4 ms·

It feels like the approach of arming Ukraine on a drip by drip basis is just prolonging the war. It would be best to arm Ukraine to the extent required (missil

It feels like the approach of arming Ukraine on a drip by drip basis is just prolonging the war. It would be best to arm Ukraine to the extent required (missiles, planes etc) to reclaim all their territory vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight.

dsfyu404ed 3y ago
The west prefers a bled dry Russia to a recently humiliated but not bled dry Russia. That's why it's a drip by drip basis. Also the defense industrial complex sells more shit in a long conflict than a short one.
web3-is-a-scam 3y ago
You couldn't possibly be naive enough to think that the military industrial complex wants the war to actually end do you?
gWPVhyxPHqvk 3y ago
No, that's not a great approach. One overreach and you're in a nuclear war.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > No, that's not a great approach. One overreach and you're in a nuclear war. That's pretty easy to stop - I'm sure NATO has already told Ukraine that an incursion into Russia proper would mean an end to military aid.
  - b112 3y ago
    Bullies only respond to force. The only way to prevent Russia using nukes, is to tell(and mean it!) them any use will be repaid 5x over. Really though, all we're waiting for is Putin to die from old age, or lose his hold, and then Russia will decend into anarchy. Which will end the current threat, but open up others...
    - xtian 3y ago
      Yeah there’s no way anyone could succeed Putin, such as Dmitry Medvedev, who works closely with him and already served as president and prime minister.
      - b112 3y ago
        Strong men eliminate those who are threats, who can be a threat. Putin is very good at this, competitors which had potental are dead, lessor competitors jailed. This means that anyone close to Putin, is likely lacking in capability, or perhaps more importantly, the ability to lead and drive loyalty. Weak leaders fall fast, if they try to pick up the sceptre. This isn't slashot. People don't need personal trolls here. Is there any reason you're following me around?
        xtian 3y ago
        I have no idea who you are but evidently you say a lot of baseless or uninformed stuff if you recognize me
hnhg 3y ago
It is akin to how the USA has not yet vanquished ISIS, despite it being a bunch of poorly armed amateurs. Perhaps the reason is that a "forever war" keeps your enemy in a known place, rather than regrouping and rebuilding.
- ripvanwinkle 3y ago
  well yes but ISIS is very much on the back foot and in survival mode. They aren't exactly in control of population centers or threatening to overrun countries. In this case if Ukraine & Russia arrive at some kind of a truce, its likely a low level conflict (fought through online misinformation /cyber warfare /border shelling) will continue. But it also won't be this full scale war
nordsieck 3y ago
> It would be best to arm Ukraine to the extent required (missiles, planes etc) to reclaim all their territory vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight. The trouble is: it's impossible to know ahead of time what's enough. It's doubly difficult because Russia gets to react to what NATO and friends do (e.g. with additional mobilization). I do agree, though, that it would have been a lot better to have gotten to this place right away. Honestly, though, the real thing that the Ukraine needs is way more artillery ammunition. And no one in NATO really has a lot of excess that they're willing to part with. Or much capacity to create more. If NATO could give Ukraine 20 million rounds of 155mm per year, that would substantially improve their prospects. And it wouldn't be the same sort of "escalation"[1] that aircraft or long range missiles might be. Edit: artillery -> artillery ammunition --- 1. IMO, the escalation theory is overblown. But enough people believe it in the US that it causes problems getting those kinds of equipment to Ukraine.
- b112 3y ago
  Or much capacity to create more. Citation needed here. What happens is, western governements are shipping older, but good gear to the Ukraine, and ordering shiny new as replacements. There is no reason to presume the same is not valid here.
  - xtian 3y ago
    https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-...
    - b112 3y ago
      This simply discusses how production can ramp, and where production will need to expand. It also affirms that "the west" has loads of shared production capacity.
      - xtian 3y ago
        Is that why the amounts of 155mm artillery shells transferred to Ukraine have declined over time?
simonsarris 3y ago
For the counterfactual, imagine if we sent a bunch of HIMARS or MBTs in the first months of the conflict and now they were being paraded around by Russia on victory day. It makes some sense to provide small arms -> light support -> progressively bigger weapons systems. It is worth remembering that at the beginning of military aid to Ukraine, there was a large chance they might have suddenly capitulated. In that event, anything you send would have immediately fallen into not-Ukrainian hands.
- ripvanwinkle 3y ago
  I think Ukraine established its will to fight within the first month and its ability to exist in two or three months or so. We should have shifted our approach around then and started planning long term. We are 14 months in now.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    Especially relevant on the F-16 discussion, since they'd likely only be flying over Ukrainian controlled territory. There's no reason we shouldn't have gotten some of their pilots started in a training pipeline months ago.
  - simonsarris 3y ago
    I don't want to make any big claims because real visibility is low but I think your assessment is somewhat mistaken, and not shared by US DoD generally, which were, I believe, fairly pessimistic as recently as 3 months ago.
- baybal2 3y ago
  [dead]
Zealotux 3y ago
That’s much trickier than it seems. Not only modern weapons stacks requires large integrated systems - which Ukraine is far from having - but you have no guarantee those weapons and vehicles won’t be used to attack targets on Russian ground that will escalate the war beyond what Ukraine’s allies might want.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  > you have no guarantee those weapons and vehicles won’t be used to attack targets on Russian ground that will escalate the war beyond what Ukraine’s allies might want. For purpose of discussion, does that include Crimean and Donbass?
  - Zealotux 3y ago
    I don't consider these areas to be "Russian ground" since I meant to talk of mainland Russia. I believe Donbass has been shelled by Ukraine (and Russian) for many years before the 2022 invasion: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/74158 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/74158
jandrewrogers 3y ago
There are two important factors you are not considering. The first is that it takes a long time train soldiers on complex weapon systems and the entire logistical supply chain required to support and maintain those weapon systems. Giving someone a weapon system without this makes the weapon system nigh useless to them. Look at how long it takes for American soldiers to become rated on new weapon systems. The second is that weapon systems are designed to fit a specific war doctrine. Most weapon systems will have greatly degraded effectiveness deployed outside of the context in which they were intended to be used. US builds weapons for the way the US expects to fight. One of the reasons there is a shortage of artillery and related munitions, which is critical in Ukrainian doctrine, is that the US and many other NATO countries don't need much artillery and therefore don't have much of it nor the ability to manufacture vast quantities. And it is not feasible for Ukraine to radically change their war doctrine at this point such that NATO weapons would be more fit for purpose, it requires years of preparation to do this. Basically, the US but more broadly NATO can't easily supply a war that is being fought the way the Ukrainians are fighting it because their militaries are not equipped to fight a war that way.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  The US and NATO has been training the Ukrainian military since the 00s. [0] They don't fight exactly according to US doctrine, but they don't not either. [0] https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-04-07/ukraine-california-national-guard-military-training-russia-invasion-5608928.html https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-04-07/ukraine-c...
thunky 3y ago
> vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight. Probably because this it the real goal. Ukraine is a pawn.

dsfyu404ed 3y ago

The west prefers a bled dry Russia to a recently humiliated but not bled dry Russia. That's why it's a drip by drip basis. Also the defense industrial complex sells more shit in a long conflict than a short one.

web3-is-a-scam 3y ago

You couldn't possibly be naive enough to think that the military industrial complex wants the war to actually end do you?

gWPVhyxPHqvk 3y ago

No, that's not a great approach. One overreach and you're in a nuclear war.

nordsieck 3y ago
> No, that's not a great approach. One overreach and you're in a nuclear war. That's pretty easy to stop - I'm sure NATO has already told Ukraine that an incursion into Russia proper would mean an end to military aid.
- b112 3y ago
  Bullies only respond to force. The only way to prevent Russia using nukes, is to tell(and mean it!) them any use will be repaid 5x over. Really though, all we're waiting for is Putin to die from old age, or lose his hold, and then Russia will decend into anarchy. Which will end the current threat, but open up others...
  - xtian 3y ago
    Yeah there’s no way anyone could succeed Putin, such as Dmitry Medvedev, who works closely with him and already served as president and prime minister.
    - b112 3y ago
      Strong men eliminate those who are threats, who can be a threat. Putin is very good at this, competitors which had potental are dead, lessor competitors jailed. This means that anyone close to Putin, is likely lacking in capability, or perhaps more importantly, the ability to lead and drive loyalty. Weak leaders fall fast, if they try to pick up the sceptre. This isn't slashot. People don't need personal trolls here. Is there any reason you're following me around?
      - xtian 3y ago
        I have no idea who you are but evidently you say a lot of baseless or uninformed stuff if you recognize me

hnhg 3y ago

It is akin to how the USA has not yet vanquished ISIS, despite it being a bunch of poorly armed amateurs. Perhaps the reason is that a "forever war" keeps your enemy in a known place, rather than regrouping and rebuilding.

ripvanwinkle 3y ago
well yes but ISIS is very much on the back foot and in survival mode. They aren't exactly in control of population centers or threatening to overrun countries. In this case if Ukraine & Russia arrive at some kind of a truce, its likely a low level conflict (fought through online misinformation /cyber warfare /border shelling) will continue. But it also won't be this full scale war

nordsieck 3y ago

> It would be best to arm Ukraine to the extent required (missiles, planes etc) to reclaim all their territory vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight. The trouble is: it's impossible to know ahead of time what's enough. It's doubly difficult because Russia gets to react to what NATO and friends do (e.g. with additional mobilization). I do agree, though, that it would have been a lot better to have gotten to this place right away. Honestly, though, the real thing that the Ukraine needs is way more artillery ammunition. And no one in NATO really has a lot of excess that they're willing to part with. Or much capacity to create more. If NATO could give Ukraine 20 million rounds of 155mm per year, that would substantially improve their prospects. And it wouldn't be the same sort of "escalation"[1] that aircraft or long range missiles might be. Edit: artillery -> artillery ammunition --- 1. IMO, the escalation theory is overblown. But enough people believe it in the US that it causes problems getting those kinds of equipment to Ukraine.

b112 3y ago
Or much capacity to create more. Citation needed here. What happens is, western governements are shipping older, but good gear to the Ukraine, and ordering shiny new as replacements. There is no reason to presume the same is not valid here.
- xtian 3y ago
  https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-...
  - b112 3y ago
    This simply discusses how production can ramp, and where production will need to expand. It also affirms that "the west" has loads of shared production capacity.
    - xtian 3y ago
      Is that why the amounts of 155mm artillery shells transferred to Ukraine have declined over time?

simonsarris 3y ago

For the counterfactual, imagine if we sent a bunch of HIMARS or MBTs in the first months of the conflict and now they were being paraded around by Russia on victory day. It makes some sense to provide small arms -> light support -> progressively bigger weapons systems. It is worth remembering that at the beginning of military aid to Ukraine, there was a large chance they might have suddenly capitulated. In that event, anything you send would have immediately fallen into not-Ukrainian hands.

ripvanwinkle 3y ago
I think Ukraine established its will to fight within the first month and its ability to exist in two or three months or so. We should have shifted our approach around then and started planning long term. We are 14 months in now.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  Especially relevant on the F-16 discussion, since they'd likely only be flying over Ukrainian controlled territory. There's no reason we shouldn't have gotten some of their pilots started in a training pipeline months ago.
- simonsarris 3y ago
  I don't want to make any big claims because real visibility is low but I think your assessment is somewhat mistaken, and not shared by US DoD generally, which were, I believe, fairly pessimistic as recently as 3 months ago.
baybal2 3y ago
[dead]

Zealotux 3y ago

That’s much trickier than it seems. Not only modern weapons stacks requires large integrated systems - which Ukraine is far from having - but you have no guarantee those weapons and vehicles won’t be used to attack targets on Russian ground that will escalate the war beyond what Ukraine’s allies might want.

engineer_22 3y ago
> you have no guarantee those weapons and vehicles won’t be used to attack targets on Russian ground that will escalate the war beyond what Ukraine’s allies might want. For purpose of discussion, does that include Crimean and Donbass?
- Zealotux 3y ago
  I don't consider these areas to be "Russian ground" since I meant to talk of mainland Russia. I believe Donbass has been shelled by Ukraine (and Russian) for many years before the 2022 invasion: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/74158 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/74158

jandrewrogers 3y ago

There are two important factors you are not considering. The first is that it takes a long time train soldiers on complex weapon systems and the entire logistical supply chain required to support and maintain those weapon systems. Giving someone a weapon system without this makes the weapon system nigh useless to them. Look at how long it takes for American soldiers to become rated on new weapon systems. The second is that weapon systems are designed to fit a specific war doctrine. Most weapon systems will have greatly degraded effectiveness deployed outside of the context in which they were intended to be used. US builds weapons for the way the US expects to fight. One of the reasons there is a shortage of artillery and related munitions, which is critical in Ukrainian doctrine, is that the US and many other NATO countries don't need much artillery and therefore don't have much of it nor the ability to manufacture vast quantities. And it is not feasible for Ukraine to radically change their war doctrine at this point such that NATO weapons would be more fit for purpose, it requires years of preparation to do this. Basically, the US but more broadly NATO can't easily supply a war that is being fought the way the Ukrainians are fighting it because their militaries are not equipped to fight a war that way.

ethbr0 3y ago
The US and NATO has been training the Ukrainian military since the 00s. [0] They don't fight exactly according to US doctrine, but they don't not either. [0] https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-04-07/ukraine-california-national-guard-military-training-russia-invasion-5608928.html https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-04-07/ukraine-c...

thunky 3y ago

> vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight. Probably because this it the real goal. Ukraine is a pawn.