Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At every point in this misadventure it has been proven that doing things half-heartedly is the more expensive route to take.
Take this thing seriously now and we will be off cheaper in the future.
It’s the rent-to-own trap at a national level.
They don’t want to spend $400 on a couch for $400 billion on a war to get it done and over with, so they spend $40 billion up front and another $760 billion over time, but it’s ok because maybe they got a couch at the end. But just like with rent-to-own, sometimes the company takes back their couch.
Or they lose the war.
Honestly NATO needs to just mop this up. They can simply make a very clear statement to Russia. 1) you have 2 weeks to move to Russian borders as they were agreed upon in 1997 treaty. 2) no NATO personal will set foot on Russian soil. 3) no nukes will be used, unless Russia does first. 4) the Geneva convention will be adhered to. 5) all Russian soldiers that surrender will be give double pay for the remainder of the war. 6) military targets in Russian are fair game 7) NATO claims air superiority over Ukraine territory (1997 treaty) as of tomorrow. We await Russia decision. Release the hounds.
If Russia's response is "No, and we will respond to NATO air strikes with thermonuclear weapons," then what?
You don't seem to actually understand the situation. If the Russians didn't have a nuclear deterrent then NATO would have entered the war already and ended it in the first couple months.
They would never, they know if they throw one nuke they will cease to exist as a country. They will always make this threat. Hell they have been making this threat for 2 years now. And after looking at the state of their machines, how well maintained are their nukes. There would be a huge threat that they explode on the launch.
> They would never
You don't know that for a fact, and neither do leaders of other countries. It's pretty much the sole reason NATO has not entered the war directly already. If Russia had only conventional forces and no nuclear deterrent, then escalation would not be a catastrophic threat to civilization. But there is a non-zero chance that in certain circumstances Putin might push the button and decide to end the world. He might then attempt to survive in a secret bunker or similar complex, of which I'm sure he has many (as does the US). Just a handful of Russian nuclear subs could plausibly take out every major city in North America and Europe, and we don't always know where they all are at any given time.
I suggest you research the Cold War a bit and why it wasn't an actual hot war. These strategic calculations were made long ago and have some intellectual weight behind them.
> if they throw one nuke they will cease to exist as a country
I actually disagree with you here and think that NATO/western leaders would be careful enough to try and respond in a way to usage of one or a handful of nuclear weapons in a way that they believe would not result in a general thermonuclear war. It would depend on what the Russians had targeted. If it was a city inside Ukraine like Kyiv, I believe there would be a sustained "whirlwind" of air strikes and missile attacks aimed at conventional forces in Russia to completely wipe them out. Unless the Russia's struck a foreign target like London or New York, I don't see the US escalating by attempting to destroy Russia itself with nukes because then they would fire all theirs back and it would trigger mutually assured destruction, which is a key concept informing NATO's strategic.
However, if Russia launched enough nukes, like hundreds of them at once, then it is game over for civilization, because then NATO launches theirs back and it is "adios muchachos." I don't even think I'd want to survive in that scenario, personally.
" 2) no NATO personal will set foot on Russian soil" problem is Ruzzia now sees the annexed territories as "Russian soil" and there is no way in Hades they will retreat to the borders of the 1997 treaty.
8. Ruzzia will pay 300 Billion USD in Reparations over ten years to Ukraine
They agreed to the terms of the treaty they signed for Ukraine to give up nukes in their territory. They have even said they would like to take back Alaska remember. And no you can not take a nation that is impoverished from war, even if it is the aggressor. Think German post WW 1 had the same issue of repayment. It literally lead to WW 2 and the raise of fascist. Think Japan post WW 2 were the USA in brased rebuilding the japanese nation and make them trade partners were both parties benefit. That's hard to think about right now with Putin incharge.
Nope, he wants to lose to NATO. He can spin it in a few ways. 1) see i told you NATO wanted to kill russians and I'm the only one stopping them from invading the mother land. 2) with me incharge we can rebuild are red army to counter NATO's aggression against murdering Russian people.
What Putin can not do and stay in power and lose to Ukraine. He has been telling the Russian people that Ukraine is weak and full of Nazi's that are killing the Russian people in Ukraine. That he can not do. Tell the Russian people that Ukraine kicked the Mighty Red Armys ass. He would look inept and weak. Russians like their strong men incharge that tells them they are safe.
You're catching on. If it is done correctly then there's no money to be made on the war. More expensive means more money for weapons manufacturers. Western powers could have shut this whole pathetic attempt at invading Ukraine two years ago and saved so many lives and cost way less. But that was never the goal for the west sadly.
The anti-air missile needs started here seem high. As a defense level nears absolute effectiveness, the efficiency of the attacker's expenditure to achieve any level of effect rises astronomically. As it is now, Russia is spending an enormous amount on missiles and drones to achieve levels of mayhem that a single madman with a knife could be expected to deliver (on the order of 10 deaths per day across the entire campaign). It sounds monstrous, but, a civilian population in the millions can be considered to be ablative armor, as their actuarial risks will be well less than 1/100th those attriting their fighting forces and come at a cost to the enemy that will eventually become abundantly clear. The Battle of Britain demonstrated this pretty clearly.
Ukraine ran out of AA missiles, and even when they had a lot, they didn’t have enough systems to cover everything. If they had more systems, they’d run out missiles even faster. Whatever they got before was way too little.
Some days Russia fires a hundred long-range missiles/drones into Ukraine (not meant for frontline targets). If you count AA vs frontline targets Ukraine is gonna need a lot to minimise casualties. Russian airplanes are even flying at the frontlines these days, dropping massive glide-bombs that demolish entire trenches.
RF is dropping FAB500s along the frontline pretty much unchallenged. That is one of the largest drivers for more AD missiles, the drone attacks are well managed with gephards they just need 100 more and ammo. Cruise missiles are shot down at abt 30-40% not great but most are targeting civilians and infra structure. The military
Losses Ukraine keeps from the public but the last 2 months were severe as russ ramped up the glide bomb attacks.
Ukraine's failure in stopping Glide bombs was instrumental in the fall of Aadvika, Ruzzia is now stepping this tactic up. This is the main reason behind Ukraine targeting the A-50s earlier, and in the last two months they have taken out a lot of Ruzzian air defence assets, because Ukraine badly needs more very long range SAMs and F-16s with Amraams to take out the Ruzzian aircraft before they get into glide bomb release range.
I didn't extend my answer to cover this threat. These bombs are cheap, fairly accurate, and huge. They can be defended against with very few missiles, as attacks made with them will outright cease when aircraft losses result in the effort. So, I agree that these bombs are much more effective, where they can hit, but are much more easily countered with the mere demonstration of a viable defense
He might have great (and well-informed) worries about the economy, or he may wish to avoid adopting my pragmatic view of the civilian toll, which is admittedly callous to toss about.
It was often said by many people before this war began that, if putin was going to win, it was imperative Ukraine surrender immediately without firing a shot, and the rest of the world yawn and look away.
If that didn't happen he would be doomed, either immediately or eventually.
He lost his bet and now he knows he can't walk away because his own people will make him pay up. So he'll drag it out for as long as he can, finishing off russia's already decrepit and looted economy, until either he dies of natural causes, or he flees to the likes of North Korea, or he's "retired" by his cronies.
The longer Ukraine hangs on and resists, the sooner one of these things will happen to putin.
Meh, I don't think Putin is the only individual in Russia who is okay with how things are going and would keep the status quo alive. Even his closest peers would be happy with him gone, since he basically blackmails the ones true to him, to keep them in check. But still, ruski mir and all that shit doesn't die in a day
"Good evenink. Here is news. Tonight, new dictator inform us previous dictator, glorious comrade leader vladimir vladimirovich putin, has elect to retire from office of President for Life. He has move to farm in upstate New York where he will run free and happy with previous retired dictators. We here at News Organization wish him all best with his well-earned retirement. All heil new dictator. Now get back to work, nothink to see here. Be move along. Be move along."
You're overestimating the capability and attitudes of the Russian people. They're not even close to being in a position to overthrow Putin, nor is there the popular support. Most of the hardcore dissidents have fled the country or they are rotting in a gulag or dead. The security services are more than capable of quashing any popular uprising - Russia employs the most police per capita of any country in the world. I don't know where you got the idea that Putin's regime is in such a precarious position, but it really isn't, not as far as I can tell.
“Completely doable” - I bet that was Putins exact words when he invaded Ukraine.
If this war has taught us anything it’s that nothing is completely doable. There’s blood, sweat and a chance you might succeed.
more like he was told it was completely doable by his cronies and corrupt generals, who knew the true state of the Ruzzian armed forces but said yes just to placate Putin so their massive and systematic corruption wouldnt be exposed, yachts, villas and mistresses dont pay for themselves. Yes Comrade great unopposed leader, we will take Kiev in three days tops!
The problem with these types of "analysis" is that they take into account a snapshot of the situation without factoring in, that the enemy isn't stupid and will adjust and develop more offensive and defensive weapons and recruit more meat fodder. We see that today with predictions from a year ago, that Russia would shortly be out of missiles. Well guess what, Russia turned their economy towards war, and today there is no mention of any shortages of Russian missiles. That's just how war works. As long as there is money, meat fodder and assholes like Putin in power, then the war will continue. Unfortunately, but Ukraine can only win by Russia going broke or an overthrow of the Russian government. The latter is today more probable, but I wouldn't bet on it happening soon.
Oh yeah. The famous Estonian military report. Those guys are the experts. The paper basically says that NATO members fall short on all ammunition production parameters with no evidence in place that they are going to catch up anytime soon. Artillery shells are estimated at 2.4 million annually when it was many times shown that Ukraine needs at least 10.000 shells per day just to keep up with ruzzians. Any second grade pupil can tell you that this equals 3.5 million shells per year.
While Ukraine's current tough situation is certainly a result of the stalled US support, Ukrainian politicians has definitely also been dragging their feet in regards to implementing the needed changes for additional mobilisation of troops.
The recently implemented legislation that will allow Ukraine to increase its troop count, has been delayed since the end of last year due to most politicians not wanting to make the decisions they know will be unpopular and potentially cost them votes.
People aren't exactly lining up to volunteer like they did earlier in the war, since Ukraine still hasn't implemented the changes to their mobilisation laws which allow for soldiers to "complete/finish" their service after a given period. Currently, once a soldier is signed up either voluntarily or through mobilisation, the only way to leave the military is by either being seriously wounded or dying (or the war ending) - which obviously result in people not being motivated to sign up.
Ukraine's current active troop count along the front is estimated to be between 250k and 300k, with most estimates of the Russians count landing between 450k to 500k - with both figures counting active combat personal, and not including all the supporting personnel around it.
Even though the next Ukrainian mobilisation wave is espected to begin soon, the impact still won't be seen until several months from now due to training time.
So even though the material aid has finally started arriving, it will be a while before we see the current balance of power swing back in Ukraine's favour.
It's easy for Europeans and others to blame the US for a six month hiatus when they should turn around and look at what they did for the past 10 years to keep their defense serviceable. Imagine all the weapons they would have been able to send to Ukraine if they did. This world wide condemnation of the US is getting old and frankly not true.
Agreed. Europe has mostly done the minimum and not made massive changes to production of arms and equipment. Blaming USA is an industry in Europe for just about everything.
It's of course easy with the benefit of hindsight to say what should have been done, if countries had known how long the support would have been stuck in gridlock that it did.
My point was not that the US has not been a major part of the western backed support.
That said, the US lead western coalition had strongly indicated that they were fully behind Ukraine, and last year urged on Ukraine to put a lot of its eggs in the basket that was the '23 counter offensive - without much thought put into a plan B.
The offensive that Ukraine initiated then, they did so on the believe that the support was secure and reliable.
If they had known then that the US support wouldn't arrive again for another 8 months, it's unlikely that they would have burned through the amount of resources that they did, or even initiated an offensive to behind with.
Likewise, the European countries would certainly have taken different measures than they did, if not for the continuous reassurance throughout the hiatus that the aid would arrive "any moment now".
Of course it's easy for Europe to look to blame anyone but themselves. They had 10 years after Russias first invasion of Crimea to get the ball rolling. But decided to do nothing. Only Poland took the hint. Europe militarily is an abject failure. It's not the US's responsibility to defend the continent of Europe.
Europe has increased its military spending by 60% since 2014, and tripled it's arms imports - and that's with the data available up to 2022 and doesn't include the much higher rate of investments since the full scale invasion.
You mean Poland increased their military spending. None of major members IE France Germany England have until after 2022. Europe couldn't even deliver 1/3 of a promised million shells. England MOD just said they couldn't sustain more than 2 months sustained combat. Want me to continue? Germany is a joke with nothing of substance to send. France won't even get to 2% GDP this year. You want to explain to us what exactly Europe has been doing for the past ten years..because spending on their defense isn't it. Ten years...Epic fail.
No, I mean [Europe did](https://ibb.co/PtW94RF). But that's besides the point, as I haven't been claiming or arguing for that the European overall policy of deterring war with Russia through a focus on cooperation and mutually beneficial trade, rather than military build up, has been successful.
The fact that it hasn't been successful, doesn't change how Ukraine current military situation has been affected by the US's stalled support the the period right after encouraging them invest a big portion of their stockpiles.
Like all Europeans you just find it easier to blame the US than take responsibility for 10 years of failure. You should be angry at your country's leaders for failing to spend enough to adequately defend your country. Guess what, my country spends enough so I feel safe. As things sit right now today europe most likely could not defeat Russia in a conventional war. Thats your fault not mine.
You keep insisting on trying to make this some tribal argument about " **my** side and **your** side" like somehow being able to simply acknowledge the consequences of a domestic event determines whether or not you "win".
I'm from Massachusetts but live in Denmark now. I feel personally safe here, more so than I've felt stateside due to how much safer life generally is here. And yes, in hindsight knowing that Russia was not going to opt for mutual beneficial and peaceful coexistence, Europe ought to have increased defence spendings. Nobody is arguing against that, and again, that's not the topic or point discussed.
I'm not concerned about the war in Ukraine from a personal safety point of view, since the pipedream that Russia could defeat NATO in a conventional war mostly only exists in the Russian propaganda narrative.
The impact the war has my personal life isn't tied to the any direct national threat from Russia, but rather to how the western liberal democracies and the quality of life those systems have enabled are being threatened by authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China - in which the US is a bigger beneficiary than a country like Denmark.
If you're unable to see that difference, then that's *on you* - but don't worry, nobody is keeping score.
Douche bags who blame the US and not Europe are definitely keeping score. Please stay in Denmark. The irony is Europeans like you love to throw around buzz words like cooperation and collective when it's been obvious that European nato members like Denmark haven't cooperated at all. What needs to happen is for the US to leave NATO. There isn't one benefit for the US.
Russia adding 25-30,000 new troops per month. That is a big number. Yet apparently Ukraine is causing a matching number of monthly casualties.
Given the apparent bottom of the barrel quality of the new Russians already, it seems like Russia really will have to deplete its stock of krokodil and gas huffers before too long.
Grannies next? Buy North Koreans?
The real question that’s never really addressed in the article is what happens when russia can no longer sustain sending 20-30k soldiers to Ukraine per month. Falling below replacement would make Ukraine’s job on an offensive exponentially easier when the frontline has a much lower concentration of russian troops per kilometer.
That’s true but it comes with a trade off. The people going off to war tend to be working aged members of society typically in regions where the primary employment is manufacturing/resource gathering. At what point does the russian demographic outlook become so bad in term of economic consequences that they stop recruiting so many members of the labor force.
Russia has up to 500k troops in or near Ukraine at present. Of those perhaps 100k are heavily wounded that get (got) sent back to the frontlines. Of the monthly 30k lost about 7k-9k are those heavily wounded who will eventually be sent back to the frontlines. Thus the monthly 30k lost is not all lost forever, only about 70-80% is lost forever.
Thus attritional drawdown requires 1500+ daily Russian losses.
Russia is not experiencing a man power shortage. Ukraine is as evidenced by the new mobilization attempt incl of military age men outside Ukraine’s borders and extending service times for those who are actually fighting. This extension and failure to effectively rotate troops is degrading Ukraine’s ability to defend the existing front lines while Russia is holding back its higher quality troops and quality materiel and has been since the war started. This should be very alarming to anyone with a stake in this conflict. I don’t know enough to know if more arms for Ukraine can meaningfully turn the tide, defined as allowing Ukraine to recapture a meaningful amount of territory, but it is looking increasingly like it won’t. Without direct NATO intervention, which is not going to happen, it is likely the case that the “best” Ukraine can do is to hold the status quo. Continued fighting is going to cause many more good Ukrainians to be killed. France casually stating they might entertain sending troops is dangerous because it gives false hope, just like promises of F-16s and shipments of small volumes of ATACMS and cruise missiles (all of which are older technology). From the beginning, I have hoped NATO was in this for the reason of freedom for Ukraine but have suspected the real aim is to damage Russia through a prolonged war of attrition followed by an insurgency. The stop-and-go flow of arms sure looks like evidence of a strategy to draw out the conflict. The more land Russia takes and has to hold, the more it will be open to a bloody insurgency. I hate to say it but I think at some point Ukrainians will need to decide it is not worth sending more and more of its people to die to hold a line they cannot move. For the reasons previously stated, the US and NATO likely want to see this fight continue and are not going to advise Ukraine to negotiate. I worry the longer Ukraine fights the less incentive Russia has to agree to stop the war. If Russia breaks through the Ukrainian lines, and that could very well happen within the next six months, maybe sooner than later, Russia may expand its territorial ambitions, if it hasn’t already. The real question all Ukrainians need to be asking is can Ukraine take back a meaningful amount of territory given the reality of its personnel situation and the reality of western arms supplies. If the answer is yes, keep fighting. If the answer is no, it’s time to find an off-ramp. The Ukrainians who have fought, suffered and died have not done so in vain, even if the war ends tomorrow. They kept Russia from taking the capitol and they minimized the amount of land lost. It honors their sacrifice to avoid ceding any more land and lives to Russia. Even if negotiations do conclude the fighting, NATO owes it to Ukraine to give it ample air defenses, weapons and training so Russia doesn’t just restart the conflict later. The west should also help Ukraine rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and economy. This will help Ukrainians more than sporadic inflows of aged weapons systems and further bloodshed. This cannot even begin until the current fighting is ended. It’s a terrible situation and Russia should remain isolated from international trade with the west for what it has done to Ukraine. The world must continue to oppose Russia’s attempts to build a new Russian empire, but it needs to do this economically, diplomatically and without using Russia’s neighbors as proxies.
Well knocking out Russias oil/gas industry would be very effective, cheap and quick. You have to knock it out to the point they can’t get their wheat crops planted or harvested.
We definitely need to respond as if it will last forever as well as other countries are harder to strike and infiltrate. Nothing against acting smarter though, finding storage and production is paramount for this to not go on forever. The entire world is roaring to go into the future but this has to be settled. Because bleeding the world out of a future along with Ukraine is not an option. This is why funding intelligence is the largest payback on the lives and the money. Patriots system needed around the country so intelligence can function appropriately.
Victory for Ukraine is not just doable, it is increasingly likely. If the Biden regime and the EU would have agreed to the Graham compromise months ago, Ukrainian force would be laying siege Voronezh right now.
Unfortunately that is not the US plan. The US plan is to make Russia so weak and the PRC so desperate for food and energy it will take the only viable course to survival and invade Siberia and the Russian far East. It would alleviate trade restrictions imposed by the West while guaranteeing nearly unlimited natural resources for the PRC, while weakening both US rivals. It will be another year or two until the PRC's foreign reserves run out and they can no longer import food and energy.
Based on the article, Estonia has some great ideas on how to spend *other* countries' resources and production capacity.
>A discussion paper published by the Estonian Ministry of Defense tallied the materiel likely required
>The Estonian plan states that 4,800 anti-air missiles are needed annually. Meeting that number would require the entire annual production of anti-air missiles from the United States (3,600) and the remaining Nato production (estimated at 1,000).
>That’s not all – even more air defenses are needed to defend Ukraine’s cities and troops: At Russia’s current attack rates, that’d be roughly 7,500 additional missiles per year.
So, Estonia's simple solution: The US *and* the rest of NATO should give the equivalent of ALL the anti-air missiles they produce every year. ALL. And that's just a start. NATO should also increase production by more than 1.5 times and then, of course, give ALL that extra production to Ukraine as well.
>The annual demand for long-range rockets was estimated to be 8,760. That was, however, “the minimum to defend”; going on the offensive could easily require triple that number. The United States is the only Nato country that builds these long-range rockets, called the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System. American production will exceed 14,000 in 2025, which is sufficient to meet Ukrainian defense demands.
Estonia seems to think it can convince the US -- the only NATO country to produce long-range, ground-launched, land-attack missiles -- to turn over the equivalent of 62% of their annual long-range missile production to Ukraine. To start with, that is.
For Ukraine to go on the offensive again, Estonia asks if the US can please double their annual long-range missile production and then, turn over ALL those long-range missiles produced to Ukraine.
If these Estonian MoD figures are correct, the level of support that Ukraine actually needs to defend itself, and much more to stage another counteroffensive, are mind-blogging. These are incredibly high levels of support the likes of which we have neither seen nor are ever likely to see.
Imagine if ww2 could have been over in Europe in 1941. Think of how many millions of lives and money would have been saved.
This is the situation we're facing now. The longer the war goes on the more human and financial cost it will consume.
If NATO doesn't help Ukraine the war will grow and we're looking at a lost generation Europe wide dealing with the resulting suffering, mass movement of refugees, and destruction.
The long term costs of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of helping Ukraine defeat Russia now. It's always about the money.
> This is the situation we're facing now.
No, it isn't. Putin has no intention of attacking any other European countries, and certainly not members of NATO. It would be suicide for his country and he knows it. There's very little to be gained from it either compared to the potential costs.
The world is just not the same as it was 40 or 50 years ago. Ubiquitous and easy-to-use anti-tank weaponry nullifies the ability of massed armor to overrun other country's defenses as long as they have enough of it. That's why the war in Ukraine is a WW1 style stalemate, because the WW2 tactics of deep armor drives into enemy territory no longer work. Russia tried this at the beginning of the war and failed miserably when their armored columns were picked off like fish in a barrel. Their conventional forces do not pose an existential threat to NATO given this strategic situation.
The real threat is their use of misinformation and political troublemaking in other countries (interference in the 2016 election, for instance) or their nuclear capabilities. And the latter is more of a deterrent than a plausible offensive threat.
There is no way the US military will turn over their entire air defense *and* long-range missile production to Ukraine. There just isn't. The chances for that are worse than Ukraine fighting China for the US.
Neither would Europe. They'll have to be ready to defend the Baltics and Poland and maybe even Finland/Norway and Romania/Bulgaria at any time. They can't give away ALL their anti-air missile production to Ukraine.
NATO countries are helping Ukraine, if you haven't noticed. Supporting Ukraine is important but also not unlimited. The Estonian prescriptions what *other* countries should do are wild expectations. Ukraine's allies including the US and Europe must be honest with Ukraine on what level of support it can give.
Even if Ukraine "wins" and regains their occupied territories pre-2022 or, less likely but let's say, even pre-2014, it would be the height of complacency to think it then guarantees security of the rest of Europe, that the Putin/WW2 Hitler equivalent threat would be over.
Look at the map, paths for Russian aggression into the Baltic States and Poland and Finland/Norway and Romania/Bulgaria, will remain. Whatever happens in Ukraine, win or lose, Europe must be ready to defend itself against Russia.
It means NATO should invest in more AA production and ammo production. Which is also what the RAND fellow is suggesting.
It also means the serious pushback won't happen before next summer or even 2 years from now. After Ukraine has received enough western airplanes and missiles and ammo.
Western countries have been propping up Kremlin forces since the mid-1920s. The legal and operational continuity of Cheka / NKVD / KGB / FSB and the army is 106+ years. It is as if Germany was still ruled by Gestapo and Wehrmacht and the largest opposition party was NSDAP.
The longer this war continues, the further down the Skynet path we will slide while in war. Mobile AI compute power is doubling every year.
What else are we using the production for? And didn't we build these stockpiles in case Russia gets uppity?
China is watching too. Pretending we're weak is doing us no favors.
The numbers cited are sobering and realistic. And yet, if Ukraine is to prevail, it is what the US and Europe needs to work towards providing at least directionally. What isn't realistic is allies handing over most of the production of any given system or munitions produced.
If Ukraine is to have any hope of victory what can and will help Ukraine the most is domestic production of ammo and munitions and both Europe and the US can and should provide assistance in that effort, the sooner the better (which also happens to also be cheaper in the long run). This can serve to help Ukraine fill and maybe eventually exceed gaps in what they need.
Or the west could ask China to stop supporting Russia or else imports from China will be subject to a gradually increasing tariff regime. Feeling Beijing would listen.
“Estonian analysts pegged the artillery demand at about 2.4 million shells” lol. That’s low if the intention is to “win”. To defend and attack(to kick Russia out) at the same time without taking massive losses, Ukraine is probably gonna need well over 10k shells per day.
Honestly NATO needs to just mop this up. They can simply make a very clear statement to Russia. 1) you have 2 weeks to move to Russian borders as they were agreed upon in 1997 treaty. 2) no NATO personal will set foot on Russian soil. 3) no nukes will be used, unless Russia does first. 4) the Geneva convention will be adhered to. 5) all Russian soldiers that surrender will be give double pay for the remainder of the war. 6) military targets in Russian are fair game 7) NATO claims air superiority over Ukraine territory (1997 treaty) as of tomorrow. We await Russia decision. Release the hounds.
Not what you think it means. Critical people stay in jobs. Those that can be replaced with women or older men go. Asking the number of people who bailed out of Ukraine.
What do you mean by "full mobilization" exactly so we're talking about the same thing?
They also need to keep some number of people in reserve for future conscription, and there's a certain percentage who can't/won't serve for a variety of reasons.
Given the size of the country, they're fielding quite a large force at the moment, at least to my knowledge.
Good grief. Only way to get out of draft is if you have a critical role in manufacturing or something similar. Otherwise you are mobilized. Men and women. If you can't or won't serve you do the worst jobs in society and spend the nights in camps so you can wake up and do it again. Your country is at risk. Many in USA lost interest when they saw people leaving Ukraine and country not mobilized.
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At every point in this misadventure it has been proven that doing things half-heartedly is the more expensive route to take. Take this thing seriously now and we will be off cheaper in the future.
Agreed. Europe needed to go to war footing for arms and equipment production. This is not happening and Ukraine pays the price.
"No one has time/money to do it right, but everyone has time/money to do it again" little saying i use in the automotive industry applies well here.
It’s the rent-to-own trap at a national level. They don’t want to spend $400 on a couch for $400 billion on a war to get it done and over with, so they spend $40 billion up front and another $760 billion over time, but it’s ok because maybe they got a couch at the end. But just like with rent-to-own, sometimes the company takes back their couch. Or they lose the war.
Psssst 🤫 - They lost the war in 2022.
True of much in life.
It also gives the enemy time to adapt.
Honestly NATO needs to just mop this up. They can simply make a very clear statement to Russia. 1) you have 2 weeks to move to Russian borders as they were agreed upon in 1997 treaty. 2) no NATO personal will set foot on Russian soil. 3) no nukes will be used, unless Russia does first. 4) the Geneva convention will be adhered to. 5) all Russian soldiers that surrender will be give double pay for the remainder of the war. 6) military targets in Russian are fair game 7) NATO claims air superiority over Ukraine territory (1997 treaty) as of tomorrow. We await Russia decision. Release the hounds.
If Russia's response is "No, and we will respond to NATO air strikes with thermonuclear weapons," then what? You don't seem to actually understand the situation. If the Russians didn't have a nuclear deterrent then NATO would have entered the war already and ended it in the first couple months.
They would never, they know if they throw one nuke they will cease to exist as a country. They will always make this threat. Hell they have been making this threat for 2 years now. And after looking at the state of their machines, how well maintained are their nukes. There would be a huge threat that they explode on the launch.
> They would never You don't know that for a fact, and neither do leaders of other countries. It's pretty much the sole reason NATO has not entered the war directly already. If Russia had only conventional forces and no nuclear deterrent, then escalation would not be a catastrophic threat to civilization. But there is a non-zero chance that in certain circumstances Putin might push the button and decide to end the world. He might then attempt to survive in a secret bunker or similar complex, of which I'm sure he has many (as does the US). Just a handful of Russian nuclear subs could plausibly take out every major city in North America and Europe, and we don't always know where they all are at any given time. I suggest you research the Cold War a bit and why it wasn't an actual hot war. These strategic calculations were made long ago and have some intellectual weight behind them. > if they throw one nuke they will cease to exist as a country I actually disagree with you here and think that NATO/western leaders would be careful enough to try and respond in a way to usage of one or a handful of nuclear weapons in a way that they believe would not result in a general thermonuclear war. It would depend on what the Russians had targeted. If it was a city inside Ukraine like Kyiv, I believe there would be a sustained "whirlwind" of air strikes and missile attacks aimed at conventional forces in Russia to completely wipe them out. Unless the Russia's struck a foreign target like London or New York, I don't see the US escalating by attempting to destroy Russia itself with nukes because then they would fire all theirs back and it would trigger mutually assured destruction, which is a key concept informing NATO's strategic. However, if Russia launched enough nukes, like hundreds of them at once, then it is game over for civilization, because then NATO launches theirs back and it is "adios muchachos." I don't even think I'd want to survive in that scenario, personally.
" 2) no NATO personal will set foot on Russian soil" problem is Ruzzia now sees the annexed territories as "Russian soil" and there is no way in Hades they will retreat to the borders of the 1997 treaty. 8. Ruzzia will pay 300 Billion USD in Reparations over ten years to Ukraine
They agreed to the terms of the treaty they signed for Ukraine to give up nukes in their territory. They have even said they would like to take back Alaska remember. And no you can not take a nation that is impoverished from war, even if it is the aggressor. Think German post WW 1 had the same issue of repayment. It literally lead to WW 2 and the raise of fascist. Think Japan post WW 2 were the USA in brased rebuilding the japanese nation and make them trade partners were both parties benefit. That's hard to think about right now with Putin incharge.
Putin is a dead man if they retreat. He will never stop
Nope, he wants to lose to NATO. He can spin it in a few ways. 1) see i told you NATO wanted to kill russians and I'm the only one stopping them from invading the mother land. 2) with me incharge we can rebuild are red army to counter NATO's aggression against murdering Russian people. What Putin can not do and stay in power and lose to Ukraine. He has been telling the Russian people that Ukraine is weak and full of Nazi's that are killing the Russian people in Ukraine. That he can not do. Tell the Russian people that Ukraine kicked the Mighty Red Armys ass. He would look inept and weak. Russians like their strong men incharge that tells them they are safe.
Its funny that saving lives is not a good enough reason for most people. Make it about cost then they pay attention.
You're catching on. If it is done correctly then there's no money to be made on the war. More expensive means more money for weapons manufacturers. Western powers could have shut this whole pathetic attempt at invading Ukraine two years ago and saved so many lives and cost way less. But that was never the goal for the west sadly.
Yeah no, I don't agree. It's clear to me that it is a lack of vision, not some nefarious selfish motives.
I agree. There is a saying 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity'
The anti-air missile needs started here seem high. As a defense level nears absolute effectiveness, the efficiency of the attacker's expenditure to achieve any level of effect rises astronomically. As it is now, Russia is spending an enormous amount on missiles and drones to achieve levels of mayhem that a single madman with a knife could be expected to deliver (on the order of 10 deaths per day across the entire campaign). It sounds monstrous, but, a civilian population in the millions can be considered to be ablative armor, as their actuarial risks will be well less than 1/100th those attriting their fighting forces and come at a cost to the enemy that will eventually become abundantly clear. The Battle of Britain demonstrated this pretty clearly.
Ukraine ran out of AA missiles, and even when they had a lot, they didn’t have enough systems to cover everything. If they had more systems, they’d run out missiles even faster. Whatever they got before was way too little. Some days Russia fires a hundred long-range missiles/drones into Ukraine (not meant for frontline targets). If you count AA vs frontline targets Ukraine is gonna need a lot to minimise casualties. Russian airplanes are even flying at the frontlines these days, dropping massive glide-bombs that demolish entire trenches.
RF is dropping FAB500s along the frontline pretty much unchallenged. That is one of the largest drivers for more AD missiles, the drone attacks are well managed with gephards they just need 100 more and ammo. Cruise missiles are shot down at abt 30-40% not great but most are targeting civilians and infra structure. The military Losses Ukraine keeps from the public but the last 2 months were severe as russ ramped up the glide bomb attacks.
Ukraine's failure in stopping Glide bombs was instrumental in the fall of Aadvika, Ruzzia is now stepping this tactic up. This is the main reason behind Ukraine targeting the A-50s earlier, and in the last two months they have taken out a lot of Ruzzian air defence assets, because Ukraine badly needs more very long range SAMs and F-16s with Amraams to take out the Ruzzian aircraft before they get into glide bomb release range.
I didn't extend my answer to cover this threat. These bombs are cheap, fairly accurate, and huge. They can be defended against with very few missiles, as attacks made with them will outright cease when aircraft losses result in the effort. So, I agree that these bombs are much more effective, where they can hit, but are much more easily countered with the mere demonstration of a viable defense
[удалено]
He might have great (and well-informed) worries about the economy, or he may wish to avoid adopting my pragmatic view of the civilian toll, which is admittedly callous to toss about.
It was often said by many people before this war began that, if putin was going to win, it was imperative Ukraine surrender immediately without firing a shot, and the rest of the world yawn and look away. If that didn't happen he would be doomed, either immediately or eventually. He lost his bet and now he knows he can't walk away because his own people will make him pay up. So he'll drag it out for as long as he can, finishing off russia's already decrepit and looted economy, until either he dies of natural causes, or he flees to the likes of North Korea, or he's "retired" by his cronies. The longer Ukraine hangs on and resists, the sooner one of these things will happen to putin.
I like the "retired" option... The sooner the better the world will be...
Meh, I don't think Putin is the only individual in Russia who is okay with how things are going and would keep the status quo alive. Even his closest peers would be happy with him gone, since he basically blackmails the ones true to him, to keep them in check. But still, ruski mir and all that shit doesn't die in a day
"Good evenink. Here is news. Tonight, new dictator inform us previous dictator, glorious comrade leader vladimir vladimirovich putin, has elect to retire from office of President for Life. He has move to farm in upstate New York where he will run free and happy with previous retired dictators. We here at News Organization wish him all best with his well-earned retirement. All heil new dictator. Now get back to work, nothink to see here. Be move along. Be move along."
You're overestimating the capability and attitudes of the Russian people. They're not even close to being in a position to overthrow Putin, nor is there the popular support. Most of the hardcore dissidents have fled the country or they are rotting in a gulag or dead. The security services are more than capable of quashing any popular uprising - Russia employs the most police per capita of any country in the world. I don't know where you got the idea that Putin's regime is in such a precarious position, but it really isn't, not as far as I can tell.
“Completely doable” - I bet that was Putins exact words when he invaded Ukraine. If this war has taught us anything it’s that nothing is completely doable. There’s blood, sweat and a chance you might succeed.
Putin : “so you’re telling me there’s a chance!”
more like he was told it was completely doable by his cronies and corrupt generals, who knew the true state of the Ruzzian armed forces but said yes just to placate Putin so their massive and systematic corruption wouldnt be exposed, yachts, villas and mistresses dont pay for themselves. Yes Comrade great unopposed leader, we will take Kiev in three days tops!
The problem with these types of "analysis" is that they take into account a snapshot of the situation without factoring in, that the enemy isn't stupid and will adjust and develop more offensive and defensive weapons and recruit more meat fodder. We see that today with predictions from a year ago, that Russia would shortly be out of missiles. Well guess what, Russia turned their economy towards war, and today there is no mention of any shortages of Russian missiles. That's just how war works. As long as there is money, meat fodder and assholes like Putin in power, then the war will continue. Unfortunately, but Ukraine can only win by Russia going broke or an overthrow of the Russian government. The latter is today more probable, but I wouldn't bet on it happening soon.
So Ukraine needs to shut down RF oil production then!
Oh yeah. The famous Estonian military report. Those guys are the experts. The paper basically says that NATO members fall short on all ammunition production parameters with no evidence in place that they are going to catch up anytime soon. Artillery shells are estimated at 2.4 million annually when it was many times shown that Ukraine needs at least 10.000 shells per day just to keep up with ruzzians. Any second grade pupil can tell you that this equals 3.5 million shells per year.
While Ukraine's current tough situation is certainly a result of the stalled US support, Ukrainian politicians has definitely also been dragging their feet in regards to implementing the needed changes for additional mobilisation of troops. The recently implemented legislation that will allow Ukraine to increase its troop count, has been delayed since the end of last year due to most politicians not wanting to make the decisions they know will be unpopular and potentially cost them votes. People aren't exactly lining up to volunteer like they did earlier in the war, since Ukraine still hasn't implemented the changes to their mobilisation laws which allow for soldiers to "complete/finish" their service after a given period. Currently, once a soldier is signed up either voluntarily or through mobilisation, the only way to leave the military is by either being seriously wounded or dying (or the war ending) - which obviously result in people not being motivated to sign up. Ukraine's current active troop count along the front is estimated to be between 250k and 300k, with most estimates of the Russians count landing between 450k to 500k - with both figures counting active combat personal, and not including all the supporting personnel around it. Even though the next Ukrainian mobilisation wave is espected to begin soon, the impact still won't be seen until several months from now due to training time. So even though the material aid has finally started arriving, it will be a while before we see the current balance of power swing back in Ukraine's favour.
It's easy for Europeans and others to blame the US for a six month hiatus when they should turn around and look at what they did for the past 10 years to keep their defense serviceable. Imagine all the weapons they would have been able to send to Ukraine if they did. This world wide condemnation of the US is getting old and frankly not true.
Agreed. Europe has mostly done the minimum and not made massive changes to production of arms and equipment. Blaming USA is an industry in Europe for just about everything.
It's of course easy with the benefit of hindsight to say what should have been done, if countries had known how long the support would have been stuck in gridlock that it did. My point was not that the US has not been a major part of the western backed support. That said, the US lead western coalition had strongly indicated that they were fully behind Ukraine, and last year urged on Ukraine to put a lot of its eggs in the basket that was the '23 counter offensive - without much thought put into a plan B. The offensive that Ukraine initiated then, they did so on the believe that the support was secure and reliable. If they had known then that the US support wouldn't arrive again for another 8 months, it's unlikely that they would have burned through the amount of resources that they did, or even initiated an offensive to behind with. Likewise, the European countries would certainly have taken different measures than they did, if not for the continuous reassurance throughout the hiatus that the aid would arrive "any moment now".
Of course it's easy for Europe to look to blame anyone but themselves. They had 10 years after Russias first invasion of Crimea to get the ball rolling. But decided to do nothing. Only Poland took the hint. Europe militarily is an abject failure. It's not the US's responsibility to defend the continent of Europe.
Europe has increased its military spending by 60% since 2014, and tripled it's arms imports - and that's with the data available up to 2022 and doesn't include the much higher rate of investments since the full scale invasion.
You mean Poland increased their military spending. None of major members IE France Germany England have until after 2022. Europe couldn't even deliver 1/3 of a promised million shells. England MOD just said they couldn't sustain more than 2 months sustained combat. Want me to continue? Germany is a joke with nothing of substance to send. France won't even get to 2% GDP this year. You want to explain to us what exactly Europe has been doing for the past ten years..because spending on their defense isn't it. Ten years...Epic fail.
No, I mean [Europe did](https://ibb.co/PtW94RF). But that's besides the point, as I haven't been claiming or arguing for that the European overall policy of deterring war with Russia through a focus on cooperation and mutually beneficial trade, rather than military build up, has been successful. The fact that it hasn't been successful, doesn't change how Ukraine current military situation has been affected by the US's stalled support the the period right after encouraging them invest a big portion of their stockpiles.
Like all Europeans you just find it easier to blame the US than take responsibility for 10 years of failure. You should be angry at your country's leaders for failing to spend enough to adequately defend your country. Guess what, my country spends enough so I feel safe. As things sit right now today europe most likely could not defeat Russia in a conventional war. Thats your fault not mine.
You keep insisting on trying to make this some tribal argument about " **my** side and **your** side" like somehow being able to simply acknowledge the consequences of a domestic event determines whether or not you "win". I'm from Massachusetts but live in Denmark now. I feel personally safe here, more so than I've felt stateside due to how much safer life generally is here. And yes, in hindsight knowing that Russia was not going to opt for mutual beneficial and peaceful coexistence, Europe ought to have increased defence spendings. Nobody is arguing against that, and again, that's not the topic or point discussed. I'm not concerned about the war in Ukraine from a personal safety point of view, since the pipedream that Russia could defeat NATO in a conventional war mostly only exists in the Russian propaganda narrative. The impact the war has my personal life isn't tied to the any direct national threat from Russia, but rather to how the western liberal democracies and the quality of life those systems have enabled are being threatened by authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China - in which the US is a bigger beneficiary than a country like Denmark. If you're unable to see that difference, then that's *on you* - but don't worry, nobody is keeping score.
Douche bags who blame the US and not Europe are definitely keeping score. Please stay in Denmark. The irony is Europeans like you love to throw around buzz words like cooperation and collective when it's been obvious that European nato members like Denmark haven't cooperated at all. What needs to happen is for the US to leave NATO. There isn't one benefit for the US.
Proper preparations require proper planning. Proper NATO planning was blocked by Germany until last year.
Ukraine cannot win this war competing against Russia demographically. It is a war of attrition and Russia has over three times the population.
Russia adding 25-30,000 new troops per month. That is a big number. Yet apparently Ukraine is causing a matching number of monthly casualties. Given the apparent bottom of the barrel quality of the new Russians already, it seems like Russia really will have to deplete its stock of krokodil and gas huffers before too long. Grannies next? Buy North Koreans?
The real question that’s never really addressed in the article is what happens when russia can no longer sustain sending 20-30k soldiers to Ukraine per month. Falling below replacement would make Ukraine’s job on an offensive exponentially easier when the frontline has a much lower concentration of russian troops per kilometer.
As long as there are poor uneducated people in the world RF will con them into meat grinder waves
That’s true but it comes with a trade off. The people going off to war tend to be working aged members of society typically in regions where the primary employment is manufacturing/resource gathering. At what point does the russian demographic outlook become so bad in term of economic consequences that they stop recruiting so many members of the labor force.
Russia has up to 500k troops in or near Ukraine at present. Of those perhaps 100k are heavily wounded that get (got) sent back to the frontlines. Of the monthly 30k lost about 7k-9k are those heavily wounded who will eventually be sent back to the frontlines. Thus the monthly 30k lost is not all lost forever, only about 70-80% is lost forever. Thus attritional drawdown requires 1500+ daily Russian losses.
Russia is not experiencing a man power shortage. Ukraine is as evidenced by the new mobilization attempt incl of military age men outside Ukraine’s borders and extending service times for those who are actually fighting. This extension and failure to effectively rotate troops is degrading Ukraine’s ability to defend the existing front lines while Russia is holding back its higher quality troops and quality materiel and has been since the war started. This should be very alarming to anyone with a stake in this conflict. I don’t know enough to know if more arms for Ukraine can meaningfully turn the tide, defined as allowing Ukraine to recapture a meaningful amount of territory, but it is looking increasingly like it won’t. Without direct NATO intervention, which is not going to happen, it is likely the case that the “best” Ukraine can do is to hold the status quo. Continued fighting is going to cause many more good Ukrainians to be killed. France casually stating they might entertain sending troops is dangerous because it gives false hope, just like promises of F-16s and shipments of small volumes of ATACMS and cruise missiles (all of which are older technology). From the beginning, I have hoped NATO was in this for the reason of freedom for Ukraine but have suspected the real aim is to damage Russia through a prolonged war of attrition followed by an insurgency. The stop-and-go flow of arms sure looks like evidence of a strategy to draw out the conflict. The more land Russia takes and has to hold, the more it will be open to a bloody insurgency. I hate to say it but I think at some point Ukrainians will need to decide it is not worth sending more and more of its people to die to hold a line they cannot move. For the reasons previously stated, the US and NATO likely want to see this fight continue and are not going to advise Ukraine to negotiate. I worry the longer Ukraine fights the less incentive Russia has to agree to stop the war. If Russia breaks through the Ukrainian lines, and that could very well happen within the next six months, maybe sooner than later, Russia may expand its territorial ambitions, if it hasn’t already. The real question all Ukrainians need to be asking is can Ukraine take back a meaningful amount of territory given the reality of its personnel situation and the reality of western arms supplies. If the answer is yes, keep fighting. If the answer is no, it’s time to find an off-ramp. The Ukrainians who have fought, suffered and died have not done so in vain, even if the war ends tomorrow. They kept Russia from taking the capitol and they minimized the amount of land lost. It honors their sacrifice to avoid ceding any more land and lives to Russia. Even if negotiations do conclude the fighting, NATO owes it to Ukraine to give it ample air defenses, weapons and training so Russia doesn’t just restart the conflict later. The west should also help Ukraine rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and economy. This will help Ukrainians more than sporadic inflows of aged weapons systems and further bloodshed. This cannot even begin until the current fighting is ended. It’s a terrible situation and Russia should remain isolated from international trade with the west for what it has done to Ukraine. The world must continue to oppose Russia’s attempts to build a new Russian empire, but it needs to do this economically, diplomatically and without using Russia’s neighbors as proxies.
I’m not reading all that. Also cope harder loser.
What does that even mean? You are obviously very intelligent.
You’re clearly not a native English speaker if you can’t understand that
Well knocking out Russias oil/gas industry would be very effective, cheap and quick. You have to knock it out to the point they can’t get their wheat crops planted or harvested.
We definitely need to respond as if it will last forever as well as other countries are harder to strike and infiltrate. Nothing against acting smarter though, finding storage and production is paramount for this to not go on forever. The entire world is roaring to go into the future but this has to be settled. Because bleeding the world out of a future along with Ukraine is not an option. This is why funding intelligence is the largest payback on the lives and the money. Patriots system needed around the country so intelligence can function appropriately.
Its coming! the US has over corrected in a big way. Nothing brings politicians together like student protests stoked by Russian trolls.
Victory for Ukraine is not just doable, it is increasingly likely. If the Biden regime and the EU would have agreed to the Graham compromise months ago, Ukrainian force would be laying siege Voronezh right now. Unfortunately that is not the US plan. The US plan is to make Russia so weak and the PRC so desperate for food and energy it will take the only viable course to survival and invade Siberia and the Russian far East. It would alleviate trade restrictions imposed by the West while guaranteeing nearly unlimited natural resources for the PRC, while weakening both US rivals. It will be another year or two until the PRC's foreign reserves run out and they can no longer import food and energy.
Based on the article, Estonia has some great ideas on how to spend *other* countries' resources and production capacity. >A discussion paper published by the Estonian Ministry of Defense tallied the materiel likely required >The Estonian plan states that 4,800 anti-air missiles are needed annually. Meeting that number would require the entire annual production of anti-air missiles from the United States (3,600) and the remaining Nato production (estimated at 1,000). >That’s not all – even more air defenses are needed to defend Ukraine’s cities and troops: At Russia’s current attack rates, that’d be roughly 7,500 additional missiles per year. So, Estonia's simple solution: The US *and* the rest of NATO should give the equivalent of ALL the anti-air missiles they produce every year. ALL. And that's just a start. NATO should also increase production by more than 1.5 times and then, of course, give ALL that extra production to Ukraine as well. >The annual demand for long-range rockets was estimated to be 8,760. That was, however, “the minimum to defend”; going on the offensive could easily require triple that number. The United States is the only Nato country that builds these long-range rockets, called the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System. American production will exceed 14,000 in 2025, which is sufficient to meet Ukrainian defense demands. Estonia seems to think it can convince the US -- the only NATO country to produce long-range, ground-launched, land-attack missiles -- to turn over the equivalent of 62% of their annual long-range missile production to Ukraine. To start with, that is. For Ukraine to go on the offensive again, Estonia asks if the US can please double their annual long-range missile production and then, turn over ALL those long-range missiles produced to Ukraine. If these Estonian MoD figures are correct, the level of support that Ukraine actually needs to defend itself, and much more to stage another counteroffensive, are mind-blogging. These are incredibly high levels of support the likes of which we have neither seen nor are ever likely to see.
Imagine if ww2 could have been over in Europe in 1941. Think of how many millions of lives and money would have been saved. This is the situation we're facing now. The longer the war goes on the more human and financial cost it will consume. If NATO doesn't help Ukraine the war will grow and we're looking at a lost generation Europe wide dealing with the resulting suffering, mass movement of refugees, and destruction. The long term costs of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of helping Ukraine defeat Russia now. It's always about the money.
> This is the situation we're facing now. No, it isn't. Putin has no intention of attacking any other European countries, and certainly not members of NATO. It would be suicide for his country and he knows it. There's very little to be gained from it either compared to the potential costs. The world is just not the same as it was 40 or 50 years ago. Ubiquitous and easy-to-use anti-tank weaponry nullifies the ability of massed armor to overrun other country's defenses as long as they have enough of it. That's why the war in Ukraine is a WW1 style stalemate, because the WW2 tactics of deep armor drives into enemy territory no longer work. Russia tried this at the beginning of the war and failed miserably when their armored columns were picked off like fish in a barrel. Their conventional forces do not pose an existential threat to NATO given this strategic situation. The real threat is their use of misinformation and political troublemaking in other countries (interference in the 2016 election, for instance) or their nuclear capabilities. And the latter is more of a deterrent than a plausible offensive threat.
There is no way the US military will turn over their entire air defense *and* long-range missile production to Ukraine. There just isn't. The chances for that are worse than Ukraine fighting China for the US. Neither would Europe. They'll have to be ready to defend the Baltics and Poland and maybe even Finland/Norway and Romania/Bulgaria at any time. They can't give away ALL their anti-air missile production to Ukraine. NATO countries are helping Ukraine, if you haven't noticed. Supporting Ukraine is important but also not unlimited. The Estonian prescriptions what *other* countries should do are wild expectations. Ukraine's allies including the US and Europe must be honest with Ukraine on what level of support it can give. Even if Ukraine "wins" and regains their occupied territories pre-2022 or, less likely but let's say, even pre-2014, it would be the height of complacency to think it then guarantees security of the rest of Europe, that the Putin/WW2 Hitler equivalent threat would be over. Look at the map, paths for Russian aggression into the Baltic States and Poland and Finland/Norway and Romania/Bulgaria, will remain. Whatever happens in Ukraine, win or lose, Europe must be ready to defend itself against Russia.
It means NATO should invest in more AA production and ammo production. Which is also what the RAND fellow is suggesting. It also means the serious pushback won't happen before next summer or even 2 years from now. After Ukraine has received enough western airplanes and missiles and ammo. Western countries have been propping up Kremlin forces since the mid-1920s. The legal and operational continuity of Cheka / NKVD / KGB / FSB and the army is 106+ years. It is as if Germany was still ruled by Gestapo and Wehrmacht and the largest opposition party was NSDAP. The longer this war continues, the further down the Skynet path we will slide while in war. Mobile AI compute power is doubling every year.
What else are we using the production for? And didn't we build these stockpiles in case Russia gets uppity? China is watching too. Pretending we're weak is doing us no favors.
The numbers cited are sobering and realistic. And yet, if Ukraine is to prevail, it is what the US and Europe needs to work towards providing at least directionally. What isn't realistic is allies handing over most of the production of any given system or munitions produced. If Ukraine is to have any hope of victory what can and will help Ukraine the most is domestic production of ammo and munitions and both Europe and the US can and should provide assistance in that effort, the sooner the better (which also happens to also be cheaper in the long run). This can serve to help Ukraine fill and maybe eventually exceed gaps in what they need.
No doubt what so ever. Give Ukraine what they ask and then some.
Or the west could ask China to stop supporting Russia or else imports from China will be subject to a gradually increasing tariff regime. Feeling Beijing would listen.
Sure let’s just start a trade war Joe Q Public literally can’t afford.
Nothing its a ponzi scheme.
Nato boots on the ground.
“Estonian analysts pegged the artillery demand at about 2.4 million shells” lol. That’s low if the intention is to “win”. To defend and attack(to kick Russia out) at the same time without taking massive losses, Ukraine is probably gonna need well over 10k shells per day.
Honestly NATO needs to just mop this up. They can simply make a very clear statement to Russia. 1) you have 2 weeks to move to Russian borders as they were agreed upon in 1997 treaty. 2) no NATO personal will set foot on Russian soil. 3) no nukes will be used, unless Russia does first. 4) the Geneva convention will be adhered to. 5) all Russian soldiers that surrender will be give double pay for the remainder of the war. 6) military targets in Russian are fair game 7) NATO claims air superiority over Ukraine territory (1997 treaty) as of tomorrow. We await Russia decision. Release the hounds.
Good luck with getting troops as all im reading is they have a massive problem with draft doggers
Was stunned to read that full mobilization has not occurred in Ukraine. Wtf?
They need people to run their society- you cannot conscript every able bodied man in practice.
Not what you think it means. Critical people stay in jobs. Those that can be replaced with women or older men go. Asking the number of people who bailed out of Ukraine.
What do you mean by "full mobilization" exactly so we're talking about the same thing? They also need to keep some number of people in reserve for future conscription, and there's a certain percentage who can't/won't serve for a variety of reasons. Given the size of the country, they're fielding quite a large force at the moment, at least to my knowledge.
Good grief. Only way to get out of draft is if you have a critical role in manufacturing or something similar. Otherwise you are mobilized. Men and women. If you can't or won't serve you do the worst jobs in society and spend the nights in camps so you can wake up and do it again. Your country is at risk. Many in USA lost interest when they saw people leaving Ukraine and country not mobilized.