4 ms·

Obama actually said back in 2014 he didn't give weapons to Ukraine because it would lead them to a useless attrition war that they would lose anyway.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Obama actually said back in 2014 he didn't give weapons to Ukraine because it would lead them to a useless attrition war that they would lose anyway Kyiv recapitulating Kabul was basically every Western analyst's assessment until at least several days into the war. If Russia had executed a lightning strike there would have been little war and, likely, few long-term consequences.
- synu 4y ago
  The surprise was that they were functionally incapable of doing so due to corruption and other systemic problems.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Sure. Nevertheless, OP bringing up Obama's Crimea-era thoughts on a Russo-Ukrainian conflict isn't relevant to the situation today.
epistasis 4y ago
Obama may be proven right, but I certainly hope he is proven wrong, or at least that this phase of the war by Russia will prove that he might have been wrong. But it's also important to know that Ukraine's army today is far different than that of 2014. In 2014, Ukraine's army was far more like Russia's in training and leadership, except it also had many pro-Putin leaders that have now been purged from leadership. There has also been a big change in style of leadership, as has been shown throughout this phase of the war. In 2014, there was an argument for doing more: https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/2014/11/28/opinion-a-case-for-doing-more-for-ukraine/ https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/2014/11/28/opinion-a-case-...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Obama may be proven right You mean his policy of building up the capacity of the Ukrainian military so that they could stand against Russia might be validated by Ukrainian victory now? Or are we going to timewarp into an alternate reality where we instead rush them arms and convince them to fight to the death over Crimea in 2014 to prove that that policy would have been wrong?
- dh2022 4y ago
  <<it's also important to know that Ukraine's army today is far different than that of 2014>> That is the big difference. In 2014 Putin took Crimea without firing a shot. Very different in 2022.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  It seems worth considering that the public statements and the strategic thought of American leaders (and indeed most others) are often quite far apart. For all the appearances of democracy, transparency, and responsiveness to pubic opinion, most office holders regard the public in much the same way as kindergarten teachers regard their charges - unruly, ignorant, and a danger to themselves, especially on field trips.
soco 4y ago
For the US it might be useless, dunno, but I'm quite positive it's not a useless war for the Ukrainians.
saiya-jin 4y ago
Its not useless if russia is made weak by this. In contrary, big service to whole western world and some more for decades to come, paid in ukrainian (and poor uneducated simple russian conscripts) blood. I think west as whole should really focus now on trying its best to make sure russians can't do high tech anymore, military or not. Can't stop such country making dumb ammo and cannons but nothing fancy.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Obama actually said back in 2014 he didn't give weapons to Ukraine because it would lead them to a useless attrition war that they would lose anyway. Ukraine had much smaller, and less well trained, armed forces in 2014 to use any weapons that would have been sent; much of the US aid from 2014 on was directed at dealing with capacity building and training, as well as providing basic nonlethal gear like helmets and body armor and a whole bunch of core logistical equipment. Weapons are necessary, but not sufficient, for an effective military.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  And yet here we are.
  - Bajeezus 4y ago
    What is this comment even supposed to mean in this context?
    - vernon99 4y ago
      I assume the parent comment is saying they are already in an attrition war they are very likely to lose. So that thinking from 2014 was correct.
      - TeeMassive 4y ago
        Correct.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Obama actually said back in 2014 he didn't give weapons to Ukraine because it would lead them to a useless attrition war that they would lose anyway Kyiv recapitulating Kabul was basically every Western analyst's assessment until at least several days into the war. If Russia had executed a lightning strike there would have been little war and, likely, few long-term consequences.

synu 4y ago
The surprise was that they were functionally incapable of doing so due to corruption and other systemic problems.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Sure. Nevertheless, OP bringing up Obama's Crimea-era thoughts on a Russo-Ukrainian conflict isn't relevant to the situation today.

epistasis 4y ago

Obama may be proven right, but I certainly hope he is proven wrong, or at least that this phase of the war by Russia will prove that he might have been wrong. But it's also important to know that Ukraine's army today is far different than that of 2014. In 2014, Ukraine's army was far more like Russia's in training and leadership, except it also had many pro-Putin leaders that have now been purged from leadership. There has also been a big change in style of leadership, as has been shown throughout this phase of the war. In 2014, there was an argument for doing more: https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/2014/11/28/opinion-a-case-for-doing-more-for-ukraine/ https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/2014/11/28/opinion-a-case-...

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Obama may be proven right You mean his policy of building up the capacity of the Ukrainian military so that they could stand against Russia might be validated by Ukrainian victory now? Or are we going to timewarp into an alternate reality where we instead rush them arms and convince them to fight to the death over Crimea in 2014 to prove that that policy would have been wrong?
dh2022 4y ago
<<it's also important to know that Ukraine's army today is far different than that of 2014>> That is the big difference. In 2014 Putin took Crimea without firing a shot. Very different in 2022.
anigbrowl 4y ago
It seems worth considering that the public statements and the strategic thought of American leaders (and indeed most others) are often quite far apart. For all the appearances of democracy, transparency, and responsiveness to pubic opinion, most office holders regard the public in much the same way as kindergarten teachers regard their charges - unruly, ignorant, and a danger to themselves, especially on field trips.

soco 4y ago

For the US it might be useless, dunno, but I'm quite positive it's not a useless war for the Ukrainians.

saiya-jin 4y ago

Its not useless if russia is made weak by this. In contrary, big service to whole western world and some more for decades to come, paid in ukrainian (and poor uneducated simple russian conscripts) blood. I think west as whole should really focus now on trying its best to make sure russians can't do high tech anymore, military or not. Can't stop such country making dumb ammo and cannons but nothing fancy.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Obama actually said back in 2014 he didn't give weapons to Ukraine because it would lead them to a useless attrition war that they would lose anyway. Ukraine had much smaller, and less well trained, armed forces in 2014 to use any weapons that would have been sent; much of the US aid from 2014 on was directed at dealing with capacity building and training, as well as providing basic nonlethal gear like helmets and body armor and a whole bunch of core logistical equipment. Weapons are necessary, but not sufficient, for an effective military.

TeeMassive 4y ago
And yet here we are.
- Bajeezus 4y ago
  What is this comment even supposed to mean in this context?
  - vernon99 4y ago
    I assume the parent comment is saying they are already in an attrition war they are very likely to lose. So that thinking from 2014 was correct.
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      Correct.