3 ms·

Russia has about 200 Su-34, Su-35 fighter jets, 7 A-50 planes

7 points by jdmark 2y ago

ethbr1 2y ago
This is the thing I don't get about those opposed to sending military aid to Ukraine. You have a country, who is willing to spend lives, fighting a defensive war, against an aggressor that invaded their internationally-acknowledged territory and demonstrated themselves a regional threat, and is putting aid to good use reducing the military of said threat... What's the point of defense budgets, if you can't put tools of war to use? The only arguments against seem to be "We can't afford it" (most of the west can) and "We need it for our own defense" (most of the west is defending against the very threat in question).
- EA-3167 2y ago
  The arguments about cost are specious, this is a purely political debate with very little in the way of substance, and loads of tribalism. Most people engaged in the debate are seemingly ignorant of the facts, and in any case, apathetic to them.
- elintknower 2y ago
  They're out of lives to spend and frankly, they should accept a diplomatic solution. Also, ethically it's insane to just think it's okay to print dollars to shred ukrainians when "winning" just means they still lose land and erase multiple generations.
  - wumeow 2y ago
    > They're out of lives to spend and frankly, they should accept a diplomatic solution. Maybe, but that’s not an argument against giving them military aid.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Ukraine is far from depleting their manpower, since they explicitly tailored their initial draft to older people. In fact, they just lowered their draft age from 27 to 25 [0]. They realize they're fighting a demographic war for independence, and so are attempted to protect their future population from the worst battlefield attrition. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/world/europe/zelensky-ukraine-military-draft-age.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/world/europe/zelensky-ukr...
- Someone 2y ago
  Other potential arguments against are (not necessarily strong ones, certainly looking at it in partial hindsight): - “We are not a party in this conflict” (should we aid every country “willing to spend lives, fighting a defensive war, against an aggressor that invaded their internationally-acknowledged territory”?) - “Why lose face supporting the loser in this conflict? It will only increase suffering and cost us” (If Zelensky had accepted the offer to be evacuated from Kyiv, I think this would have been a rapid Russian victory) - “we cannot afford or do not want to get in conflict with the aggressor” - “our rules of engagement do not allow us to do this” (for example, NATO’s goal explicitly is to resist armed attack of NATO members)
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Those are arguments that are made, but I don't think they're particularly strong. >> “We are not a party in this conflict” (should we aid every country “willing to spend lives, fighting a defensive war, against an aggressor that invaded their internationally-acknowledged territory”?) I think so, iff... (a) doing so does not increase the likelihood of conflict with the aggressor and (b) we have a reasonable assumption that the aggressor may be a future military opponent. To state it bluntly, fighting using someone else's lives is cheaper than using your own population. If the Ukrainians are willing to fight, why not let them use our material to do so? >> “Why lose face supporting the loser in this conflict? It will only increase suffering and cost us” (If Zelensky had accepted the offer to be evacuated from Kyiv, I think this would have been a rapid Russian victory) It would only be losing face if the battle were one-sided. Thus far, when provisioned, the Ukrainian military has proven capable of inflicting outsized casualties on the Russian military. To the article's point, if the rate of Russian aviation attrition continues, by the end of 2024 the entire Russian air force is going to be in a sorry state. With limited ability to recapitalize (economically and technologically). I'm aware the Russians have a historical military tradition of throwing as many corpses as it takes against the enemy to win, but one wouldn't exactly call that losing face. >> “we cannot afford or do not want to get in conflict with the aggressor” If we can afford to provision our own military for a conflict with Russia, we can afford to provision those who are actively fighting Russia, no? And the chances of conflict are zero, absent existential threat to Russia (read: Ukraine invades Russian territory). Russia has no interest in tangling with NATO, especially a re-armed NATO, because Putin's primary goals are (a) regime survival & (b) legacy. He hasn't fought battles he knows he will lose, and NATO is a very different opponent than Ukraine or Chechnya. >> “our rules of engagement do not allow us to do this” (for example, NATO’s goal explicitly is to resist armed attack of NATO members) This may be an argument for Germany or Japan, but I don't believe other states have political or constitutional qualms. And the Germans, well, their armaments industry still seemed find customers over the decades, despite their restrictions...
- xenospn 2y ago
  [flagged]

7 points by jdmark 2y ago

This is the thing I don't get about those opposed to sending military aid to Ukraine. You have a country, who is willing to spend lives, fighting a defensive war, against an aggressor that invaded their internationally-acknowledged territory and demonstrated themselves a regional threat, and is putting aid to good use reducing the military of said threat... What's the point of defense budgets, if you can't put tools of war to use? The only arguments against seem to be "We can't afford it" (most of the west can) and "We need it for our own defense" (most of the west is defending against the very threat in question).

EA-3167 2y ago
The arguments about cost are specious, this is a purely political debate with very little in the way of substance, and loads of tribalism. Most people engaged in the debate are seemingly ignorant of the facts, and in any case, apathetic to them.
elintknower 2y ago
They're out of lives to spend and frankly, they should accept a diplomatic solution. Also, ethically it's insane to just think it's okay to print dollars to shred ukrainians when "winning" just means they still lose land and erase multiple generations.
- wumeow 2y ago
  > They're out of lives to spend and frankly, they should accept a diplomatic solution. Maybe, but that’s not an argument against giving them military aid.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Ukraine is far from depleting their manpower, since they explicitly tailored their initial draft to older people. In fact, they just lowered their draft age from 27 to 25 [0]. They realize they're fighting a demographic war for independence, and so are attempted to protect their future population from the worst battlefield attrition. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/world/europe/zelensky-ukraine-military-draft-age.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/world/europe/zelensky-ukr...
Someone 2y ago
Other potential arguments against are (not necessarily strong ones, certainly looking at it in partial hindsight): - “We are not a party in this conflict” (should we aid every country “willing to spend lives, fighting a defensive war, against an aggressor that invaded their internationally-acknowledged territory”?) - “Why lose face supporting the loser in this conflict? It will only increase suffering and cost us” (If Zelensky had accepted the offer to be evacuated from Kyiv, I think this would have been a rapid Russian victory) - “we cannot afford or do not want to get in conflict with the aggressor” - “our rules of engagement do not allow us to do this” (for example, NATO’s goal explicitly is to resist armed attack of NATO members)
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Those are arguments that are made, but I don't think they're particularly strong. >> “We are not a party in this conflict” (should we aid every country “willing to spend lives, fighting a defensive war, against an aggressor that invaded their internationally-acknowledged territory”?) I think so, iff... (a) doing so does not increase the likelihood of conflict with the aggressor and (b) we have a reasonable assumption that the aggressor may be a future military opponent. To state it bluntly, fighting using someone else's lives is cheaper than using your own population. If the Ukrainians are willing to fight, why not let them use our material to do so? >> “Why lose face supporting the loser in this conflict? It will only increase suffering and cost us” (If Zelensky had accepted the offer to be evacuated from Kyiv, I think this would have been a rapid Russian victory) It would only be losing face if the battle were one-sided. Thus far, when provisioned, the Ukrainian military has proven capable of inflicting outsized casualties on the Russian military. To the article's point, if the rate of Russian aviation attrition continues, by the end of 2024 the entire Russian air force is going to be in a sorry state. With limited ability to recapitalize (economically and technologically). I'm aware the Russians have a historical military tradition of throwing as many corpses as it takes against the enemy to win, but one wouldn't exactly call that losing face. >> “we cannot afford or do not want to get in conflict with the aggressor” If we can afford to provision our own military for a conflict with Russia, we can afford to provision those who are actively fighting Russia, no? And the chances of conflict are zero, absent existential threat to Russia (read: Ukraine invades Russian territory). Russia has no interest in tangling with NATO, especially a re-armed NATO, because Putin's primary goals are (a) regime survival & (b) legacy. He hasn't fought battles he knows he will lose, and NATO is a very different opponent than Ukraine or Chechnya. >> “our rules of engagement do not allow us to do this” (for example, NATO’s goal explicitly is to resist armed attack of NATO members) This may be an argument for Germany or Japan, but I don't believe other states have political or constitutional qualms. And the Germans, well, their armaments industry still seemed find customers over the decades, despite their restrictions...
xenospn 2y ago
[flagged]