5 ms·

> They are yet to be proved wrong. I'm confused. Hasn't the US and EU given incredible military aide to Ukraine?

veidr 4y ago
More "some" than "incredible". But the result is yet to be seen.
0xDEF 4y ago
Realistically this war will continue for two more years. Russia's useful idiots are hard at work lowering Western popular support for Ukraine. Will the West still be giving military aid to Ukraine in 2025?
- tjpnz 4y ago
  The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine.
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    > The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine. Won't accept in the sense they will continue with some sanctions indefinitely (significantly watered down by multiple parties) or in the sense that they will significantly and rapidly expand their production of ammunition and armored vehicles in order to fully sustain the Ukrainian military? Because if Biden loses they will need to have the production running in less than two years and I'm not sure they are _really_ prepared to invest the necessary resources.
ajuc 4y ago
Enough to defend. Not enough to win decisively. Timing matters. If EU and USA provided the help that they did but in the first 6 months - Ukraine would have already won. But the help is drip-fed to Ukraine, supposedly to "not escalate". The result is that the war that could be already over is dragging on, and eventually people will stop helping for one reason or another. If we want a quick win for Ukraine we should send weapons much quicker and without silly distinctions like (offensive vs defensive weapons in 2022 or like long vs short range missiles now). It's like instead of curing people with antibiotics in 2 weeks you split the pills into 1/64th parts and cured them for 1 year. You're not really curing them - you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria at that point.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Not enough to win decisively. It's often claimed that US policy is to take advantage of the war to grind down Russian military capability, and that the USA will fight to the last Ukrainian. I must say, I find the reluctance to supply missiles that could be used to hit targets inside Russia seems to support that view. I mean, it's not as if Russia is hitting targets inside Ukraine, is it? /s It's completely normal in war to attempt to disrupt enemy operations by targeting logistics behind enemy lines; which in this case is the border between Ukraine and Russia. Western vetoes on that activity, supposedly with the aim of "not escalating", look very cynical.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Ukraine could hit the Crimean Bridge from territory they control today with ATACMS, which if kept inoperable would make supplying Crimea untenable. That's Ukrainian territory by international law, a valid military target, and minimal civilian casualties. The US should have given them examples for that single purpose long ago. It's not like Ukraine and Russia aren't already shooting SRBMs at each other.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      The Kerch Strait Bridge is seen by Ukrainians as a gross national insult; its destruction would be a huge morale booster for Ukraine. I don't know how much reliance Russian forces in Crimea place on the bridge. It seems rather fragile to rely on that bridge to supply the entire peninsular. Crimea can be resupplied by sea; it has several ports, including a huge one at Sevastopol. However Crimea lacks its own water supply; Crimean water supplies come by pipeline from the Dniepro. My guess is that Ukraine would love to control that pipeline.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Rail >> sea. Especially given that Russia doesn't have full sea control outside of Sevastopol, at least not enough so as to guarantee continuous cargo transport. Or if they deploy their fleet regularly outside of the harbor... well, we saw how that last went when atmospheric conditions aligned against them. My understanding is that the Dniepro to Crimea water canal was one of the reasons for the invasion. After Ukraine cut off water supply after Russia invaded Crimea (you could see the canal dried up on Google Maps satellite), they were having to spend $$$ to ensure the peninsula had enough fresh water. You can see where it sources from the river too: https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.7177240,33.4085303 https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.7177240,33.4085303 Which should already be in Ukrainian artillery range from the opposite bank, but I imagine it's hard to stop a gravity fed canal from flowing with artillery...

More "some" than "incredible". But the result is yet to be seen.

Realistically this war will continue for two more years. Russia's useful idiots are hard at work lowering Western popular support for Ukraine. Will the West still be giving military aid to Ukraine in 2025?

tjpnz 4y ago
The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine.
- caskstrength 4y ago
  > The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine. Won't accept in the sense they will continue with some sanctions indefinitely (significantly watered down by multiple parties) or in the sense that they will significantly and rapidly expand their production of ammunition and armored vehicles in order to fully sustain the Ukrainian military? Because if Biden loses they will need to have the production running in less than two years and I'm not sure they are _really_ prepared to invest the necessary resources.

ajuc 4y ago

Enough to defend. Not enough to win decisively. Timing matters. If EU and USA provided the help that they did but in the first 6 months - Ukraine would have already won. But the help is drip-fed to Ukraine, supposedly to "not escalate". The result is that the war that could be already over is dragging on, and eventually people will stop helping for one reason or another. If we want a quick win for Ukraine we should send weapons much quicker and without silly distinctions like (offensive vs defensive weapons in 2022 or like long vs short range missiles now). It's like instead of curing people with antibiotics in 2 weeks you split the pills into 1/64th parts and cured them for 1 year. You're not really curing them - you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria at that point.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Not enough to win decisively. It's often claimed that US policy is to take advantage of the war to grind down Russian military capability, and that the USA will fight to the last Ukrainian. I must say, I find the reluctance to supply missiles that could be used to hit targets inside Russia seems to support that view. I mean, it's not as if Russia is hitting targets inside Ukraine, is it? /s It's completely normal in war to attempt to disrupt enemy operations by targeting logistics behind enemy lines; which in this case is the border between Ukraine and Russia. Western vetoes on that activity, supposedly with the aim of "not escalating", look very cynical.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Ukraine could hit the Crimean Bridge from territory they control today with ATACMS, which if kept inoperable would make supplying Crimea untenable. That's Ukrainian territory by international law, a valid military target, and minimal civilian casualties. The US should have given them examples for that single purpose long ago. It's not like Ukraine and Russia aren't already shooting SRBMs at each other.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    The Kerch Strait Bridge is seen by Ukrainians as a gross national insult; its destruction would be a huge morale booster for Ukraine. I don't know how much reliance Russian forces in Crimea place on the bridge. It seems rather fragile to rely on that bridge to supply the entire peninsular. Crimea can be resupplied by sea; it has several ports, including a huge one at Sevastopol. However Crimea lacks its own water supply; Crimean water supplies come by pipeline from the Dniepro. My guess is that Ukraine would love to control that pipeline.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Rail >> sea. Especially given that Russia doesn't have full sea control outside of Sevastopol, at least not enough so as to guarantee continuous cargo transport. Or if they deploy their fleet regularly outside of the harbor... well, we saw how that last went when atmospheric conditions aligned against them. My understanding is that the Dniepro to Crimea water canal was one of the reasons for the invasion. After Ukraine cut off water supply after Russia invaded Crimea (you could see the canal dried up on Google Maps satellite), they were having to spend $$$ to ensure the peninsula had enough fresh water. You can see where it sources from the river too: https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.7177240,33.4085303 https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.7177240,33.4085303 Which should already be in Ukrainian artillery range from the opposite bank, but I imagine it's hard to stop a gravity fed canal from flowing with artillery...