4 ms·

Whatever the endgame is, Russia having a thousand fewer tanks, AFVs and artillery guns is better for USA, NATO, and European security. If we need to perpetuall

Whatever the endgame is, Russia having a thousand fewer tanks, AFVs and artillery guns is better for USA, NATO, and European security. If we need to perpetually spend like 3% of our defense budget on Ukraine... That's fine? We're not really dedicated to it like the $Trillion/year we spent on Iraq or Afghanistan. One can even argue that all the data we are getting from Patriot systems and Drones is good for the Taiwan situation. Out defenses and weapons are being tested, while China's are not. We will have upgrades and improvements that we otherwise wouldn't have gotten thanks to Ukrainian war. From a purely selfish perspective, USA is a big winner of Ukraine/Russia war, much like the Nazi Germany was the winner of the Spanish civil war. A war in an allied nation where our weapons, doctrine and theories is tested puts us up in ways that money cannot buy. ----- We are learning how to spin up 155mm production lines and Stinger missiles thanks to the Ukrainian war. We've learned of the hole in our air defenses that drones pose. We've seen how naval drones work vs the Russian navy (and a preview for how it'd work vs the Chinese Navy). Etc. Etc. The only reason we are sending these cluster bombs is because we've failed to spin up production of 155mm shells fast enough, and our stockpiles of that shell were too shallow in practice. We've learned that Switzerland is not a reliable ally. We've learned that Germany's doctrine relies upon Swiss AA ammunition and that Germany is grossly unprepared to ramp up AA defense production. Good. We learned, our generals will remember and we will be in a better position when a real war hits us. This was all a test and we can use the results of the test to improve ourselves. And who knows? Maybe we can even keep Ukraine free and prosperous when it all ends. Might as well try our best to help them while getting all this valuable data.

remarkEon 3y ago
Right, I'm quite amenable to the idea that this war is functioning as a gigantic test bed for modern 21st century weapons systems, and we are - generally speaking - in a WWI scenario where a lot of new technology is clashing for the first time and we don't know what beats what. That's all well and good, but it has some interesting moral implications because it presupposes that we (the US) are keeping this war going intentionally as a means to allow our defense industrial base to tool up for a war in the pacific and test new technologies against the old Cold War adversary. If that is the reason, we should just be honest about it. Prior to 2016 Ukraine didn't exactly get the "bastion of freedom and democracy" treatment that it gets in the US press today, which has left me pretty skeptical of how its discussed in general. The war goes on if and only if the US continues funding it which suggest to me the opposite of your point, as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe. At what point do we "have enough data" and can stop the bloodshed?
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe Could you please explain your reasoning? The fewer tanks Russia has, the less they're able to mess around with other countries. That means fewer Russo-Georgian War (2008) events, because Russia's military is just left weaker overall. We need to ensure that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to 2023) is the last destabilizing push Russia does in the near future. Sure, they can rebuild later, but we can make that rebuilding as costly as possible (ex: sanctions on chips and other strategic parts that they need to actually build these weapons). Russia's economy is not like ours. We can certainly outspend them in production. We know that they're using 152mm shells at a rate exceeding 155mm shells (because their shells are less accurate than our shells). And Russia's wartime economy is weaker than ours, they simply don't have as much production as us either (the combined might of NATO: not just USA but also Germany, Poland, UK, etc. etc). The war-materials they use in Ukraine they cannot use in other countries. This will prevent another Georgia-like or Ukraine-like situation, because Russia simply won't have the strength to mess around anymore. ---------------------- EDIT: In particular, we know that Moldova is on Russia's crosshairs. By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. Even if Ukraine is stalemated (or even conquered), the next country down the line has better security the more resistance we put up in Ukraine.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    My reasoning if pretty simple: if a war is actively going on in Europe, European security is reduced. If a war is not actively going on in Europe, European security is increased (or at least stabilized). It's a weird inversion to me to think that prolonging a large land war somehow actually increases this hypothetical security, which it demonstrably doesn't as weapons flood the region and refugees flee their homes. >By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. To this point on Moldova ... Probably less than 1% of Americans could find Moldova on a map without googling. Probably less than 5% of congressmen. Pretending that it's existence outside of Russia's sphere of influence is some critical part of this war effort is downright preposterous. Maybe that's how some people steelman it, but I don't buy it. Moreover, pretending that Moldova is a critical part of the US sphere of influence is even more preposterous. Again, I don't disagree that degrading/destroying Russian combat power has some benefits for the US' ability to project power abroad (i.e. in the Pacific), and some benefits for weapons systems evaluation. I just simply don't buy these contortions that the US security sphere extends globally and any country that has weak sovereignty is now a US protectorate. ----- Something appears to have happened post Cold War (probably related to 9/11 and the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) that has caused a lot of Americans (apologies if you are not one) to reflexively want to "do something!!" about this war. It's, I think, started to jade a longer term historical perspective about why nations go to war in the first place and leads to situations like this, where we have to actively come up with reasons to continue a war in Europe because ending it would be "bad". If the war ended tomorrow with the current borders as they are today, it's not like the history books would think of Russia as the good guys or a neutral party.

remarkEon 3y ago

Right, I'm quite amenable to the idea that this war is functioning as a gigantic test bed for modern 21st century weapons systems, and we are - generally speaking - in a WWI scenario where a lot of new technology is clashing for the first time and we don't know what beats what. That's all well and good, but it has some interesting moral implications because it presupposes that we (the US) are keeping this war going intentionally as a means to allow our defense industrial base to tool up for a war in the pacific and test new technologies against the old Cold War adversary. If that is the reason, we should just be honest about it. Prior to 2016 Ukraine didn't exactly get the "bastion of freedom and democracy" treatment that it gets in the US press today, which has left me pretty skeptical of how its discussed in general. The war goes on if and only if the US continues funding it which suggest to me the opposite of your point, as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe. At what point do we "have enough data" and can stop the bloodshed?

dragontamer 3y ago
> as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe Could you please explain your reasoning? The fewer tanks Russia has, the less they're able to mess around with other countries. That means fewer Russo-Georgian War (2008) events, because Russia's military is just left weaker overall. We need to ensure that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to 2023) is the last destabilizing push Russia does in the near future. Sure, they can rebuild later, but we can make that rebuilding as costly as possible (ex: sanctions on chips and other strategic parts that they need to actually build these weapons). Russia's economy is not like ours. We can certainly outspend them in production. We know that they're using 152mm shells at a rate exceeding 155mm shells (because their shells are less accurate than our shells). And Russia's wartime economy is weaker than ours, they simply don't have as much production as us either (the combined might of NATO: not just USA but also Germany, Poland, UK, etc. etc). The war-materials they use in Ukraine they cannot use in other countries. This will prevent another Georgia-like or Ukraine-like situation, because Russia simply won't have the strength to mess around anymore. ---------------------- EDIT: In particular, we know that Moldova is on Russia's crosshairs. By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. Even if Ukraine is stalemated (or even conquered), the next country down the line has better security the more resistance we put up in Ukraine.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  My reasoning if pretty simple: if a war is actively going on in Europe, European security is reduced. If a war is not actively going on in Europe, European security is increased (or at least stabilized). It's a weird inversion to me to think that prolonging a large land war somehow actually increases this hypothetical security, which it demonstrably doesn't as weapons flood the region and refugees flee their homes. >By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. To this point on Moldova ... Probably less than 1% of Americans could find Moldova on a map without googling. Probably less than 5% of congressmen. Pretending that it's existence outside of Russia's sphere of influence is some critical part of this war effort is downright preposterous. Maybe that's how some people steelman it, but I don't buy it. Moreover, pretending that Moldova is a critical part of the US sphere of influence is even more preposterous. Again, I don't disagree that degrading/destroying Russian combat power has some benefits for the US' ability to project power abroad (i.e. in the Pacific), and some benefits for weapons systems evaluation. I just simply don't buy these contortions that the US security sphere extends globally and any country that has weak sovereignty is now a US protectorate. ----- Something appears to have happened post Cold War (probably related to 9/11 and the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) that has caused a lot of Americans (apologies if you are not one) to reflexively want to "do something!!" about this war. It's, I think, started to jade a longer term historical perspective about why nations go to war in the first place and leads to situations like this, where we have to actively come up with reasons to continue a war in Europe because ending it would be "bad". If the war ended tomorrow with the current borders as they are today, it's not like the history books would think of Russia as the good guys or a neutral party.