13 ms·

I’m surprised not to see any comments on Ukraine here yet. USA and the west focussing on ‘super weapons’ like f22, f35, super carriers etc etc. and Ukraine is

I’m surprised not to see any comments on Ukraine here yet. USA and the west focussing on ‘super weapons’ like f22, f35, super carriers etc etc. and Ukraine is losing the war because they don’t have enough bullets and mortars, and we don’t have enough factories to increase production.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Or because we don't give them F35s, long-range artillery and 400 Abrams tanks. In Iraq 400 Abrams did a good job from what I'm told.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  In Iraq those tanks were already old and crucially didn’t have night vision so they just blew them up in the night. We did give them long range missiles. And now quite a lot of tanks. But - and this a has been admitted to by the pentagon - they didn’t think though or provide for servicing them. The poor buggers have all these different western tanks with parts that don’t match. And the Abram’s is powered literally by a jet engine and needs constant servicing. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so completely tragic.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Indeed. The support has been incredibly spotty and half-assed throughout.
    - jonplackett 3y ago
      The most basic problem is that Russia have treated it as an existential threat. Mobilised their entire economy, and it turns out, had been planning for this for years. The west just gave Ukraine all their spares and didn’t make any kind of plan for what to do next. It’s a complete failure of leadership and forthought and we’re really just lucky that it _isnt_ an existential threat for us, because we’d be really screwed if it was.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        Not treating it like an existential threat is unfortunately, making it more likely it will become just that.
- OJFord 3y ago
  Would they fare better on that terrain than the Challenger 2s they do have? https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/03/12/unstoppable-russian-advantage-challenger-tank-keeps-getting-stuck/ https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/03/12/unstoppable-russian...
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Good point... for such conditions they should probably use CV90s or something similar. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cv90 https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cv90
- rainworld 3y ago
  [flagged]
matkoniecz 3y ago
Not really sure about point being made here. Ukraine has no f22, f35, super carriers etc etc. If it would have them, then it would stomp over invading army.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  Hey. The point is that the USA focussed on that. At the expense of keeping basic factories running making mortars and bullets - something Russia has not done. They still have all their soviet era factory capacity running. And it’s those basic things that turn out to matter a lot in a long multi year war.
bevekspldnw 3y ago
Yes and no. To some degree with the US this is true, but the US also produces enough small arms to keep several small scale wars going, just ask Mexico and South America. Europe on the other hand unilaterally disarmed after the Berlin Wall fell because they couldn’t anticipate a world where Russia reverted to historical form and the US wasn’t carrying NATO on its back. Now they’ve got Putin on one side, potentially Trump pulling out of NATO on the other, oops.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  The problem is that neither Ukraine nor Israel are small scale wars. They’re both dropping crazy amounts of bombs and needing crazy amounts of anti air missiles. Meanwhile the US is still meant to be ‘pivoting to Asia’ so wants ammo for that. It’s an established fact that Ukraine is running out of everything and we can’t make more. Even CNN now reporting it. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery...
throwaway11460 3y ago
Ukraine would be in Moscow in 3 days if they had this technology.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  Even f16s are too fragile to give to ukraine. They can only land on perfect runways because their engines are slung low. Most of the modern USA weapons only work under condition of being totally dominant and being able to have your supply chain work perfectly. This story really is a very good analogy. One further point - and this is what makes this war even more tragic - say Ukraine do get all the super weapons annd they do work as expected, and are on their merry way to Moscow, what would Russia do? Most likely their military doct9rine of dropping some tactical or not-so-tactical nukes. As Sean Bean knows, one does not simply invade a nuclear power.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    It's a tough problem. It's not very palatable to just fold either. The Russian government can always wave the nuke card, it's not going away, but neither will their ambitions.
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting they should. But the parent is acting like the technology wouldn't make a difference - it'd make all the difference. Ukraine controls a lot of their territory, they have a lot of well paved runways to operate out of.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- zrn900 3y ago
  Yeah. Like how they got to moscow in 3 days when the earlier wunderwaffe were provided to them... This delirious out of touchness is making the West lose the war.
  - 3y ago

actionfromafar 3y ago

Or because we don't give them F35s, long-range artillery and 400 Abrams tanks. In Iraq 400 Abrams did a good job from what I'm told.

jonplackett 3y ago
In Iraq those tanks were already old and crucially didn’t have night vision so they just blew them up in the night. We did give them long range missiles. And now quite a lot of tanks. But - and this a has been admitted to by the pentagon - they didn’t think though or provide for servicing them. The poor buggers have all these different western tanks with parts that don’t match. And the Abram’s is powered literally by a jet engine and needs constant servicing. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so completely tragic.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Indeed. The support has been incredibly spotty and half-assed throughout.
  - jonplackett 3y ago
    The most basic problem is that Russia have treated it as an existential threat. Mobilised their entire economy, and it turns out, had been planning for this for years. The west just gave Ukraine all their spares and didn’t make any kind of plan for what to do next. It’s a complete failure of leadership and forthought and we’re really just lucky that it _isnt_ an existential threat for us, because we’d be really screwed if it was.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      Not treating it like an existential threat is unfortunately, making it more likely it will become just that.
OJFord 3y ago
Would they fare better on that terrain than the Challenger 2s they do have? https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/03/12/unstoppable-russian-advantage-challenger-tank-keeps-getting-stuck/ https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/03/12/unstoppable-russian...
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Good point... for such conditions they should probably use CV90s or something similar. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cv90 https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cv90
rainworld 3y ago
[flagged]

matkoniecz 3y ago

Not really sure about point being made here. Ukraine has no f22, f35, super carriers etc etc. If it would have them, then it would stomp over invading army.

jonplackett 3y ago
Hey. The point is that the USA focussed on that. At the expense of keeping basic factories running making mortars and bullets - something Russia has not done. They still have all their soviet era factory capacity running. And it’s those basic things that turn out to matter a lot in a long multi year war.

bevekspldnw 3y ago

Yes and no. To some degree with the US this is true, but the US also produces enough small arms to keep several small scale wars going, just ask Mexico and South America. Europe on the other hand unilaterally disarmed after the Berlin Wall fell because they couldn’t anticipate a world where Russia reverted to historical form and the US wasn’t carrying NATO on its back. Now they’ve got Putin on one side, potentially Trump pulling out of NATO on the other, oops.

jonplackett 3y ago
The problem is that neither Ukraine nor Israel are small scale wars. They’re both dropping crazy amounts of bombs and needing crazy amounts of anti air missiles. Meanwhile the US is still meant to be ‘pivoting to Asia’ so wants ammo for that. It’s an established fact that Ukraine is running out of everything and we can’t make more. Even CNN now reporting it. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery...

throwaway11460 3y ago

Ukraine would be in Moscow in 3 days if they had this technology.

jonplackett 3y ago
Even f16s are too fragile to give to ukraine. They can only land on perfect runways because their engines are slung low. Most of the modern USA weapons only work under condition of being totally dominant and being able to have your supply chain work perfectly. This story really is a very good analogy. One further point - and this is what makes this war even more tragic - say Ukraine do get all the super weapons annd they do work as expected, and are on their merry way to Moscow, what would Russia do? Most likely their military doct9rine of dropping some tactical or not-so-tactical nukes. As Sean Bean knows, one does not simply invade a nuclear power.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  It's a tough problem. It's not very palatable to just fold either. The Russian government can always wave the nuke card, it's not going away, but neither will their ambitions.
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting they should. But the parent is acting like the technology wouldn't make a difference - it'd make all the difference. Ukraine controls a lot of their territory, they have a lot of well paved runways to operate out of.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
zrn900 3y ago
Yeah. Like how they got to moscow in 3 days when the earlier wunderwaffe were provided to them... This delirious out of touchness is making the West lose the war.
- 3y ago