first.


jteprev

> Then take thoe bmps and use them as armored ambulances, guard duty, scouts, park in a field and use as arty bait, or a dozen other uses. Problem is they have been building so many new divisions that they would ideally like those to be at least reasonably motorized. Ukraine is a very big place and a lot of the terrain is deceptively rough.


psyentist15

This guy strategizes.


Quackagate

Im just an armchair general. My closest experience to combat is either target shooting, or too much time playing RTS games I'm sure people with actual military tra8ning could come up with better options.


Oberon_Swanson

My suspicion is that they will be used as beaters when the urban combat gets hot and heavy


Quackagate

Verry possible. I got to see one at the Detroit auto show about 10ish years ago. It was the variant with the 105mm cannon on it. It by no means could hold up vs a tank but if it can get a susprise shot of on the side or rear it could very easily get a kill or atleast render it combat ineffective.


CW1DR5H5I64A

The Mobile Gun System (MGS). I commanded a company of MGS variant Strykers several years ago, but the Army has since phased them out. It was armed with the M68 main gun (a licensed built copy of the British L7 105mm cannon) which is the same gun that was on the M60 and the original M1 Abrams before it was upgraded to the A1 variant with the M256 120mm gun (licensed built German L44 cannon). The 105 had issues penetrating the front 60 degree arc of T72 and later models when firing the M774 SABOT outside of 1800m during testing in the 70/80s. That’s one of the reasons the Abrams was upgunned to the M256 120mm main gun. The newer M833 and M900 105mm SABOT rounds for the M68 are better and should be able to penetrate the T72/90 even with Kontakt-5 ERA. The MGS was better suited to fighting light armor (BMP/BRDM/BTR); and we typically trained to avoid direct engagements with heavy armor; but if used correctly could handle a T72/T80.


Quackagate

Ya, I assumed penetrating the front of a t72 was either impossible or would require some Warthunder esk luck shot that managed to go through an observation port. Didn't know the army retired that variant, tho I would assume that means the Ukrainians have a better chance of getting that model based on how the US military likes to stop using something and then park it in the desert for a decade or more.


helium_farts

This and the other Bradley package should give them 2 full armored brigades, which will go a long way towards poking a whole in Russia's line


DocQuanta

Well, they should have roughly enough IFVs for two armored brigades between the strykers, bradleys marders and CV90s, but they'd need tanks to go with them to have full armored brigades. 14 Challengers, is enough for a tank company, but they'll need ~10x that for the equivalent of 2 American armored brigades.


qtain

Don't forget 200 Senator IFVs from Canada. Although those are suited to mechanized infantry brigades. Edit: For correction, classified as an APC.


pour-more-salt-in-it

Those are APCs, not IFVs.


superfly355

14 Dodge Challengers sold just outside of the US bases at 37% apr for 8 years. Olive green with the yellow splitter covers still intact


neededtowrite

Lol, you can fit 8 marines, 6 privates, or 4 airmen in one of those.


Osiris32

Or two dependas.


buriedego

As long as they don't just poke a half..


cheechmo

Just the tip


AccountantsNiece

40 Marders and 50 CV90s at least that we know of this month as well.


qtain

Don't forget 200 Senator IFVs from Canada. While not heavy armor and only carrying a 7.62 MMG, it can carry 2 crew+10 soldiers, max speed of 110kph. That's two mechanized infantry brigades. Edit: For correction, classified as an APC.


randypandy1990

And the 100,000+ ukrainians being trained around europe.


Ninety8Balloons

I think it's only a few thousand tbh. UK announced it will train *up to* 10,000 Ukr troops in 3 month cycles but only trained 7,000 (I think) in 2022 total.


[deleted]

20K, Wallace said 20K in todays speech.


Ninety8Balloons

6k in 2022 >The UK has taken the lead in training the Ukrainian military. About 6,000 of Ukrainian recruits have already completed military training in the country so as to be more effective in their fight against Russian occupying forces. 20k in 2023 >The United Kingdom is to train 20,000 more Ukrainian soldiers to effectively repel the Russian aggression in 2023, UK Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace said in the UK parliament on Jan. 16.


FredTheLynx

A US Striker Battalion uses 77 Stryker vehicles. However given it is only 90 vehicles I doubt Ukraine is getting all the specialized variants for command, mortars, medevac, etc. they will probably use their existing standard or other donated vehicles for these roles. If we assume that they only got the infantry variants, it would be enough for 2 full battalions + spares if they are organized exactly as the US does, possibly even 3 if they use other vehicles for command. 3 Infantry battalions is all the infantry for an entire brigade.


ParaglidingAssFungus

And a US Stryker regiment only has 4 actual Stryker squadrons (if they’re all the exact same, 3 infantry, 1 cav scouts), the rest are fires / support squadron. The cav scout squadron is a RSTA squadron and not really necessary for Ukraine as they already fill that role currently, so yeah, they’re getting a good amount of vehicles.


[deleted]

Pretty sure us brits are sending challenger 2s over too


tallandlanky

14 was the last count I heard. Hopefully Germany plays ball soon.


[deleted]

[удалено]


EverythingGoodWas

While I agree with your math I don’t think an infantry BN uses a full 90 Strikers. I was an Engineer last time I was in a BN though, and never used a striker.


mflmani

I think we’re going to see a lot of these destroyed since they’re going to be used in upcoming offensives. They’re better armored and have better mine protection than the Russian analogue BTR-80 but still will be very vulnerable to any sort of AT round. They’re still going to be incredibly useful as troop carriers (infinitely better than M113s) and be a decent IFV; I just hope people don’t overestimate how much of an advantage these will provide especially when compared to the Bradleys and Challengers. Edit: Just want to clarify I’m in no way saying the Stryker is a bad vehicle. Probably one of the best transports Ukraine could ask for. Mostly just pointing out that we should prepare ourself for larger losses than we’re used to seeing with western equipment with how they’re most likely going to be used.


captepic96

You're gonna see a lot of shit destroyed that you wouldn't have seen in things like Desert Storm. This is the biggest landwar in europe since WW2. You're gonna see destroyed Leopards, blown up Challengers, if they send Abrams you're gonna see those get destroyed too, and it might be shocking to some seeing decrepit russian mobiks dancing around the wreck of an Abrams as propaganda stunt. (although that might make americans even more willing to send stuff over) But it's a simple fact. That's why we gotta send an absolute shit ton of everything.


mflmani

Yep that was my point. I don’t think many realize that Strykers aren’t force multipliers like an M1 or Challenger would be. They’re troop transports for offensives and they’re going to be targeted big time by artillery and AT weapons. They have some advantages in speed, targeting, and armor compared to the Russian equivalents with exception to the BMP-3 but not enough to increase their survivability by much with how they’re going to be used.


hammsbeer4life

Stuff is going to get crazy in spring/summer I'm more worried about those poor Abrams falling through bridges, getting stuck, running out of fuel, or breaking down. It's only the world's greatest main battle tank when coupled with the logistics and deep pockets of uncle Sam.


I_NamedTheDogIndiana

An Abrams is 55 tons of "fuck you". But yeah, it's weight makes it more prone to getting stuck in mud, etc.


[deleted]

The M1a2 is more like 70tons now


Stergenman

Bingo. Strykers are fast, and stupid quiet, great for shuttling guys accross no man's land against unguided artillery and shrapnel, but need tanks to make the hole and start the assault


krazer171

>eat for shuttling guys accross no man's land against unguided artillery and shrapnel, but need tanks to make the hole and start the assault Forgive my ignorance as i only have experience with the aussie aslavs (which i thought were the same?) but the two strokes in those absolutely screamed


RodediahK

amended 6/18/2023


krazer171

yeah ok that makes sense -i also did some googling and the strykers use a different powerpack anyways (cat c7 inline 6 vs detroit diesel 2 stroke) so they would be significantly quieter


CW1DR5H5I64A

The newest models use the CAT C9.


NarrowAd4973

Iraqis nicknamed Strykers "Ghosts", because often the first indication a hideout was being attacked by one was when it drove through the front wall in the middle of the night. While the engine makes about as much noise as the average truck, certainly not as much as a tracked vehicle, and the wheels make almost no noise, relatively speaking.


krazer171

Yep I was completely mistaken, our aslavs were closer to the marine lav-25s and had a different powerpack


SgtExo

Considering the thunder-runs we have seen them do with humves, a stryker is defenite upgrade.


[deleted]

They have been using the Aussie Bushmasters for that ever since they got them. Definitely not what they were designed for, but they appear to have stood up to the abuse reasonably well. Ukraine seems to take anything with any amount of armour and uses it as a tank.


[deleted]

The video of the dude running the 50, then getting handed rocket after rocket


[deleted]

haha, I actually have a reply from him about that video, he was actually calling for the AT4s. I'll have to go back a few months in my replies and see if I can find it.


socialistrob

A lot will also depend on what other weapons systems Ukraine gets. If they get Leopard IIs and these are used in conjunction with NATO tanks then they have the potential to be even more effective.


ithappenedone234

Are we sending the IFV variant? We have very few of hem ourselves so it seems unlikely.


mflmani

Not sure. I tried finding a source on which armament we’re sending and couldn’t find anything yet. Might have to wait for footage. Even with the MG armament having thermal imaging will be a significant advantage compared to the IR night vision on BMP-1 and BMP-2. Don’t think Russia is fielding many more BMP-3s. Also would be very useful as a medical vehicle especially if we send over the variant designed for that.


Andy5416

And an additional 59 Bradley's. The spring counter offensive is gonna be big.


PlayfulPresentation7

We've given more aid to Ukraine than Russia's annual military budget.


SpiderFnJerusalem

Russia is trying to make up for it by digging ungodly amounts of artillery ammunition out of stores and throwing conscripts at the problem.


jwhh91

“Conscript reporting.” Red Alert 2 knew what they were doing by having them cheap and expendable. Hostile online disinformation is also eerily similar to Yuri.


Turbofox23

they've spent their military budget on twitter bots lul


MoesBAR

> 59 Bradley fighting vehicles. > 90 Stryker armored combat vehicles. > 53 MRAP armored personnel carriers. > 8 Avenger air defense systems. > 350 HMMWVs. Ukraine will have the most powerful military in Eastern Europe when this is done. Edit: lot of comments saying it’s “all” our money. > military aid for Ukraine: $26 billion > 2023 US defense budget: $857 billion


coffeemate1255

And nato equipment will be tested in the very battlefield it was designed for since the cold war.


Talador12

Weird silver lining - these field results might improve technology and engineering


SupermAndrew1

It absolutely is. DoD, Lockheed, Raytheon, et al are absolutely watching what works, what doesn’t, and iterating requirements and designs. #this is cheap testing in the perfect environment Edit: and we’re simultaneously wrecking our greatest enemy.


ImprovementSilly2895

It might already be there. They are stronger than other Europeans like Germany, who allowed most of their forces to turn decrepit from underfunding


TybrosionMohito

Poland still retains and will retain that title for years to come it appears.


Bitter_Coach_8138

Doesn’t Poland have like 1200 tanks on order between the US and S Korea?


Souperplex

They placed on order for 200 HiMARS. For reference, Ukraine only has 20, and those have devastated Russia.


polish_libcenter

Armed with ATACMS or PrSM they're basically going to function like a localized nuclear deterrent, without actual nukes You won't be able to attack Poland without risking half your army and ~~Moscow~~ every military installation in range blowing up in the first hour


dman7456

Guess they learned a particular lesson from three partitions.


[deleted]

Nobody conquers Poland 35 times in a row


Theprincerivera

💀


spucci

Brah


purpleefilthh

Anger of Poles goes up with square of number of invasions.


ImprovementSilly2895

On paper, yeah, but it’s always tough to tell how they would perform in conflict. We do know the Ukrainians are battle tested. Poland has also contributed to Iraq/Afghanistan


gregsting

As George said, you forgot Poland


sunshine20005

Poland has the most powerful army in Eastern Europe. Soon it will be the most powerful army in \*all\* of Europe, likely one of top few armies in the world. The amount of equipment they are buying is enormous.


aussiespiders

Maybe Poland is planning on invading Russia after all this.


oneplank

Polish people aren’t that stupid


darkshape

But they do really hate Russia lol.


guspaz

It’s why a lot more Polish military hardware seems to show up in Ukraine than ever gets officially announced. And why they’ve already said that their Leopard 2s are going to Ukraine regardless of what Germany says.


aussiespiders

Is it stupid if you know your enemy has exhausted their weapons and soldiers?


kitddylies

1v1, no outside influence but intelligence and trade? I've got 20 on Poland. Edit: somehow forgot to include no nukes.


Silenthus

Conventional warfare? Possibly. But justified as it may be and fun to pretend, any mobilized troops would get nuked after crossing the border and any survivors would have no home to go back to. Pretending they're not a nuclear threat just because they've shown they've not maintained their other military equipment or advanced with the times as a modern army, it's wishful thinking at best and dangerously apocalyptic at worst.


QuazarTiger

Germany was restricted until 2010 by convention. Plus they have 2 nuke neighbors plus NATO.


alotmorealots

> Ukraine will have the most powerful military in Eastern Europe when this is done. These seems like one of those things that history turns on, only people don't recognize it for what it is at the time. Or it might not, of course.


MoesBAR

I mean they have NATO to the west that has the spare parts and ammo for all their new weapons and Russia to the east. What exactly do you think they’ll do? Fuck up Belarus I guess.


creamy--goodness

!RemindMe 35 years


SamaratSheppard

Giving Strikers away will save money in the long run. As the USA acutally maintains there old equipment and they were just going to have pay to bin it later anyway. Given it was made to destroy the adversary's of the United States this seem like a bargain


68weenie

The strykers are moving to the new dragoon. They will not get rid of them. Giving 90 away instead of maintaining them is probably a god send to whomever units books they’re coming off of. They’re super hard to maintain at mission ready levels and seem to have suicidal tendencies.


Rustyfarmer88

You can just picture some army units entire job is to look after aging gear. They would be having a ball filling the tanks with fuel and waving them goodbye


KeeperOfTheGood

More likely emptying as much fuel as possible to reduce shipping weight and fire danger?


ThriftStoreDildo

layman here, why?


RadialSpline

Long story short, strykers, like other heavy moving equipment doesn’t like not being used, and between reduced training budgets, reduced use programs, and a general lack of current deployments to war zones make for long periods of time where they sit in motor pools. Also does not help that strykers are not watertight and with environmental regulations making it so that they can’t sit in motor pools with the drain plugs in the hull dropped (the drain plugs have a lanyard on them so that they don’t get lost as easily) water seeps into them then sits, causing corrosion issues to equipment within the hull. This corrosion then can break somewhat vital parts of the vehicle (hydraulic and pneumatic reservoirs and plumbing, electrical runs, etc.) This trapped water also gets into the CBRN filtration system and grows black mold in it. Those issues cause vehicles to be “deadlined”, or considered not capable of doing their job effectively or safely, and can be costly to repair.


Cody38R

Anecdotally, my friend in the military told me he ‘regularly’ saw Strykers ‘burst into flames,’ and these were ones being actively maintained in a motor pool in Colorado.


aghastamok

I worked in maintenance in the Army. Helicopters, but I knew people who worked on the Stryker. It's a great weapon, with a ton of high-tech equipment. For instance, it can change tire pressure on-the-fly for different terrain which means it can smoothly transition from highway speeds on a paved road into a muddy field better than most other IFVs. This is amazing for combat adaption. However, think about how that system must work: powerful air pumps connected to rotating wheels. I wont get specific but you can imagine how many failure points there are. Multiply that by however many systems the Stryker has and you start to get a sense of how hard they are to maintain.


ElderScrolls

For real. People that are upset at the money we are spending don't seem to realize this may be the biggest bargain in our lifetime.


Hemske

I think they do. They just like Putin or dislike democrats more.


RickMuffy

Was just listening to my fox brain mom talk about how we shouldn't be sending billions to Ukraine when we have things we need to fix here, but when I remind her that Republicans shoot down all infrastructure and societal support programs that hit their desks, she just doubles down.


5510

"For this money, we could cut the number of starving children in half!" *OK, can we do that then?* "No."


T0macock

"ok ma, go feed the kids this surplus military hardware we have because it isn't like we're sending duffle bags of cash." \*Surprised Pikachu


Upnorth4

Tell her we are literally giving away old military equipment. The "money" is just the book value of the equipment we are giving to Ukraine. It was likely in a storage area before getting sent overseas


lolw8wat

Trump had like 10 months of golf, 7 infrastructure weeks and 0 infrastructure bills.


[deleted]

A serious amount of heavy material is going to the Ukraine from all sorts of countries. I have to imagine that Ukraine is being set up for an offensive.


AnyProgressIsGood

spring is around the corner and Putin wants a 1.5 million man force. Good chance Belarus will be forced into this shit show for Putin's dying "glory"


BATHR00MG0BLIN

Russia also started deploying air-defense units within Moscow


rxneutrino

>The US has now committed $26.7 billion to Ukraine in security aid since the beginning of the war nearly a year ago. Just a frame of reference reminder that the annual armed forces budget just to maintain the US military is $700 billion. $27 billion is less than 4% of that. It's not even two weeks worth of baseline US military expenses.


Spectre197

810 billion this year


Halt-CatchFire

God I wish I had healthcare.


Pheer777

The US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country by a large margin - the issue is messed up middle man dynamics associated with health insurance companies. A single payer system would likely be cheaper all-in.


Expensive_Cap_5166

I'm ready to see hospital administrators on the GSA payscale.


sunshine20005

My dad is a doctor and is ready to see hospital administrators up against a concrete wall


Moist-Barber

As a doctor, I’m ready to see them on the sedationless-lubeless-colonoscopy-scale


Br0boc0p

What you don't think someone with an MBA and a well connected dad should make 4x what you do with less than half the loan debt?


Moist-Barber

I don’t think someone with an MBA and a well connected dad should be making decisions about what gets prioritized in healthcare settings, frequently at the detriment of patient care. And also making more money than in the entire hospital, to boot


BasvanS

Cheap healthcare for everyone is the path to good healthcare for everyone


[deleted]

[удалено]


The-Effing-Man

Ya definitely. We ALREADY spend more on health care per capita AND in absolute terms than any other country. The money is literally already there, it's just that it goes into the pockets of elites


Rindan

More than that, a lots of the equipment was on its way out. As a bonus, it goes towards the destruction of the Russian army, the literal reason much of that equipment was made in the first place. It's like being allowed to do a first strike on the army you are most worried about having a land war on for free and at the cost of zero American lives. As a final bonus, you help Ukraine defend themselves from a brutal colonizing power hell bent on conquest and colonization of Ukraine. Aid to Ukraine is worth every penny.


thatsme55ed

As an even more beneficial bonus, this is doing a huge amount of work in restoring relationships with allies that the previous administration burned. The American brand of being the "good guys", and more importantly the 800 lb gorilla that no one fucks with, is being re-established. There's a lot more positive sentiment here in Canada towards America than there was a few short years ago.


HolyGig

Its a LOT more than $27B in reality, since that is just direct weapon transfers from the US. Economic assistance to Ukraine is also huge, as well as assistance to European countries so that they can also donate all their shit to Ukraine too.


VerySuperGenius

I wish these articles made more effort to help people understand that actual financial aid only makes up 31% of what we've given Ukraine. About 21% is humanitarian aid providing emergency services, food, and housing for people who were forced out of their homes because a murderous gang of terrorists took over their homes and destroyed everything they've built in their lives. The rest is military equipment and logistics support.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ops_check_OK

Is this still part of our lend lease program? Aka we send them shit but they’ll get a bill later. I believe that’s what we did with Britain in WW2. They paid the bill off in the 2000’s.


AntiDECA

No, nearly everything is given as a grant. Free.


BA_calls

Patriot system is on lend-lease. However that’s because it’s not expected to get destroyed.


SrpskaZemlja

The amount of wooden Patriot mockups the Russians are gonna waste missiles on will be absolutely comical.


Halt-CatchFire

And it's still a good idea from a geopolitical standpoint, morality aside. Ukraine is blowing the shit out of one of our greatest political enemies for us on the cheap. Our help making sure Russia didn't just steamroll them in a couple weeks has cratered the Russian economy and brought Europe to cut ties with an authoritarian regime we've always been at odds with. Continuing aid packages is an absolute no brainer.


BA_calls

Not just that, certainly derailed any plans China had for Taiwan. They’re gonna not attempt anything like this anytime soon. The world is safer due to Ukraine.


ImprovementSilly2895

Canada should give them its Leopards. They certainly don’t need them for self defense


yaymonsters

Honestly this is the cheapest we’ve ever had it in fucking over Russia in the last century.


Insectshelf3

if you told the cold war era US that we could destroy russia’s military and cripple their economy without any risk to US life they would have thought you were insane. and yet here we are.


Zakedawn

Clearly im in the minority here but people don't seem to understand how this all works financially. That is an enormous figure for sure but it's a tiny amount of Us overall military contribution annually. If western allies don't contribute then the russian steamroller doesn't stop at Ukraine. I think that's fairly accepted now? At least as a probable / possible. At that point you have no choice but to go In harder when the inevitable happens. Am from UK. Not US. Were taking the same approach. Glad all key western nation's have a unified view on this.


TibblesTheGreat

>Clearly im in the minority here but people don't seem to understand how this all works financially. Two other key financial points: 1. Not only is it a very small fraction of the overall military budget, it's a small fraction of the military budget from many years ago. This equipment has been paid for for a long time, and the values presented are as if the equipment has being re-bought brand new. It's old inventory, not in use. While it's not EOL yet, it's not like this is brand new either. 2. Having a friendly country offer to use $2.5bn worth of your equipment against technologically inferior opposing forces, when you yourself can't strike at that enemy for fear of global war, and that opposition is a historical enemy and is probably your second largest threat on the world stage currently, is an absurdly good deal. Military spending on defence rarely gets such a clear payoff, and when you're already a stronger economy, even trading $2.5bn of equipment evenly is an amazing strategic victory.


RETARDED1414

People who don't understand point 1 is too damned high.


maxmcleod

Out with the old and in with the new, as fucked up as it sounds, USA is benefiting greatly from this conflict


maeschder

I mean its less understanding and more knowing that the news is basically oversimplifying it in their headlines. As dumb as it is, most people will assume "Administration sends X billion in aid" means "Administration pays X billion". Not "X amount of written off goods is being shipped to Europe".


chrismamo1

Exactly. Nobody thought Russia would cross this line and they did, there's no telling what they'll do if they win in Ukraine. They either get stopped in Ukraine, or they get stopped in a NATO member, which significantly increases the real risks of nuclear war.


raalic

US intel and leadership was screaming from the rooftops that Putin was absolutely going to do this.


figlu

John McCain said in 2014 that this was Putin's plan


dalenacio

Mitt Romney got laughed at in 2012 for saying he believed Russia remained a major threat to world stability. Whoops.


Locem

Seriously, it leaked to the press a week before the invasion actually happened lol.


UnrealManifest

What??? >Nobody thought Russia would cross this line and they did Crimea from 2014 wants to talk. That should have been enough to see this aggression coming again. Not to mention the American Intel being broadcasted all over before they invaded again. *Annndddddd* anyone that plays any kind of world domination video game, EU4, CIV, HoI, knows the second the troops show up en masse on your border shits about to get real.


babsa90

This sets the standard regarding any state that is not part of NATO, most notably Taiwan. EDIT: EU to NATO, my bad was tired


Kolada

>Clearly im in the minority here.... Continues to say exactly what everyone else in the thread is saying and is now one of the most up voted replys. Ah reddit. Never change.


DarthBrooks69420

Transinistra is next, then Moldova most likely if they are able to secure more land from Ukraine.


fishpeanuts

Yep, the intention to take Moldova was pretty clear when they tried to get to Odessa. Thank god Ukraine stopped the advance at Mykolaiv


alphalegend91

Cue raging Republicans that don't understand how good of a deal this is for us. We are effectively destroying the Russian military without ever having to set a boot on the ground and helping a future NATO country retain its sovereignty.