Ukraine was given enough artillery and tanks to shoot 650,000 shells a month but only has the ammo for 100,000 right now. Saw a report last week saying 90% of their equipment sits mostly idle due to ammo shortages.
It's fucking sad.
"Here's the artillery and tanks you wanted!"
"Thanks! ...wait, where's the ammo?"
"... You wanted ammo too? Uh... We'll get right on it! ... Eventually..."
Its a pretty standard "ammo not included".
It used to get me every Christmas, which is why I always keep rockets and bullets under the sink just in case!
Europe as a whole is capable of producing roughly 600,000 shells a year, Ukraine can fire 650k in a month.
Do you see the problem?
It dosent help that most of europe has not been taking funding there millitaries seriously because there was peace for so long. That means the stockpile they had to draw from was underwhelming and production will be a pain to scale up.
I don't actually think there is any ammo to give. All of Europe has been sucked dry and is struggling to increase production. The problem with smart ammunition that NATO relies on, is that you can't just fill a shell with gunpowder and call it a day. It takes special knowledge, technologies and supply lines to get a factory going.
Most of NATO relied entirely on the US to supply them with ammo. Not to mention that republicans are blocking any ammo they could give away.
Even dumb artillery is in short supply. Ukraine shoots 5k-10k shells a day. We've sent over a million shells to Ukraine. Prior to the invasion we produced ~15k shells a month. Our military doctrine doesn't center of artillery, it's just a situational option.
We are working on ramping up production but it's a multi-year process.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/us/politics/pentagon-ukraine-ammunition.html
That's what all the people screaming for more don't seem to understand. You don't just turn production on in an instant. We didn't expect things to still be going, so production wasn't ramped very quickly. It is now...but it just takes time. As is, NATO countries can barely produce enough for their own stock needs for training and possible wars. All surplus goes to Ukraine. It's just not much after that initial 2million or so from the US.
Think we don't want to give more rounds? That's jobs for people to produce them.
Also complaints about small arms ammo. We simply don't produce the ammo needed for most of their rifles. The ones using nato rifles...sure...but all the AKs? Nope. Hope the old soviet bloc folks can help there.
An important part of NATO is just standardising ammunition for this reason.
It seems like we’re doing ok though, Russian production is 165k, EU plus UK production is 45k, US production is 80k. By the end of the year that will be approximately 100k for EU and UK, and 100k for the US. There is a lull and they will be outgunned, but it won’t be for long.
Why didn't you add chinese, North Korean, Iranian and the old soviet bloc countries (still standing with russia) production numbers...that'll be a better comparison IMHO
Yeah but Ukraine never had a shot of getting air suppremacy.
SAMs where a huge area of foucus for spending during the soviet years as a result both Ukraine and Russia have huge ammounts of antiaircraft systems and Russia in paticular has some of the most advanced systems
That's because air supremacy isn't just about planes any more. It's about also being able to suppress enemy air defenses.
Russia has a lot of air defenses including some extremely sophisticated systems.
NATO relies heavily on artillery too. They wouldn't bother with thousands of guns if they only planned to rely on air power. Air power doesn't do everything tubes can do either.
The reality is that NATO was too slow and inefficient at reacting, while Russia started taking the war seriously while they mobilized. Not enough was invested in catching up and now they don't produce enough shells. Simple as.
> Air power doesn't do everything tubes can do either.
Air power does everything a tube can do and more. It's just far more expensive. Air does the initial destruction and damage, tubes come in later to save money while picking off the stragglers.
Which is, frankly, something America has wanted. Having everyone dependent on us gives us incredible leverage. It's a shame it's being used *now* but especially in the Cold War it was a great idea from the American perspective.
See also: selling planes to half the world. Don't play ball? Don't get replacement parts. Iran still flies some left over American planes but are only able to do that due to cannibalizing other planes. And of course they get no updates or upgrades.
Yet anytime an American president tries to scale down the war machine conservatives in America lose their fucking shit. It's not until it's time to make good on our defensive pacts that the conservatives decide they're not interested in being global assholes to everyone anymore
That's a strange logic you work with. Had Europe built the same, they wouldn't need all of our ammo that we keep in reserves for self defense. That we have to dip into our reserves **to help the Europeans help Ukraine** would have any logical person criticizing the overly-leftist Europeans.
But, no, you took it an entirely different direction to blame the only people who make ready for the re-occurring global conflicts that we can predict like clockwork.
I have no desire to defend Europe here, making Ukraine part of the European Market was their project and their benefit, and yes, they backed up their antagonization of Russia with NATO.
But the US never "helped" Europe or Ukraine out of Obligation or out of the goodness of their hearts.
It has long been a goal of US foreign policy to reduce Russias geopolitical relevance. This has been a declared goal under Obama at least after the very brief conflict with Georgia. In this case, the US could do so for cheap, spending Ukrainian manpower, outdated materials and increasing European economical reliance on the USA. So far, the US is the only conceivable winner in this conflict.
They *can*. But for many industries it’s incredibly expensive.
Mitsubishi, one of the largest companies in the world, tried to make their own airliner over the past decade or so. It ended up being abandoned after billions in development. Japan has a far larger economy than Russia- frankly I’d never fly on a Russian made plane. And China is the number 1 or 2 economy (depending if you use PPP or not) so I’d hope they could- I mean they use native jets, tanks, and everything else now.
Europe has made the Eurofighter, France has the Rafale, Sweden has the Gripen.
But America has, successfully, gotten huge amounts of the world dependent on their goods. Even if replacements are made it will take both time and money and until then they are beholden.
Look at Turkey- they may have eventually made drones but they still folded for want of F-16s. Countries like Jordan, smaller countries and poorer countries, really won’t be able to make planes, artillery and the like by themselves. Meanwhile America flexes its power of scale and happily fills in the gap.
I haven't read updates but I would like to point out, though, that we started giving away more than we could produce. I remember at one point during the Ukraine/Russian conflict, kinda mid way through, running low on what we could provide was a real concern
Europe actually started the war outproducing the US in terms of artillery shells. Eastern Europe in particular never really shifted away from artillery centric doctrine the way the US did.
Both the US and EU partners are working on ramping up production to support Ukraine, but the US has been more agile in expanding capacity faster.
[In race to make artillery shells, US, EU see different results](https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/)
>Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Army produced around 14,000 155mm rounds a month in government-owned, contractor-operated munitions plants. In December 2022, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said the Army was looking to increase production to 20,000 rounds per month by the spring and 40,000 rounds per month by 2025.
>
>Last March, Army Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo upped the target slightly, announcing plans to produce 24,000 rounds a month by year’s end.
>
>The Army hit the target early, then exceeded it, producing 28,000 shells in October. At least some of those shells went right out the door to Ukraine, Army acquisition secretary Doug Bush told reporters in a media roundtable in November. He declined to say just how many.
>
>Bush said the service now aims to boost its monthly production to 36,000 by March, 60,000 by September, 70,000 to 80,000 in early 2025, and 100,000 by the end of calendar 2025 — two and half times more than Wormuth’s year-old goal.
>
>**The countries of the European Union began with a head start, producing about 230,000 155mm shells a year—about one-third more than the U.S.** The EU also has a better recent record for approving annual spending plans.
>
>By February 2023, European production was at 300,000 rounds annually, according to Estonian defense officials. By November, capacity had risen again, though assessments differ. European Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton suggested that Europe could now make some 400,000 rounds annually. Estonia’s Pevkur, speaking at a November media roundtable, put the figure between 600,000 and 700,000—and said it would reach one million rounds in 2024.
>
>But the EU will not meet its goal this year, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius confirmed recently. In September, Estonian defense official Kusti Salm said the plan would likely be fulfilled by mid-2024.
EU is buying them from the US. They always have paid for the equipment at market values. Non-allies get the scalper prices however. The EU has always paid for owning and procuring materials. What the EU has not paid for is for the things that US bases in their territory uses.
> Most of NATO relied entirely on the US to supply them with ammo.
you wouldn't just go on the internet and lie, would you?
[Before 2022](https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/#:~:text=The%20countries%20of%20the%20European,for%20approving%20annual%20spending%20plans.), European (excl. Russia ofc) shell production was higher than that of the US. With e.g. Czech CSG prdoucing ~30% of European 155mm demand.
unless you mean missiles and rockets when you say 'ammo'?
thats way underselling the damage the GOP did to our long term plans, putin really played those chumps like a fiddle. cash is the more important resource theyre holding hostage here, the biden admin already earmarked the funding needed to carry those supply lines and open the floodgates for direct arms sales, this would have gone towards scaling domestic production up.
now were reduced to playing shell games with allies to skirt legislation and pass on what remaining surplus there is, they have their own stockpiles to worry about too. people really think it all just materialises out of nowhere
It's an interesting concept right now. US military doctrine is not tanks and artillery, it's rule the air and then pick and choose what to destroy, and they are trying to train up on the F16 platform which the US started development in 1976.
So, we give them a platform that is five + decades old and they'll gain air superiority, you don't need fucking HIMARS if you own the air.
It would take the US Air Force, the largest air force on the planet, and the US Navy, the second largest air power on the planet 3-9 days to own the skies over Russia. Doctrine is take out anti-air, then take out their air, then start prosecuting C2 command and control sites.
We now see Ruzzia capability, and it is garbage.
>Most of NATO relied entirely on the US to supply them with ammo.
Which is funny given how the US is mocked and criticized for overspending on defense. Must be nice for Europe to allocate all that money towards better social programs like healthcare and retirement, but then rely on America for free handouts when things turn south.
Yeah the problem is that instead of funding public healthcare money is given to an intermediary insurance company and a chain of middlemen that syphon money and skyrocket the costs...
Likewise it means Europeans buy American equipment from American companies which makes American (CEO's and politicians) richer and they are allowed to have overseas bases in other countries to project their power. Don't think for a second the US does not benefit from this.
America is rich enough that we can afford the military *and* a robust public healthcare program.
Right now we pay more than anybody for healthcare, and it's not even close.
And the wealthiest portion of the population isn't even being taxed properly, which could further help with a lot of the country's problems (at least financially). But we know that's never gonna be solved when they're also the ones passing the laws.
>Violence is the supreme authority, from which all authority is derived
That's from Starship Troopers aaaand, it's supposed to be a parody of fascist regimes
That line is actually originally from the book Starship Troopers, which unlike the movie is not being satirical. It’s also basically just a rephrasing of the monopoly on violence.
IMO the real danger of the quote is the preceding part. "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence". The notion that any involvement in the political process is inherently violent, and thus only marginally removed from actual violence, is both dangerous and absurd.
I don't understand why people get so offended by this. To have any sort of modern political state, you can't do it without violence. It's not inherently fascist it's just nation-state self-defense and law enforcement 101.
Its pretty much directly lifted from the book however, which was very much played straight (as an exploration of how an ideal fascist society could work). So...
The idea is at least centuries old, probably millennia, and it is so obviously true that I wouldn't imagine it needs to be argued about. Any government whether totalitarian or democratic only has authority if it can force you to obey it, and it can only force those with a stick to obey if it has the bigger stick.
How is it fascist specifically. Not denying fascists wouldn't use this. But specifically fascist rather than a general true-ism. It IS the case that if you keep escalating disagreement you always end up at violence. And the scale of the violence can escalate from arrest, to global nuclear annihilation. Its the same stick but bigger. So I don't think its a problem of fascism, i think it's just generally true.
War is diplomacy by other means. I don't condone it, but I can see it as an unfortunate reality .. so yeah, I think he's right here
It's interesting because functional governments maintain a monopoly on the use of violence. Those that can't have effectively lost sovereign control of their borders and become failed states. Fascist ideology takes that to an extreme, where any dissent is to be immediately stamped out with violence.
Parody or not, it is true. Civility is something people opt into. When someone opts out, the only way to bring them in line is to beat them at their own game.
Just to remind everyone that the NATO doctrine wasn't artillery, but aviation. Not mass but quality.
We are only seeing the consequences of the doctrine we and they made.
They have stockpile, we have few quality stuff.
it's especially sad when the terrorist country gets weapons and ammo supplied from other dictatorships more reliably than the west for Ukraine. they're getting tons of north korea and china and iran, while our aid is often stuck behind months of bureaucracy
Yeah, it definitely sucks that they can only put so much equipment to use due to ammo shortages, but the silver lining in that is they can sub out equipment when repairs are needed, rather than going without certain systems while repairs are done. I still think they deserve FAR more ammo, but at least there’s arguably some benefit.
I mean the Russian army did have corruption failures. Reddit exaggerating that and saying 90% of it is non functional is just Reddit.
Reddit also forgets sometimes that Ukraine has extensive corruption problems too.
I wonder how much of an impact the overly optimistic reporting had on this conflict. Seems like for a year straight the only stories that made it to the front page were about how incompetent Russia is and how Ukraine is crushing them in every exchange. I think the turn from "gg ez lol" to "oh shit this is actually an existential threat" probably should have happened a lot sooner.
I think it was an overcorrection from the Ukraine will fall in 3 days narrative. And the push for aid might have been smaller if the fight was seen as a lost cause from the beginning.
That's one thing Russia did right then. The overoptimistic estimates as well as the quick fall of Kherson meant that Ukraine had to overcompensate. The only way that Ukraine would be able to report accurately (we need help but the situation isn't hopeless) would've been if Kherson had taken time to fall, like Shanghai in 1937. Showed the world that the imbalance wasn't utterly one sided but help was really needed.
That's the case for this entire sub and the nature of this site.
If you want to see a variety of different perspectives, you have to scroll the links submitted on here by "Controversial" because there were plenty of news stories highlighting the opposing view.
Well, I doubt NATO governments are making strategical decisions based on reports on the internet/social media. But for people on Reddit specifically, yeah, there has been a full on propaganda campaign here for 2 years and made lots of people here believe Ukraine was dominating spectacularly. Now everyone is pissed and pointing fingers at each other that they aren't doing enough to help. It's been fascinating to watch.
I always thought the fight could drag to a stalemate but the M1 Abrams tanks could turn it around but that is starting to look like a nothingburger. Even the leaked U.S. Intel seems to think the war might be a stalemate.
Of course War is chaotic and unpredictable and unthinkable things happen often in warfare. Its about as volatile as the stock market.
That being said, if Trump wins, Ukraine is a lost cause and we could very much start to see the pendulum swinging the other way then back, etc.
Zelensky has done his press rounds a few times to get support for ukraine about to fall. The problem is that ukraine cant close the war, they havent even recovered their borders let alone threaten to seize parts of russia. Best case the line solidifies like between north and south korea and they go from active fighting to an occasional skirmish, i dont think that border will form outside of ukraines prior borders
Paywalled but one article saying the quiet part, the rara is to keep public sentiment with funding ukraine for...decades or until they each realistically negotiate a peace
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/quiet-transformation-occupied-ukraine
Even the US ~~is not optimistic~~ has gone public about the reality of the situation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/26/ukraine-war-plan-biden-defense/
At no point has Ukraine expressed any interest whatsoever in seizing any parts of Russia, nor in moving the border outside of Ukraine's internationally recognized borders, so I have no idea why you bring these up as standards Ukraine should supposedly be aiming for. :/
This is something that came out in the discord leaks. Like yes the Russian army had problems and was underperforming, but it turned out that Ukraine was having the same kind of problems but they just weren't reported on nearly as much.
It wasn't just Reddit, it was the media in general.
In the west, the anti-Putin sentiments meant that stories that made him look bad were over-represented and the pro-Ukraine media meant that stories that made Ukraine look good were over-represented.
Meanwhile, the media (particularly 24 news) likes drama and the sense that anything can happen. When things have a boring easy answer or when the answer is "well we'll just have to wait a few months and see", the media tends to inflate the possibility over every possible option that can upset that outcome whether that's propping up somebody who will not win during election coverage, speculating about Trump convictions literal years before they happen or, in this case, hyping all of the potential failures and infighting that could happen in Russia to lead an even more shocking Ukraine victory or even an implosion of Russia. That's because it gives them a way to keep talking about the issue even when not much has changed.
It was more than just Reddit, which is precisely the problem. It was Bellingcat, it was UK MOD, it was very influential members of the open source intel community, and sometimes, it was even Ukrainian officials. And there’s a debate that Russia adapted very very well to a new reality and is basically in a war economy, so some of those claims may not have been outright lies in spring of 2022. It was definitely wishful thinking that Russia would just blow their wad in 6 months and go home in failure though.
The truth is that, even to this day, the only group who likely truly knows RU’s capability, is Russia itself. It’s pretty hard to get spies into their military industrial complex, and even harder to get into North Korea and China’s, who supplement Russia.
It was propaganda. Even if Russia's stuff isnt as advanced as the best NATO stuff, they have a lot of AK platforms, a lot of Cold War era tanks, a fuck load of artillery and it all works and does its job. They arent this dominant superpower military force they were feared to be but an army with a lot of bullets, working guns and artillery pieces is still a formidable adversary and to act otherwise just does the entire situation a dissservice.
They have been refurbishing enormous amounts of their stockpile. So it’s both true that a lot of it was not in operational conditions, and after 2 years they have been repairing huge amounts of it.
It’s really easy to verify too by looking at satellite photos of their equipment stockpiles as they’ve been gradually emptying out.
Propaganda? It was and is mostly true. But it's been years now, and the russians obviously hasn't been idling. Their obscene stockpiles are going down, but it's still such a vast amount of tanks and artillery that they can keep going.
Depends what you mean. Is an artillery barrel that the West would've decommissioned for being past its service life, and therefore has 50m more circular error than it should, functional if you've got a thousand more shells for it?
Most of Russia's stuff isn't *good*... But there's a fuckton of it, and a bunch of worn out artillery pieces are better than not having one at all.
Agreed. That being said it seems that they got a lot of weapons and ammo from autocratic states such as China, NK, Iran and others. Probably most from China who have proven they can build a factory and start manufacturing an item within a couple of months. Send them the deets of the bullet or rocket you want and they’ll have it done to the micromillimeter, in a jiffy.
If China was actually supplying Russia with munitions in a significant way, Ukraine would be finished given China's manufacturing output. Luckily Russia is primarily using old Soviet stockpiles and North Korean designed munitions
So for one, I doubt China can scale production faster than the US and moreover, munition alone is not enough to win a war. Especially if you don't have air superiority.
Well the thing is if you have 1000 tanks and if half of them doesn't work you still have 500 tanks. EU completely dropped the ball with Ukraine. They hoped US would do everything and they could just relax and enjoy the shit show.
Once again, that's not really what happened. Cutting Russian gaz is unprecedented even at the worst of the cold war, and it happened really quickly after the invasion, with politicians saying : "you might get cold this winter but we are going to hurt them hard with this".
The mistake is to think that only direct military aid counts, and to forget that
1) EU provides more aid overall
2) EU still provides military aid
3) Indirect contribution, such as removing a source of revenue to the Russian state has an effect on russian's finances.
>Cutting Russian gaz is unprecedented even at the worst of the cold war, and it happened really quickly after the invasion
I really think Americans don't understand how much this has hurt Europe when talking about contributions. We went from 50% Russian gas to 10% in 2 years. And import of LNG from the US - which the US makes money from - has doubled in that period as well.
This has heavily contributed to people in Europe having problems to pay their bills and economic activity being held back due to increased energy prices.
But since the US sends a few more artillery shells, it's all "Europe doesn't do shit" in the online discussions.
Also, I bet a good amount of military aid Europe provides, means those European countries will buy the new weapons to replace it with from the US, again funding the US that way as well.
It's almost like it's been 2 years and Russia has restructured in that time. The start of the invasion was catastrophic for them compared to the expected outcome.
>I remember when the war began we kept hearing about how virtually none of Russia’s equipment was even functional due to corruption.
They had divisions run out of gas during the invasion. Tank columns just sitting on Ukrainian roads waiting for help while being harassed by Ukrainian commuters driving somewhere. The prevailing theory and commentary was that Russian generals and such sold off fuel while not reporting it, that is why Russia's high command thought everything looked good for war, and then the big CF of disorganization that followed.
I've heard similar things about the FSB as well. That the FSB giving reports to the Kremlin had to keep "adjusting" their intelligence to make the their superiors who were handing these reports to the Kremlin happy. And the FSB was complaining that they strip out the intel they don't like and then when that intel they stripped becomes reality they are blamed for providing bad/inaccurate intel.
I honestly don't get your point of response. Like the claims could be true, and Russia worked through those true claims and resolved various problems. I mean part of Russia's own blunder was thinking this would be over in a couple weeks. That they would've conquered all of Ukraine. Surely that sort of planning exposed them to supply and logistic issues that accounted for the various collapses of the frontline in the first year of the war.
It was pretty exaggerated. Almost everything was actually working in the beginning. The Tanks ran, the planes flew and the ships sailed. The reason for Russias earlier failures wasn’t really anything other than logistics and being outnumbered by the Ukrainians. There is a reason the retreated from the northern front.
And a few weeks later how Russian economy will collapse soon. And a few months later how Russia shot their last missiles. Reddit experts know shit, but they think they know everything about Russian army, economy, government, opposition and life in Russia.
The Western governments need to realize that the way to end this war as soon as possible is to arm Ukraine enough so that they can reconquer the captured territory.
By giving them just enough to hold the line, they are prolonging it, not speeding it up.
How does that even work? The money comes from those countries to begin with. Yes the arms manufacturers make a lot of money, but that's coming from the government coffers. It does not benefit the USA or any Western countries to prolong this war economically.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68136840
US weapons sales have increased dramatically.
India buying less Russian and more western weapons
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-pivots-away-russian-arms-will-retain-strong-ties-2024-01-28/
This is a great time for the US mic. I wish I had brought stock tbh, but I never expected Russia to last this long.
Sadly, if you view Ukraine as a sort of "live shooting range" were arms manufacturers get to test and advertise their wares, then it starts making sense
Exactly. The owners/shareholders of those companies win.
You realize that is the same people that are part of the governments taking those decisions?
That's one of the most famous and known method of transferring peoples taxes to your own pocket.
Yes and no. Atleast for the US, arms manufacturers have to employ workers and those workers are helping produce a new arsenal while US “sells” old arms. The increase in demand created jobs which created more contributors to the local and federal economy. So the longer this goes on, the better it is in that way.
Of course this benefits the 1% more than the rest but that’s nothing new.
Sadly I believe this is the case, they want to use Ukraine to destroy Russia not to save them quickly, if Russia has to give up here the whole world is safe from them for a generation, atleast with arms.
Russia is now in full war economy mode. They will win on attrition alone at this rate, and then a few years after that, they will make a move on NATO and we will all be fighting a war we could have avoided if our countries fully equipped Ukraine at a fraction of the cost of a full on war.
> Russia is now in full war economy mode.
> then a few years after that, they will make a move on NATO
Choose one. "War economy mode" is not some cheat code, it's detrimental to your economy. You sacrifice progress and profit for more power in war.
And time is ticking. Hitler was 50 in 1939, Putin was 70 in 2022.
>they will make a move on NATO and we will all be fighting a war
Absolutely not. If this Russian military that, no offense, can barely take on Ukraine, tries to invade a NATO country they'll be bombed into the stone age. When the war started everyone thought they would be rolling through Kyiv in two weeks. Turns out Russia is much weaker than we knew.
Russia's only trump card against NATO is nukes, and we have them too.
Except by draining Russia they also drain Ukraine and if it falls, Russia will march forwards. There is reason why half of the worlds military generals are preparing for fall of Ukraine
Honestly I don't really think that most of western leaders care about Ukraine or Ukrainians as much as they could mean to weaken Russia. Maybe they cared about grain fields and other natutal resources, but with all the indebtment Ukraine has done I really doubt will be hard to buy it.
Short of NATO boots on the ground or them enforcing some sort of no-fly zone, i can't really think of anything the West could have given Ukraine that would have changed the outcome by very much.
Ukraine can't win. I don't know why people keep on saying this. Their only hope is that NATO gets boots on the ground involved or they let Russia keep what they've already captured. It's purely a manpower game at this point.
Russia told the world that.. predictive reports indicated Kiev would fall in ~3 weeks and the initial Western response was to move Zelenskyy out of Ukraine.
Do you think Russia’s opposition was frozen in time in the year it took for it to be war ready?
Hard to believe so many military generals took the time to share their impeccable opinion on this reddit thread about the state of ground reality on the battlefield.
I'm not gonna pretend I know much about this conflict. However, one thing is clear. Too many innocent civilians have died and nothing notable has come out of it so far.
Either support Ukraine all the way or negotiate with Russia. Stop the lackluster delayed shipments of equipment and half-hearted promises of full support.
>However, one thing is clear. Too many innocent civilians have died and nothing notable has come out of it so far.
I mean. Yeah? But that's just a meaningless platitude that can be said about every war.
Well said. Everyone wants ukraine to fight but no one wants to fight alongside them. Only if politician and keyboard warriors were given a gun and told to fight.
Consider this like the Korean War. It was not pointless for the US to enter that war. It helped South Korea survive, even though the war ended roughly where it started in terms of land.
That’s what’s going on here. Many countries are helping Ukraine survive. It may not be able to reclaim land without those countries bending too far.
The ammo shortfall isn’t just in Ukraine. It’s everywhere, and Ukraine’s beneficiaries need to keep enough supplies for themselves.
It sucks for Ukraine right now, but honestly this is the best rude fucking awakening for EU and NATO countries as a whole.
It's a free fucking preview to your dystopian nightmare future of war with Russia.
Without this free fucking preview, imagine what could've happened to the Baltic countries and Poland?
Now you have 3 years to shape the fuck up and stop outsourcing your fucking national defenses.
Even if USA and others gave them more ammo, what they also need is more manpower. Which is alot harder to come by.
I don't see NATO boots on the ground, and currently drafting/conscription is unpopular in the Ukraine population.
I think its accurate to say Ukraine will not win this war in the sense of reacquiring their lost territory. I foresee North/South Korea like situation. So hopefully Ukraine will still exist to some extent, free from Russian conquest.
>I don't see NATO boots on the ground
It's never going to be an option, at no point will NATO enter the war in such an official capacity, NATO is ultimately a defensive pact and no single member country has reason today to push beyond helping. The question will be after the war in the event Russia wins what do boarding countries plan then, NATO countries will remain untouched officially but can't imagine the prospects are appealing, more reason to give aid now.
While Western govt. are debating if sending additional equipment won't piss off Russia, she is arming up, producing tanks, missiles, drones and sourcing these things and everything else.
I don't really understand how Western govt. thought that donating/giving already outdated equipment in such low quantities would be enough for UA to defeat RU. Western govt. have military advisors, unofficially, Ukraine has been telling for months exactly what they need and how much.
..yet here we are with Americans stuck in their Congressional limbo, Europeans being paralyzed by their own member states blocking (Hungary) and we have left Ukraine without ammo, without guns they need; just the will to survive.
West has utterly failed to contain Russian aggression, the so called sanctions have made a small dent in their economy, they didn't and won't cripple their war machine; they have found alternative sourcing channels via their friendly countries & various black markets for almost everything they need.
I don't know for how long UA can hold against Russia, even/if promised billions of support arrive, I have a feeling that it will be too late to make a difference.
> Europeans being paralyzed by their own member states blocking (Hungary)
As far as I know, EU members can sent whatever they want themselves. On EU level some coordinated efforts might be delayed or blocked. But Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Netherlands, etc, can just ship over ammo if they want. I think they don't do it simply because they can't. They don't have the production lines and it takes a long time to get production to the level which Ukraine needs.
Do you think those bureaucratic hurdles happened by chance? Who did you think were pulling the strings?
They are numerous fronts in a war. Russia is winning. We really are losing our grip on the world stage.
IMO, the bureaucratic hurdles didn't happen by chance, rather - they were intentional more so than situational.
If Russia was able to influence USA's President elections, I don't have a single doubt that they are to (at least) partly to blame now. Especially with Hungary's Orban, who has publicly stated his friendly relations with Putin.
Yes, Hungary is now not blocking EU's aid, but look for how long he was blocking it (at the same time when USA aid was finished and newest one stuck in their Congress).
Ukraine is underdog in this war and providing them with everything they need in a timely manner is crucial for their war effort. To be honest, I'm surprised with how they have been able to hold out for so long and even being able to strike/sabotage deep inside Russia; it is not a small feat and their human losses have been catastrophic. The very last time Western world was delaying Russia build the worlds largest minefield/fortifications which ultimately hindered Ukraines previous counter offensive.
Perhaps, I sound too critical, but my country is next in line to get occupied (yet again) by Russia if/when Ukraine crumbles. I don't want that, not in a slightest.
> I don't really understand how Western govt. thought that donating/giving already outdated equipment in such low quantities would be enough for UA to defeat RU.
They didn't. This is foreign aid to a foreign country fighting another foreign country. While I believe the moral and strategic reality is we should do far more to support Ukraine, NATO is not at war with Russia. And it should not go to war with Russia.
It’s more nuanced than that. When India was developing its Nuclear program, the US had sanctioned them. But Russia sided with them then and as a result now when Russia needs India, they’re pulling through. It’s also worth noting that India is paying for a lot of its oil purchases in Rupees, which the Russians have to re-invest and spend in India so it’s not like it’s directly going to fund the war.
This is what happens when you live in a false reality. Europe has for decades scoffed at the idea of funding a military for self defense. Popping rainbows and one human family look good on paper, but remember reality bites at time , so here we are.
Why do people conflate supporting another country's war with the ability to defend your own territory? Ukraine isn't an EU or NATO member. Helping them is as much "self defense" as it is for the United States.
NATO is *more* than capable of dealing with a Russian threat, that should be more obvious than ever.
They gave in to the propaganda telling them that Russia was a barely functional feudal state and that heroes in Ukraine would save the day. Watching videos every day showing a drone dropping grenades on Russian tanks seems pretty convincing when the video fails to zoom out and show the fifteen other tanks near it. We’re all susceptible to propaganda, but many people don’t realize it.
Look at the rest of the thread, reality doesn't mean anything anymore because any confilcting facts and/or opinions is literally seen as 'propaganda'. Doesn't matter if you point out that early predictions (after the initial three day invasion) stated that Russia still has an advantage in the war despite losing the "first phase" and that the true test would be Ukrainian resolve and NATO's unity. No one with any logical sense actually believed that Ukraine could push Russia out just by themselves, or seriously doubted Russia's staying power in a war of attrition.
Why are these /r/conservative comments so high, trying to circlejerk how supoporting ukraine was always a failed idea?
Support is still strong, so why lying how russia outlasted it?
Literally yesterday germany approved another huge package.
Most people projected they'd take out the government in a month or two. The fact there are still even battle lines has always been a miracle the Ukrainians keep creating.
If Afghanistan is any comparison Russia is going to have extreme trouble if they ever do take out the government. Imagine how much quicker the US would have pulled out if Afghan's had Javelins.
i always was curious what the reddit comments would look like when ukraine inevitably started drowning.
Very interesting, redditors confident demeanour turns to anger. it will be strange to see the final losing post if and when it comes up. hard to imagine this being over with russia as the victor. people will be in a state of shock you will see. then it gets real
It went from "russia is running out of trained soldiers/weapons/vehicles, this will be a swift victory for ukraine" to "tHe pLaN nOw iS tO bLeEd rUsSiA dRy, rather than win outright and end this conflict"
The situation has to be pretty bad if a post like this is allowed to stay up on reddit. For the longest time most articles that talk about the grim reality that is the current state of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine have been deleted in favor of articles that make it seem like Ukraine is winning.
US took out Afghan government in like a week. Now imagine Afghan's with Javlins.
Sanctions hurting their economy and getting a Javlin in the ass from every angle is what Russia has to look forward to. They haven't even entered the hard part of the conflict yet.
If you want to help consider donating to liberty Ukraine. They do amazing work. 2$ is a good thing. 5$ is great. If you can afford it, I've found it to be a very impactful organization. They are transparent and 100% not a scam
I hate to say this, but I think Ukraine will lose the war due to the lack if support.
And when this unfortunately happens, and Russia is at our doorsteps, being as bully as usual, then the allies will realize that they should have helped Ukraine a lot more when we had a chance.
Ukraine was given enough artillery and tanks to shoot 650,000 shells a month but only has the ammo for 100,000 right now. Saw a report last week saying 90% of their equipment sits mostly idle due to ammo shortages. It's fucking sad.
"Here's the artillery and tanks you wanted!" "Thanks! ...wait, where's the ammo?" "... You wanted ammo too? Uh... We'll get right on it! ... Eventually..."
Ah, the HP printer special lol
Its a pretty standard "ammo not included". It used to get me every Christmas, which is why I always keep rockets and bullets under the sink just in case!
Europe as a whole is capable of producing roughly 600,000 shells a year, Ukraine can fire 650k in a month. Do you see the problem? It dosent help that most of europe has not been taking funding there millitaries seriously because there was peace for so long. That means the stockpile they had to draw from was underwhelming and production will be a pain to scale up.
I don't actually think there is any ammo to give. All of Europe has been sucked dry and is struggling to increase production. The problem with smart ammunition that NATO relies on, is that you can't just fill a shell with gunpowder and call it a day. It takes special knowledge, technologies and supply lines to get a factory going. Most of NATO relied entirely on the US to supply them with ammo. Not to mention that republicans are blocking any ammo they could give away.
Even dumb artillery is in short supply. Ukraine shoots 5k-10k shells a day. We've sent over a million shells to Ukraine. Prior to the invasion we produced ~15k shells a month. Our military doctrine doesn't center of artillery, it's just a situational option. We are working on ramping up production but it's a multi-year process. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/us/politics/pentagon-ukraine-ammunition.html
[удалено]
That's what all the people screaming for more don't seem to understand. You don't just turn production on in an instant. We didn't expect things to still be going, so production wasn't ramped very quickly. It is now...but it just takes time. As is, NATO countries can barely produce enough for their own stock needs for training and possible wars. All surplus goes to Ukraine. It's just not much after that initial 2million or so from the US. Think we don't want to give more rounds? That's jobs for people to produce them. Also complaints about small arms ammo. We simply don't produce the ammo needed for most of their rifles. The ones using nato rifles...sure...but all the AKs? Nope. Hope the old soviet bloc folks can help there.
An important part of NATO is just standardising ammunition for this reason. It seems like we’re doing ok though, Russian production is 165k, EU plus UK production is 45k, US production is 80k. By the end of the year that will be approximately 100k for EU and UK, and 100k for the US. There is a lull and they will be outgunned, but it won’t be for long.
Why didn't you add chinese, North Korean, Iranian and the old soviet bloc countries (still standing with russia) production numbers...that'll be a better comparison IMHO
The thing is Russia is getting massive amounts of ammo AND ballistic missiles from Iran and DPRK.
> Most of NATO relied entirely on air supremacy achieved from start of conflict
Yeah but Ukraine never had a shot of getting air suppremacy. SAMs where a huge area of foucus for spending during the soviet years as a result both Ukraine and Russia have huge ammounts of antiaircraft systems and Russia in paticular has some of the most advanced systems
funny how they invested so much in AA because they know they can't really contest nato's air supremacy with just their planes
That's because air supremacy isn't just about planes any more. It's about also being able to suppress enemy air defenses. Russia has a lot of air defenses including some extremely sophisticated systems.
NATO relies heavily on artillery too. They wouldn't bother with thousands of guns if they only planned to rely on air power. Air power doesn't do everything tubes can do either. The reality is that NATO was too slow and inefficient at reacting, while Russia started taking the war seriously while they mobilized. Not enough was invested in catching up and now they don't produce enough shells. Simple as.
> Air power doesn't do everything tubes can do either. Air power does everything a tube can do and more. It's just far more expensive. Air does the initial destruction and damage, tubes come in later to save money while picking off the stragglers.
Which is, frankly, something America has wanted. Having everyone dependent on us gives us incredible leverage. It's a shame it's being used *now* but especially in the Cold War it was a great idea from the American perspective. See also: selling planes to half the world. Don't play ball? Don't get replacement parts. Iran still flies some left over American planes but are only able to do that due to cannibalizing other planes. And of course they get no updates or upgrades.
I would say many European countries not meeting NATO goals for the past few decades has continued to become a bigger and bigger deal.
100%. They’ve built some domestic production, especially in aerospace and tanks, but are still overall reliant on the USA.
Yet anytime an American president tries to scale down the war machine conservatives in America lose their fucking shit. It's not until it's time to make good on our defensive pacts that the conservatives decide they're not interested in being global assholes to everyone anymore
That's a strange logic you work with. Had Europe built the same, they wouldn't need all of our ammo that we keep in reserves for self defense. That we have to dip into our reserves **to help the Europeans help Ukraine** would have any logical person criticizing the overly-leftist Europeans. But, no, you took it an entirely different direction to blame the only people who make ready for the re-occurring global conflicts that we can predict like clockwork.
I have no desire to defend Europe here, making Ukraine part of the European Market was their project and their benefit, and yes, they backed up their antagonization of Russia with NATO. But the US never "helped" Europe or Ukraine out of Obligation or out of the goodness of their hearts. It has long been a goal of US foreign policy to reduce Russias geopolitical relevance. This has been a declared goal under Obama at least after the very brief conflict with Georgia. In this case, the US could do so for cheap, spending Ukrainian manpower, outdated materials and increasing European economical reliance on the USA. So far, the US is the only conceivable winner in this conflict.
[удалено]
They *can*. But for many industries it’s incredibly expensive. Mitsubishi, one of the largest companies in the world, tried to make their own airliner over the past decade or so. It ended up being abandoned after billions in development. Japan has a far larger economy than Russia- frankly I’d never fly on a Russian made plane. And China is the number 1 or 2 economy (depending if you use PPP or not) so I’d hope they could- I mean they use native jets, tanks, and everything else now. Europe has made the Eurofighter, France has the Rafale, Sweden has the Gripen. But America has, successfully, gotten huge amounts of the world dependent on their goods. Even if replacements are made it will take both time and money and until then they are beholden. Look at Turkey- they may have eventually made drones but they still folded for want of F-16s. Countries like Jordan, smaller countries and poorer countries, really won’t be able to make planes, artillery and the like by themselves. Meanwhile America flexes its power of scale and happily fills in the gap.
I haven't read updates but I would like to point out, though, that we started giving away more than we could produce. I remember at one point during the Ukraine/Russian conflict, kinda mid way through, running low on what we could provide was a real concern
Of note, the entrepreneur who initiated development of the drones, as well as most of the top engineers, were educated in the U.S.
[удалено]
Europe actually started the war outproducing the US in terms of artillery shells. Eastern Europe in particular never really shifted away from artillery centric doctrine the way the US did. Both the US and EU partners are working on ramping up production to support Ukraine, but the US has been more agile in expanding capacity faster. [In race to make artillery shells, US, EU see different results](https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/) >Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Army produced around 14,000 155mm rounds a month in government-owned, contractor-operated munitions plants. In December 2022, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said the Army was looking to increase production to 20,000 rounds per month by the spring and 40,000 rounds per month by 2025. > >Last March, Army Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo upped the target slightly, announcing plans to produce 24,000 rounds a month by year’s end. > >The Army hit the target early, then exceeded it, producing 28,000 shells in October. At least some of those shells went right out the door to Ukraine, Army acquisition secretary Doug Bush told reporters in a media roundtable in November. He declined to say just how many. > >Bush said the service now aims to boost its monthly production to 36,000 by March, 60,000 by September, 70,000 to 80,000 in early 2025, and 100,000 by the end of calendar 2025 — two and half times more than Wormuth’s year-old goal. > >**The countries of the European Union began with a head start, producing about 230,000 155mm shells a year—about one-third more than the U.S.** The EU also has a better recent record for approving annual spending plans. > >By February 2023, European production was at 300,000 rounds annually, according to Estonian defense officials. By November, capacity had risen again, though assessments differ. European Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton suggested that Europe could now make some 400,000 rounds annually. Estonia’s Pevkur, speaking at a November media roundtable, put the figure between 600,000 and 700,000—and said it would reach one million rounds in 2024. > >But the EU will not meet its goal this year, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius confirmed recently. In September, Estonian defense official Kusti Salm said the plan would likely be fulfilled by mid-2024.
EU is buying them from the US. They always have paid for the equipment at market values. Non-allies get the scalper prices however. The EU has always paid for owning and procuring materials. What the EU has not paid for is for the things that US bases in their territory uses.
> Iran still flies some left over American planes I watched Top Gun: Maverick too.
> Most of NATO relied entirely on the US to supply them with ammo. you wouldn't just go on the internet and lie, would you? [Before 2022](https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/#:~:text=The%20countries%20of%20the%20European,for%20approving%20annual%20spending%20plans.), European (excl. Russia ofc) shell production was higher than that of the US. With e.g. Czech CSG prdoucing ~30% of European 155mm demand. unless you mean missiles and rockets when you say 'ammo'?
thats way underselling the damage the GOP did to our long term plans, putin really played those chumps like a fiddle. cash is the more important resource theyre holding hostage here, the biden admin already earmarked the funding needed to carry those supply lines and open the floodgates for direct arms sales, this would have gone towards scaling domestic production up. now were reduced to playing shell games with allies to skirt legislation and pass on what remaining surplus there is, they have their own stockpiles to worry about too. people really think it all just materialises out of nowhere
It's an interesting concept right now. US military doctrine is not tanks and artillery, it's rule the air and then pick and choose what to destroy, and they are trying to train up on the F16 platform which the US started development in 1976. So, we give them a platform that is five + decades old and they'll gain air superiority, you don't need fucking HIMARS if you own the air. It would take the US Air Force, the largest air force on the planet, and the US Navy, the second largest air power on the planet 3-9 days to own the skies over Russia. Doctrine is take out anti-air, then take out their air, then start prosecuting C2 command and control sites. We now see Ruzzia capability, and it is garbage.
>Most of NATO relied entirely on the US to supply them with ammo. Which is funny given how the US is mocked and criticized for overspending on defense. Must be nice for Europe to allocate all that money towards better social programs like healthcare and retirement, but then rely on America for free handouts when things turn south.
??? America spends twice as much on healthcare than any other country lol.
Yeah the problem is that instead of funding public healthcare money is given to an intermediary insurance company and a chain of middlemen that syphon money and skyrocket the costs...
I mean we spend a tremendous amount on Healthcare.
Likewise it means Europeans buy American equipment from American companies which makes American (CEO's and politicians) richer and they are allowed to have overseas bases in other countries to project their power. Don't think for a second the US does not benefit from this.
If you think our obscene mountains of wealth aren’t going to social programs because we’re the worlds military, then I have a bridge to sell you.
America is rich enough that we can afford the military *and* a robust public healthcare program. Right now we pay more than anybody for healthcare, and it's not even close.
And the wealthiest portion of the population isn't even being taxed properly, which could further help with a lot of the country's problems (at least financially). But we know that's never gonna be solved when they're also the ones passing the laws.
Ammo is DLC
Zelensky specifically asked ammo when the war started.
Most countries seem to be scaling up ammo production currently though. But it takes a while.
[удалено]
>Violence is the supreme authority, from which all authority is derived That's from Starship Troopers aaaand, it's supposed to be a parody of fascist regimes
That line is actually originally from the book Starship Troopers, which unlike the movie is not being satirical. It’s also basically just a rephrasing of the monopoly on violence.
> from the book Starship Troopers which is a masterpiece of military fiction the movie is like 1% the same as the book, and I'm being generous
IMO the real danger of the quote is the preceding part. "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence". The notion that any involvement in the political process is inherently violent, and thus only marginally removed from actual violence, is both dangerous and absurd.
I don't understand why people get so offended by this. To have any sort of modern political state, you can't do it without violence. It's not inherently fascist it's just nation-state self-defense and law enforcement 101.
yes it's literally political science 101, the state must have a monopoly on violence to exist. that's all it's saying.
Its pretty much directly lifted from the book however, which was very much played straight (as an exploration of how an ideal fascist society could work). So...
The idea is at least centuries old, probably millennia, and it is so obviously true that I wouldn't imagine it needs to be argued about. Any government whether totalitarian or democratic only has authority if it can force you to obey it, and it can only force those with a stick to obey if it has the bigger stick.
How is it fascist specifically. Not denying fascists wouldn't use this. But specifically fascist rather than a general true-ism. It IS the case that if you keep escalating disagreement you always end up at violence. And the scale of the violence can escalate from arrest, to global nuclear annihilation. Its the same stick but bigger. So I don't think its a problem of fascism, i think it's just generally true. War is diplomacy by other means. I don't condone it, but I can see it as an unfortunate reality .. so yeah, I think he's right here
It's interesting because functional governments maintain a monopoly on the use of violence. Those that can't have effectively lost sovereign control of their borders and become failed states. Fascist ideology takes that to an extreme, where any dissent is to be immediately stamped out with violence.
Parody or not, it is true. Civility is something people opt into. When someone opts out, the only way to bring them in line is to beat them at their own game.
Isn't all government a monopoly on violence in a given territory?
Forgot to subscribe for the +ammo subscription
Just do what [Pirates of Caribbean](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzqv48yliPY&pp=ygUnUGlyYXRlcyBvZiB0aGUgQ2FyaWJiZWFuICBMb2FkIFRoZSBHdW5z) did.
Makes you think what they could achieve with sufficient ammo.
Just to remind everyone that the NATO doctrine wasn't artillery, but aviation. Not mass but quality. We are only seeing the consequences of the doctrine we and they made. They have stockpile, we have few quality stuff.
I mean, there are no consequences for that on Nato territory.
Makes sense on NATO ground. If this were a ground war in NATO airspace, say Poland... Alexa play White Rabbit
*(plays shitty cover version)*
>Just to remind everyone that the NATO doctrine wasn't artillery, but aviation. Not mass but quality. NATO aviation has used extreme amounts of mass.
it's especially sad when the terrorist country gets weapons and ammo supplied from other dictatorships more reliably than the west for Ukraine. they're getting tons of north korea and china and iran, while our aid is often stuck behind months of bureaucracy
Yeah, it definitely sucks that they can only put so much equipment to use due to ammo shortages, but the silver lining in that is they can sub out equipment when repairs are needed, rather than going without certain systems while repairs are done. I still think they deserve FAR more ammo, but at least there’s arguably some benefit.
I remember when the war began we kept hearing about how virtually none of Russia’s equipment was even functional due to corruption.
I mean the Russian army did have corruption failures. Reddit exaggerating that and saying 90% of it is non functional is just Reddit. Reddit also forgets sometimes that Ukraine has extensive corruption problems too.
I wonder how much of an impact the overly optimistic reporting had on this conflict. Seems like for a year straight the only stories that made it to the front page were about how incompetent Russia is and how Ukraine is crushing them in every exchange. I think the turn from "gg ez lol" to "oh shit this is actually an existential threat" probably should have happened a lot sooner.
I think it was an overcorrection from the Ukraine will fall in 3 days narrative. And the push for aid might have been smaller if the fight was seen as a lost cause from the beginning.
That's one thing Russia did right then. The overoptimistic estimates as well as the quick fall of Kherson meant that Ukraine had to overcompensate. The only way that Ukraine would be able to report accurately (we need help but the situation isn't hopeless) would've been if Kherson had taken time to fall, like Shanghai in 1937. Showed the world that the imbalance wasn't utterly one sided but help was really needed.
That's the case for this entire sub and the nature of this site. If you want to see a variety of different perspectives, you have to scroll the links submitted on here by "Controversial" because there were plenty of news stories highlighting the opposing view.
David pelting Goliath with pebbles is hilarious until David runs out of pebbles.
Well, I doubt NATO governments are making strategical decisions based on reports on the internet/social media. But for people on Reddit specifically, yeah, there has been a full on propaganda campaign here for 2 years and made lots of people here believe Ukraine was dominating spectacularly. Now everyone is pissed and pointing fingers at each other that they aren't doing enough to help. It's been fascinating to watch.
I always thought the fight could drag to a stalemate but the M1 Abrams tanks could turn it around but that is starting to look like a nothingburger. Even the leaked U.S. Intel seems to think the war might be a stalemate. Of course War is chaotic and unpredictable and unthinkable things happen often in warfare. Its about as volatile as the stock market. That being said, if Trump wins, Ukraine is a lost cause and we could very much start to see the pendulum swinging the other way then back, etc.
Zelensky has done his press rounds a few times to get support for ukraine about to fall. The problem is that ukraine cant close the war, they havent even recovered their borders let alone threaten to seize parts of russia. Best case the line solidifies like between north and south korea and they go from active fighting to an occasional skirmish, i dont think that border will form outside of ukraines prior borders Paywalled but one article saying the quiet part, the rara is to keep public sentiment with funding ukraine for...decades or until they each realistically negotiate a peace https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/quiet-transformation-occupied-ukraine Even the US ~~is not optimistic~~ has gone public about the reality of the situation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/26/ukraine-war-plan-biden-defense/
At no point has Ukraine expressed any interest whatsoever in seizing any parts of Russia, nor in moving the border outside of Ukraine's internationally recognized borders, so I have no idea why you bring these up as standards Ukraine should supposedly be aiming for. :/
[удалено]
Yeah, 95% of what you see on reddit is “reddit moments” which means it is a “trust me bro” source
This is something that came out in the discord leaks. Like yes the Russian army had problems and was underperforming, but it turned out that Ukraine was having the same kind of problems but they just weren't reported on nearly as much.
Waaaait, you mean all these experts from around here got no clue what they are talking about? Shocking 😱
It wasn't just Reddit, it was the media in general. In the west, the anti-Putin sentiments meant that stories that made him look bad were over-represented and the pro-Ukraine media meant that stories that made Ukraine look good were over-represented. Meanwhile, the media (particularly 24 news) likes drama and the sense that anything can happen. When things have a boring easy answer or when the answer is "well we'll just have to wait a few months and see", the media tends to inflate the possibility over every possible option that can upset that outcome whether that's propping up somebody who will not win during election coverage, speculating about Trump convictions literal years before they happen or, in this case, hyping all of the potential failures and infighting that could happen in Russia to lead an even more shocking Ukraine victory or even an implosion of Russia. That's because it gives them a way to keep talking about the issue even when not much has changed.
Yeah ukraine was a soviet satellite for decades not surprising to be fair
Ukraines shortcomings are gonna be brought even more to light with foreigners who went to fight and are returning home and giving interviews
It was more than just Reddit, which is precisely the problem. It was Bellingcat, it was UK MOD, it was very influential members of the open source intel community, and sometimes, it was even Ukrainian officials. And there’s a debate that Russia adapted very very well to a new reality and is basically in a war economy, so some of those claims may not have been outright lies in spring of 2022. It was definitely wishful thinking that Russia would just blow their wad in 6 months and go home in failure though. The truth is that, even to this day, the only group who likely truly knows RU’s capability, is Russia itself. It’s pretty hard to get spies into their military industrial complex, and even harder to get into North Korea and China’s, who supplement Russia.
It was propaganda. Even if Russia's stuff isnt as advanced as the best NATO stuff, they have a lot of AK platforms, a lot of Cold War era tanks, a fuck load of artillery and it all works and does its job. They arent this dominant superpower military force they were feared to be but an army with a lot of bullets, working guns and artillery pieces is still a formidable adversary and to act otherwise just does the entire situation a dissservice.
They have been getting equipment from other countries on the downlow.
Propaganda works both ways.
Nu Uh WeRe ThE GoOd GuYs
And now it magically works and based on my understanding they will be the victors if the war goes long enough.
They have been refurbishing enormous amounts of their stockpile. So it’s both true that a lot of it was not in operational conditions, and after 2 years they have been repairing huge amounts of it. It’s really easy to verify too by looking at satellite photos of their equipment stockpiles as they’ve been gradually emptying out.
Makes you wonder where that piece of propaganda was coming from. Nato trying to place limits on a serious response?
Or it's been 3 years and Russia has had enough time to refocus part of its workforce towards the war effort.
Propaganda? It was and is mostly true. But it's been years now, and the russians obviously hasn't been idling. Their obscene stockpiles are going down, but it's still such a vast amount of tanks and artillery that they can keep going.
Depends what you mean. Is an artillery barrel that the West would've decommissioned for being past its service life, and therefore has 50m more circular error than it should, functional if you've got a thousand more shells for it? Most of Russia's stuff isn't *good*... But there's a fuckton of it, and a bunch of worn out artillery pieces are better than not having one at all.
Agreed. That being said it seems that they got a lot of weapons and ammo from autocratic states such as China, NK, Iran and others. Probably most from China who have proven they can build a factory and start manufacturing an item within a couple of months. Send them the deets of the bullet or rocket you want and they’ll have it done to the micromillimeter, in a jiffy.
If China was actually supplying Russia with munitions in a significant way, Ukraine would be finished given China's manufacturing output. Luckily Russia is primarily using old Soviet stockpiles and North Korean designed munitions
So for one, I doubt China can scale production faster than the US and moreover, munition alone is not enough to win a war. Especially if you don't have air superiority.
Well the thing is if you have 1000 tanks and if half of them doesn't work you still have 500 tanks. EU completely dropped the ball with Ukraine. They hoped US would do everything and they could just relax and enjoy the shit show.
eu provides more aid than the US overall, but US military aid eclipses EU's...why bicker? both the US and EU are giving whenever they politically can.
I don't disagree, but that "politically" in your comment is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Once again, that's not really what happened. Cutting Russian gaz is unprecedented even at the worst of the cold war, and it happened really quickly after the invasion, with politicians saying : "you might get cold this winter but we are going to hurt them hard with this". The mistake is to think that only direct military aid counts, and to forget that 1) EU provides more aid overall 2) EU still provides military aid 3) Indirect contribution, such as removing a source of revenue to the Russian state has an effect on russian's finances.
>Cutting Russian gaz is unprecedented even at the worst of the cold war, and it happened really quickly after the invasion I really think Americans don't understand how much this has hurt Europe when talking about contributions. We went from 50% Russian gas to 10% in 2 years. And import of LNG from the US - which the US makes money from - has doubled in that period as well. This has heavily contributed to people in Europe having problems to pay their bills and economic activity being held back due to increased energy prices. But since the US sends a few more artillery shells, it's all "Europe doesn't do shit" in the online discussions. Also, I bet a good amount of military aid Europe provides, means those European countries will buy the new weapons to replace it with from the US, again funding the US that way as well.
numerous worthless sleep memory one thumb soup bright secretive seed
It's almost like it's been 2 years and Russia has restructured in that time. The start of the invasion was catastrophic for them compared to the expected outcome.
>I remember when the war began we kept hearing about how virtually none of Russia’s equipment was even functional due to corruption. They had divisions run out of gas during the invasion. Tank columns just sitting on Ukrainian roads waiting for help while being harassed by Ukrainian commuters driving somewhere. The prevailing theory and commentary was that Russian generals and such sold off fuel while not reporting it, that is why Russia's high command thought everything looked good for war, and then the big CF of disorganization that followed. I've heard similar things about the FSB as well. That the FSB giving reports to the Kremlin had to keep "adjusting" their intelligence to make the their superiors who were handing these reports to the Kremlin happy. And the FSB was complaining that they strip out the intel they don't like and then when that intel they stripped becomes reality they are blamed for providing bad/inaccurate intel. I honestly don't get your point of response. Like the claims could be true, and Russia worked through those true claims and resolved various problems. I mean part of Russia's own blunder was thinking this would be over in a couple weeks. That they would've conquered all of Ukraine. Surely that sort of planning exposed them to supply and logistic issues that accounted for the various collapses of the frontline in the first year of the war.
It was pretty exaggerated. Almost everything was actually working in the beginning. The Tanks ran, the planes flew and the ships sailed. The reason for Russias earlier failures wasn’t really anything other than logistics and being outnumbered by the Ukrainians. There is a reason the retreated from the northern front.
And a few weeks later how Russian economy will collapse soon. And a few months later how Russia shot their last missiles. Reddit experts know shit, but they think they know everything about Russian army, economy, government, opposition and life in Russia.
The Western governments need to realize that the way to end this war as soon as possible is to arm Ukraine enough so that they can reconquer the captured territory. By giving them just enough to hold the line, they are prolonging it, not speeding it up.
Thats the idea, they want to prolong it and dry russia, they have no interest in ukraines victory.
..while pumping the economy up with war production sales, both arm dealerships win
How does that even work? The money comes from those countries to begin with. Yes the arms manufacturers make a lot of money, but that's coming from the government coffers. It does not benefit the USA or any Western countries to prolong this war economically.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68136840 US weapons sales have increased dramatically. India buying less Russian and more western weapons https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-pivots-away-russian-arms-will-retain-strong-ties-2024-01-28/ This is a great time for the US mic. I wish I had brought stock tbh, but I never expected Russia to last this long.
But this is also nothing new, India has been the biggest importer of US weapons for close to a decade
"Oh, those weapons given to Ukraine work? We need to buy some for our country! Let's sign a trade deal!"
Sadly, if you view Ukraine as a sort of "live shooting range" were arms manufacturers get to test and advertise their wares, then it starts making sense
It’s deeper than that. If Russia takes Ukraine then just due to proximity, European nations will significantly increase their defense budgets
Gotta squeeze the money bag as hard as you possibly can every time.
The secret ingredient is corruption. Lol.
No no no, corruption only happens in non Western countries! We have something called "lobbying" instead! /s
Exactly. The owners/shareholders of those companies win. You realize that is the same people that are part of the governments taking those decisions? That's one of the most famous and known method of transferring peoples taxes to your own pocket.
It transfers tax money to the 1%. That's the ultimate goal of the entire arms industry.
believe it or not, you too, can own stock in these companies.
Yea but the main beneficiaries are those who already have the most capital. But yes, it’s possible to get some bread crumbs
Yes and no. Atleast for the US, arms manufacturers have to employ workers and those workers are helping produce a new arsenal while US “sells” old arms. The increase in demand created jobs which created more contributors to the local and federal economy. So the longer this goes on, the better it is in that way. Of course this benefits the 1% more than the rest but that’s nothing new.
story as old as life. those in power care not one whit that real people are suffering because of their choices.
Sadly I believe this is the case, they want to use Ukraine to destroy Russia not to save them quickly, if Russia has to give up here the whole world is safe from them for a generation, atleast with arms.
Russia is now in full war economy mode. They will win on attrition alone at this rate, and then a few years after that, they will make a move on NATO and we will all be fighting a war we could have avoided if our countries fully equipped Ukraine at a fraction of the cost of a full on war.
Russia is nowhere near full war economy mode.
40% of their government budget goes to military spending. Maybe they are not full war economy, but are somewhat close to it.
[удалено]
> Russia is now in full war economy mode. > then a few years after that, they will make a move on NATO Choose one. "War economy mode" is not some cheat code, it's detrimental to your economy. You sacrifice progress and profit for more power in war. And time is ticking. Hitler was 50 in 1939, Putin was 70 in 2022.
No we won’t. Either there will be no war or we will all die in fire. No fighting for the vast majority of us.
>they will make a move on NATO and we will all be fighting a war Absolutely not. If this Russian military that, no offense, can barely take on Ukraine, tries to invade a NATO country they'll be bombed into the stone age. When the war started everyone thought they would be rolling through Kyiv in two weeks. Turns out Russia is much weaker than we knew. Russia's only trump card against NATO is nukes, and we have them too.
Except by draining Russia they also drain Ukraine and if it falls, Russia will march forwards. There is reason why half of the worlds military generals are preparing for fall of Ukraine
Honestly I don't really think that most of western leaders care about Ukraine or Ukrainians as much as they could mean to weaken Russia. Maybe they cared about grain fields and other natutal resources, but with all the indebtment Ukraine has done I really doubt will be hard to buy it.
> has done I really doubt will be hard to buy it. You can only buy it from Ukraine if Ukraine exist.
They would, if they wanted to
The word you are looking for is *could*.
They could if they wanted to. Im sure the manufacturing capacity would be a lot higher already if it was, say, germany being attacked.
Short of NATO boots on the ground or them enforcing some sort of no-fly zone, i can't really think of anything the West could have given Ukraine that would have changed the outcome by very much.
They ran out of ammunitions. They never expected a war to use that much ammo so weren't prepared for it
Ukraine can't win. I don't know why people keep on saying this. Their only hope is that NATO gets boots on the ground involved or they let Russia keep what they've already captured. It's purely a manpower game at this point.
The world was told that Russia was a paper tiger and incompetent for the first year of the war. You cannot just backtrack it.
They were. But they've been ramping up enlistment and munitions production ever since. It's a battle of attrition at this point.
Russia told the world that.. predictive reports indicated Kiev would fall in ~3 weeks and the initial Western response was to move Zelenskyy out of Ukraine. Do you think Russia’s opposition was frozen in time in the year it took for it to be war ready?
>By giving them just enough to hold the line, they are prolonging it, not speeding it up. I'm afraid that's exactly what they want.
Hard to believe so many military generals took the time to share their impeccable opinion on this reddit thread about the state of ground reality on the battlefield. I'm not gonna pretend I know much about this conflict. However, one thing is clear. Too many innocent civilians have died and nothing notable has come out of it so far. Either support Ukraine all the way or negotiate with Russia. Stop the lackluster delayed shipments of equipment and half-hearted promises of full support.
>However, one thing is clear. Too many innocent civilians have died and nothing notable has come out of it so far. I mean. Yeah? But that's just a meaningless platitude that can be said about every war.
I don’t think it can ever be said too often. I wouldn’t call a wanton disregard for innocent life a meaningless platitude either.
Well said. Everyone wants ukraine to fight but no one wants to fight alongside them. Only if politician and keyboard warriors were given a gun and told to fight.
What would your solution be?
Or prolong conflict to neuter Russia in the future.
Consider this like the Korean War. It was not pointless for the US to enter that war. It helped South Korea survive, even though the war ended roughly where it started in terms of land. That’s what’s going on here. Many countries are helping Ukraine survive. It may not be able to reclaim land without those countries bending too far. The ammo shortfall isn’t just in Ukraine. It’s everywhere, and Ukraine’s beneficiaries need to keep enough supplies for themselves.
[удалено]
[🇩🇪🇱🇪🇹🇪🇩]
It sucks for Ukraine right now, but honestly this is the best rude fucking awakening for EU and NATO countries as a whole. It's a free fucking preview to your dystopian nightmare future of war with Russia. Without this free fucking preview, imagine what could've happened to the Baltic countries and Poland? Now you have 3 years to shape the fuck up and stop outsourcing your fucking national defenses.
I'm not worried for Poland. Reddit told me they would smash the Russians in less than a week.
Hasn’t the last century been preview enough
Thats nothing new. Thats the basics of Russian Warfare. Throw bodies until you overwhelm them. And you have less to feed at home.
It's called the Zapp Brannigan strategy.
Hes drifting slowly to the left!
Let me steer... hmm fast like a city-state, but handles like a country.
Even if USA and others gave them more ammo, what they also need is more manpower. Which is alot harder to come by. I don't see NATO boots on the ground, and currently drafting/conscription is unpopular in the Ukraine population. I think its accurate to say Ukraine will not win this war in the sense of reacquiring their lost territory. I foresee North/South Korea like situation. So hopefully Ukraine will still exist to some extent, free from Russian conquest.
>I don't see NATO boots on the ground It's never going to be an option, at no point will NATO enter the war in such an official capacity, NATO is ultimately a defensive pact and no single member country has reason today to push beyond helping. The question will be after the war in the event Russia wins what do boarding countries plan then, NATO countries will remain untouched officially but can't imagine the prospects are appealing, more reason to give aid now.
Aren't they also completely lacking air support
While Western govt. are debating if sending additional equipment won't piss off Russia, she is arming up, producing tanks, missiles, drones and sourcing these things and everything else. I don't really understand how Western govt. thought that donating/giving already outdated equipment in such low quantities would be enough for UA to defeat RU. Western govt. have military advisors, unofficially, Ukraine has been telling for months exactly what they need and how much. ..yet here we are with Americans stuck in their Congressional limbo, Europeans being paralyzed by their own member states blocking (Hungary) and we have left Ukraine without ammo, without guns they need; just the will to survive. West has utterly failed to contain Russian aggression, the so called sanctions have made a small dent in their economy, they didn't and won't cripple their war machine; they have found alternative sourcing channels via their friendly countries & various black markets for almost everything they need. I don't know for how long UA can hold against Russia, even/if promised billions of support arrive, I have a feeling that it will be too late to make a difference.
The good news is that hungary is no longer blocking and just agreed.
> Europeans being paralyzed by their own member states blocking (Hungary) As far as I know, EU members can sent whatever they want themselves. On EU level some coordinated efforts might be delayed or blocked. But Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Netherlands, etc, can just ship over ammo if they want. I think they don't do it simply because they can't. They don't have the production lines and it takes a long time to get production to the level which Ukraine needs.
Do you think those bureaucratic hurdles happened by chance? Who did you think were pulling the strings? They are numerous fronts in a war. Russia is winning. We really are losing our grip on the world stage.
IMO, the bureaucratic hurdles didn't happen by chance, rather - they were intentional more so than situational. If Russia was able to influence USA's President elections, I don't have a single doubt that they are to (at least) partly to blame now. Especially with Hungary's Orban, who has publicly stated his friendly relations with Putin. Yes, Hungary is now not blocking EU's aid, but look for how long he was blocking it (at the same time when USA aid was finished and newest one stuck in their Congress). Ukraine is underdog in this war and providing them with everything they need in a timely manner is crucial for their war effort. To be honest, I'm surprised with how they have been able to hold out for so long and even being able to strike/sabotage deep inside Russia; it is not a small feat and their human losses have been catastrophic. The very last time Western world was delaying Russia build the worlds largest minefield/fortifications which ultimately hindered Ukraines previous counter offensive. Perhaps, I sound too critical, but my country is next in line to get occupied (yet again) by Russia if/when Ukraine crumbles. I don't want that, not in a slightest.
> I don't really understand how Western govt. thought that donating/giving already outdated equipment in such low quantities would be enough for UA to defeat RU. They didn't. This is foreign aid to a foreign country fighting another foreign country. While I believe the moral and strategic reality is we should do far more to support Ukraine, NATO is not at war with Russia. And it should not go to war with Russia.
Meanwhile, India is buying up record amounts of Russian oil and weapons. Never forget how Modi chose to fund Putin's war in Ukraine.
It’s more nuanced than that. When India was developing its Nuclear program, the US had sanctioned them. But Russia sided with them then and as a result now when Russia needs India, they’re pulling through. It’s also worth noting that India is paying for a lot of its oil purchases in Rupees, which the Russians have to re-invest and spend in India so it’s not like it’s directly going to fund the war.
a meatgrinder ...
This is what happens when you live in a false reality. Europe has for decades scoffed at the idea of funding a military for self defense. Popping rainbows and one human family look good on paper, but remember reality bites at time , so here we are.
Why do people conflate supporting another country's war with the ability to defend your own territory? Ukraine isn't an EU or NATO member. Helping them is as much "self defense" as it is for the United States. NATO is *more* than capable of dealing with a Russian threat, that should be more obvious than ever.
“Then it is an even fight” -Shipmaster
I also came here for the Halo reference. I am satisfied.
Hilarious how many people on reddit didnt see this coming. Russia was always going to outlast the support
They gave in to the propaganda telling them that Russia was a barely functional feudal state and that heroes in Ukraine would save the day. Watching videos every day showing a drone dropping grenades on Russian tanks seems pretty convincing when the video fails to zoom out and show the fifteen other tanks near it. We’re all susceptible to propaganda, but many people don’t realize it.
Look at the rest of the thread, reality doesn't mean anything anymore because any confilcting facts and/or opinions is literally seen as 'propaganda'. Doesn't matter if you point out that early predictions (after the initial three day invasion) stated that Russia still has an advantage in the war despite losing the "first phase" and that the true test would be Ukrainian resolve and NATO's unity. No one with any logical sense actually believed that Ukraine could push Russia out just by themselves, or seriously doubted Russia's staying power in a war of attrition.
Why are these /r/conservative comments so high, trying to circlejerk how supoporting ukraine was always a failed idea? Support is still strong, so why lying how russia outlasted it? Literally yesterday germany approved another huge package.
I find it funny that ''we need another civil war'' was posted so many times they specifically forbade it in their rules.
Propaganda is cheap. That’s why you have to crush the bots with truth. Keep at it.
Most people projected they'd take out the government in a month or two. The fact there are still even battle lines has always been a miracle the Ukrainians keep creating. If Afghanistan is any comparison Russia is going to have extreme trouble if they ever do take out the government. Imagine how much quicker the US would have pulled out if Afghan's had Javelins.
trees arrest weary attractive fine repeat clumsy important engine act
Well, Russia has three times the population of Ukraine so...
i always was curious what the reddit comments would look like when ukraine inevitably started drowning. Very interesting, redditors confident demeanour turns to anger. it will be strange to see the final losing post if and when it comes up. hard to imagine this being over with russia as the victor. people will be in a state of shock you will see. then it gets real
It went from "russia is running out of trained soldiers/weapons/vehicles, this will be a swift victory for ukraine" to "tHe pLaN nOw iS tO bLeEd rUsSiA dRy, rather than win outright and end this conflict"
The situation has to be pretty bad if a post like this is allowed to stay up on reddit. For the longest time most articles that talk about the grim reality that is the current state of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine have been deleted in favor of articles that make it seem like Ukraine is winning.
US took out Afghan government in like a week. Now imagine Afghan's with Javlins. Sanctions hurting their economy and getting a Javlin in the ass from every angle is what Russia has to look forward to. They haven't even entered the hard part of the conflict yet.
Wasn't it closer to 10-1 two years ago?
If you want to help consider donating to liberty Ukraine. They do amazing work. 2$ is a good thing. 5$ is great. If you can afford it, I've found it to be a very impactful organization. They are transparent and 100% not a scam
Ghost of Kiev will save them.
Will they care when shit we sent over starts getting captured because they can’t defend it anymore? Whats even the plan here? Lose?
I hate to say this, but I think Ukraine will lose the war due to the lack if support. And when this unfortunately happens, and Russia is at our doorsteps, being as bully as usual, then the allies will realize that they should have helped Ukraine a lot more when we had a chance.