5 ms·

Of course, and in other news, Microsoft thinks Microsoft software is the best solution to any problem. What worries me more though is the lack of weapons. Here

Of course, and in other news, Microsoft thinks Microsoft software is the best solution to any problem. What worries me more though is the lack of weapons. Here's why: It's clear Russia isn't going to stop. Putin would find it extremely embarrassing and politically harmful to just stop without getting anything out of it. All those sanctions, all that money, all those lives lost would be all for nothing. It's equally clear Ukraine isn't going to stop. They see it (in my opinion very correctly) as a very existential fight to preserve their country and culture. Surrendering a good chunk of your country to an enemy that's been killing your people for a year is also politically nonviable and maybe even impossible. So obviously this is only ending when one side becomes unwilling or unable to keep fighting. If giving weapons to Ukraine is a good thing at all then the most moral option to me is giving Ukraine the means to achieve a swift, decisive win. Keeping things even has no legitimate purpose to it, it only gets more people killed on both sides.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]
hef19898 3y ago
There are enough weapons available, ammo might become tight one day so. Those weapons, from tanks rifles to planes, are modern so. That means that Ukrainian operators need training, that takes time. Logistics have to be set-up for everything from spares to consumables, that takes time. Not to forget that some of the stuff wasn't properly maintained for quite some time by the donor nations, so they need repairs, maintenance and overhaul. That takes time. As long as NATO is willing to support Ukraine, a lack of weapons and gear shouldn't be a problem.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  I mean more the quality than the quantity. There's all sorts of hangups with things like ATACMS. All I'm saying is that I find this gradual escalation very unpleasant. If we side with Ukraine then let's end this as quickly and decisively as possible. Stretching this out to years of gradual escalation where during a given month we decide "Okay, maybe Ukraine now can have HIMARS, or better tanks, or better missiles" seems like the worst way to do things. I think long term the current strategy means more money, more dead people, less clear politics and worse PR.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chmod600 3y ago
    Gradual escalation could be good in the sense that there's no clear prompt for nuclear war.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      Yeah, I don't buy that. Part because I don't think Putin is suicidal, or that stupid. He was counting on reaping benefits from this. Nuclear doesn't lead to any kind of benefit. But besides that there are plenty weapons that aren't all that fancy and would have made a huge difference if they were there sooner. Think about the mess HIMARS would have made of that tank column stuck on the way to Kyiv.
      - agloe_dreams 3y ago
        > Part because I don't think Putin is suicidal, or that stupid. I would have agreed with this at the start of the war..but I have no idea what gain he can ever get here short of riding it out to 2025 and hoping that a change in politics in America will change the game for him. Even then, I would not be shocked to see the EU step up in their place. If Russia will overrun Ukraine, they will overrun anyone. They are not gaining meaningful ground and the west is further uniting; NATO is at their doorstop in Finland now, a massive failure, any surrender in Ukraine ends with Ukraine joining NATO. The EU needs Russia to know that the buck stops there. Rumors state Putin is surrounded by yes men and terrified. Media keeps hearing reports of cancer; he may be dying already. He has portrayed himself as brute and strong, gaining ground still has his legacy trashed for the cost, then goes out on that memory. Might I add that nobody actually knows his mental state. I would not be shocked to see a WMD outcome. There are rumors of chemical weapons being prepped. The only way Russia changes the tides is to cut Ukraine off at the top with Zelenskyy, there's only two ways they bring the fight to Kyiv.
        datavirtue 3y ago
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago
  > Logistics have to be set-up for everything from spares to consumables, that takes time. Not to forget that some of the stuff wasn't properly maintained for quite some time by the donor nations, so they need repairs, maintenance and overhaul. That takes time. This is not representative of what is actually going on. The Russians for the most part have a fairly clean logistics system based on their weapon systems they are employing. Nonstop convoys of Trains and trucks. The Ukrainian logistics system is a debacle because it is a mishmash of Old Soviet and a smorgasboard of Western donations, and many things are being repaired in Poland then shipped back. Becuase the Ukrainian tactics are effectively Russian tactics still, they are using Western vehicles in ways they are not intended to be used (e.g. using a tank as a mobile artillery platform shooting at max range with max charges, wearing out barrels early). Given the tooth to nail ratio (Warfighter to logistics) and given losses already, Ukraine is pretty close to losing generations of men, and a wide depopulation of the country.
  - agloe_dreams 3y ago
    But yet, the war is a slaughterhouse for Russia. It seems like the Russian issue is that they lack any modern weapons systems or skilled labor. They have playbooks for logistics but no way to actually move the line they send men to.
  - mupuff1234 3y ago
    And how do you know what's going on?
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    One thing that Ukraine is not doing is using Russian tactics. A lot of the successes they've had came with using western style C&C. Had Russia invaded for proper in 2014 then yes, but Ukraine undertook an extensive restructure and rebuild since then, obviously limited by their capacity and external support. Well, you did talk more specifically about how they use tanks. Some of their army have had western training. If they are doing that there might be a more contextual reason that applies to Russia too - lack of air support. Western tactics rely a lot on good available air support and air suppression. Russia has more air support than Ukraine but it's still very limited.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pohl 3y ago
This is a correct analysis, and I'm saddened to see it voted down.
OrvalWintermute 3y ago
I don't know if you are characterizing this correctly. I've spent a good amount of time in uniform focused on Russian tactics & Russian Order of Battle, and how to counter it, so I'll chime in some. > It's clear Russia isn't going to stop. Putin would find it extremely embarrassing and politically harmful to just stop without getting anything out of it. If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow (Think Cuban Missile Crisis but worse). There are no true geographical barriers from driving tank divisions from Ukraine into Russia proper. US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. For the Russians, this is an existential crisis. > All those sanctions, all that money, all those lives lost would be all for nothing. The current Administration and their allies in Congress will fight to the last Ukrainian. They are attempting to weaken Russian through a proxy war (Think Afghanistan or Vietnam). They are not defending Ukraine. If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out. But having Ukraine become Switzerland would not benefit the US' current warlike ambitions, nor would it assist the plundering of the incredibly valuable resources of Ukraine. Zelensky's platform for peace, when he was elected, was destroyed by the Banderistas in Western Ukraine who have been prepping for war, or executingi > If giving weapons to Ukraine is a good thing at all then the most moral option to me is giving Ukraine the means to achieve a swift, decisive win. Keeping things even has no legitimate purpose to it, it only gets more people killed on both sides. Because this is an existential crisis to the Russians, they will continue ramping up their warmachine to support this war. The Russian army is really designed for this type of combat, and they won't have a better chance. Now, they might have misjudged the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the Western support, but now they are just rubbling cities and targeting everything. The worst of WW1 & WW2 is back. Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- derstander 3y ago
  > US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. I have certainly seen assertions by US policymakers that Russia (and the world) would be better off without Putin, but this wording makes it sound like there is a non-fringe group calling for the assassination of Putin. Do you have a source for this? I would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia.
pastacacioepepe 3y ago
The million dollar question is why not give Ukraine the means to switfly end the war? One might say it's in order to prevent excessive escalation and slowly bleed out Russia, but, aside from the fact that "slowly bleeding out" Russia means sacrificing tens of thousands of Ukrainians and further destroying Ukraine along the way, does anyone really think that Russia won't escalate things anyway once they realize they are slowly losing? Since I don't believe it's to prevent escalation, I must conclude it's because more death and destruction bring more business. The longer the conflict goes on the more weapons and ammo are sold, the more Ukrainian cities are destroyed the more money is to be made out of reconstruction. At the very least the incentive is there, and if you ask me any system where death and destruction are incentivized is by definition antihuman.
nradov 3y ago
I stand with Ukraine, and I support foreign aid to help them repel the Russian invasion. However, even if they eventually win the war the sad reality is that Ukraine is probably doomed as a distinct nation and culture. Even before the current war their demographics were collapsing. Now they are suffering heavy casualties on the battlefield, and millions of young people have fled the country as refugees to avoid violence and conscription. Realistically most of those people are never coming home. https://zeihan.com/demographics-part-6-the-orthodox-predicament/ https://zeihan.com/demographics-part-6-the-orthodox-predicam... In 30 years I expect the population of Ukraine to look vastly different with a lot more immigrants from Africa and the Middle East working in agriculture and resource extraction. And to be clear I'm not claiming that this is a good thing or a bad thing, just that it seems inevitable based on demographics and geography.
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  The demographics of Ukraine spells economic stagnation however ~25-30 million is more than enough for linguistic and cultural sustainability. My country, Denmark, only has 5 million people and Iceland only has 300,000 people. I don't know if you're American but immigrants in Europe assimilate slower and keep their linguistic and cultural identity alive for generations. Young 3rd generation Turkish and Pakistani people in Denmark (whose grandparents arrived in the 1970s) are still able to speak Turkish and Urdu/Punjabi.
  - OrvalWintermute 3y ago
    They won't have 25-30m after this war. Russia has already taken several oblasts and joined them in proper to Russia. More of this is coming as they take 4 more oblasts.
    - perfect_kiss 3y ago
      Russia will not take any single oblast. In fact, it has retreated from two oblasts in the past 6 months. And now retreating from part of Belgorod. Good luck contradicting reality, bro.
jacooper 3y ago
Conveniently ignoring the possibility of an escalation to an all out World war with Nukes.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  Launch the Polaris. The end doesn't scare us.
  - jacooper 3y ago
    Yeah maybe you, but not the majority of humanity for sure.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago

[dead]

hef19898 3y ago

There are enough weapons available, ammo might become tight one day so. Those weapons, from tanks rifles to planes, are modern so. That means that Ukrainian operators need training, that takes time. Logistics have to be set-up for everything from spares to consumables, that takes time. Not to forget that some of the stuff wasn't properly maintained for quite some time by the donor nations, so they need repairs, maintenance and overhaul. That takes time. As long as NATO is willing to support Ukraine, a lack of weapons and gear shouldn't be a problem.

dale_glass 3y ago
I mean more the quality than the quantity. There's all sorts of hangups with things like ATACMS. All I'm saying is that I find this gradual escalation very unpleasant. If we side with Ukraine then let's end this as quickly and decisively as possible. Stretching this out to years of gradual escalation where during a given month we decide "Okay, maybe Ukraine now can have HIMARS, or better tanks, or better missiles" seems like the worst way to do things. I think long term the current strategy means more money, more dead people, less clear politics and worse PR.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chmod600 3y ago
  Gradual escalation could be good in the sense that there's no clear prompt for nuclear war.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    Yeah, I don't buy that. Part because I don't think Putin is suicidal, or that stupid. He was counting on reaping benefits from this. Nuclear doesn't lead to any kind of benefit. But besides that there are plenty weapons that aren't all that fancy and would have made a huge difference if they were there sooner. Think about the mess HIMARS would have made of that tank column stuck on the way to Kyiv.
    - agloe_dreams 3y ago
      > Part because I don't think Putin is suicidal, or that stupid. I would have agreed with this at the start of the war..but I have no idea what gain he can ever get here short of riding it out to 2025 and hoping that a change in politics in America will change the game for him. Even then, I would not be shocked to see the EU step up in their place. If Russia will overrun Ukraine, they will overrun anyone. They are not gaining meaningful ground and the west is further uniting; NATO is at their doorstop in Finland now, a massive failure, any surrender in Ukraine ends with Ukraine joining NATO. The EU needs Russia to know that the buck stops there. Rumors state Putin is surrounded by yes men and terrified. Media keeps hearing reports of cancer; he may be dying already. He has portrayed himself as brute and strong, gaining ground still has his legacy trashed for the cost, then goes out on that memory. Might I add that nobody actually knows his mental state. I would not be shocked to see a WMD outcome. There are rumors of chemical weapons being prepped. The only way Russia changes the tides is to cut Ukraine off at the top with Zelenskyy, there's only two ways they bring the fight to Kyiv.
      - datavirtue 3y ago
OrvalWintermute 3y ago
> Logistics have to be set-up for everything from spares to consumables, that takes time. Not to forget that some of the stuff wasn't properly maintained for quite some time by the donor nations, so they need repairs, maintenance and overhaul. That takes time. This is not representative of what is actually going on. The Russians for the most part have a fairly clean logistics system based on their weapon systems they are employing. Nonstop convoys of Trains and trucks. The Ukrainian logistics system is a debacle because it is a mishmash of Old Soviet and a smorgasboard of Western donations, and many things are being repaired in Poland then shipped back. Becuase the Ukrainian tactics are effectively Russian tactics still, they are using Western vehicles in ways they are not intended to be used (e.g. using a tank as a mobile artillery platform shooting at max range with max charges, wearing out barrels early). Given the tooth to nail ratio (Warfighter to logistics) and given losses already, Ukraine is pretty close to losing generations of men, and a wide depopulation of the country.
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  But yet, the war is a slaughterhouse for Russia. It seems like the Russian issue is that they lack any modern weapons systems or skilled labor. They have playbooks for logistics but no way to actually move the line they send men to.
- mupuff1234 3y ago
  And how do you know what's going on?
- jemmyw 3y ago
  One thing that Ukraine is not doing is using Russian tactics. A lot of the successes they've had came with using western style C&C. Had Russia invaded for proper in 2014 then yes, but Ukraine undertook an extensive restructure and rebuild since then, obviously limited by their capacity and external support. Well, you did talk more specifically about how they use tanks. Some of their army have had western training. If they are doing that there might be a more contextual reason that applies to Russia too - lack of air support. Western tactics rely a lot on good available air support and air suppression. Russia has more air support than Ukraine but it's still very limited.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pohl 3y ago

This is a correct analysis, and I'm saddened to see it voted down.

OrvalWintermute 3y ago

I don't know if you are characterizing this correctly. I've spent a good amount of time in uniform focused on Russian tactics & Russian Order of Battle, and how to counter it, so I'll chime in some. > It's clear Russia isn't going to stop. Putin would find it extremely embarrassing and politically harmful to just stop without getting anything out of it. If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow (Think Cuban Missile Crisis but worse). There are no true geographical barriers from driving tank divisions from Ukraine into Russia proper. US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. For the Russians, this is an existential crisis. > All those sanctions, all that money, all those lives lost would be all for nothing. The current Administration and their allies in Congress will fight to the last Ukrainian. They are attempting to weaken Russian through a proxy war (Think Afghanistan or Vietnam). They are not defending Ukraine. If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out. But having Ukraine become Switzerland would not benefit the US' current warlike ambitions, nor would it assist the plundering of the incredibly valuable resources of Ukraine. Zelensky's platform for peace, when he was elected, was destroyed by the Banderistas in Western Ukraine who have been prepping for war, or executingi > If giving weapons to Ukraine is a good thing at all then the most moral option to me is giving Ukraine the means to achieve a swift, decisive win. Keeping things even has no legitimate purpose to it, it only gets more people killed on both sides. Because this is an existential crisis to the Russians, they will continue ramping up their warmachine to support this war. The Russian army is really designed for this type of combat, and they won't have a better chance. Now, they might have misjudged the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the Western support, but now they are just rubbling cities and targeting everything. The worst of WW1 & WW2 is back. Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
derstander 3y ago
> US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country. I have certainly seen assertions by US policymakers that Russia (and the world) would be better off without Putin, but this wording makes it sound like there is a non-fringe group calling for the assassination of Putin. Do you have a source for this? I would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago

The million dollar question is why not give Ukraine the means to switfly end the war? One might say it's in order to prevent excessive escalation and slowly bleed out Russia, but, aside from the fact that "slowly bleeding out" Russia means sacrificing tens of thousands of Ukrainians and further destroying Ukraine along the way, does anyone really think that Russia won't escalate things anyway once they realize they are slowly losing? Since I don't believe it's to prevent escalation, I must conclude it's because more death and destruction bring more business. The longer the conflict goes on the more weapons and ammo are sold, the more Ukrainian cities are destroyed the more money is to be made out of reconstruction. At the very least the incentive is there, and if you ask me any system where death and destruction are incentivized is by definition antihuman.

nradov 3y ago

I stand with Ukraine, and I support foreign aid to help them repel the Russian invasion. However, even if they eventually win the war the sad reality is that Ukraine is probably doomed as a distinct nation and culture. Even before the current war their demographics were collapsing. Now they are suffering heavy casualties on the battlefield, and millions of young people have fled the country as refugees to avoid violence and conscription. Realistically most of those people are never coming home. https://zeihan.com/demographics-part-6-the-orthodox-predicament/ https://zeihan.com/demographics-part-6-the-orthodox-predicam... In 30 years I expect the population of Ukraine to look vastly different with a lot more immigrants from Africa and the Middle East working in agriculture and resource extraction. And to be clear I'm not claiming that this is a good thing or a bad thing, just that it seems inevitable based on demographics and geography.

0xDEF 3y ago
The demographics of Ukraine spells economic stagnation however ~25-30 million is more than enough for linguistic and cultural sustainability. My country, Denmark, only has 5 million people and Iceland only has 300,000 people. I don't know if you're American but immigrants in Europe assimilate slower and keep their linguistic and cultural identity alive for generations. Young 3rd generation Turkish and Pakistani people in Denmark (whose grandparents arrived in the 1970s) are still able to speak Turkish and Urdu/Punjabi.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago
  They won't have 25-30m after this war. Russia has already taken several oblasts and joined them in proper to Russia. More of this is coming as they take 4 more oblasts.
  - perfect_kiss 3y ago
    Russia will not take any single oblast. In fact, it has retreated from two oblasts in the past 6 months. And now retreating from part of Belgorod. Good luck contradicting reality, bro.

jacooper 3y ago

Conveniently ignoring the possibility of an escalation to an all out World war with Nukes.

datavirtue 3y ago
Launch the Polaris. The end doesn't scare us.
- jacooper 3y ago
  Yeah maybe you, but not the majority of humanity for sure.