6 ms·

Best course of action at this time would be to properly arm Ukraine.

by petre 2y ago

andrewflnr 2y ago
It's the right thing to do anyway, but especially as a way to respond to Russia.
johnisgood 2y ago
Which happened and kept happening for a long time now, including the US sending billions of dollars and weapons (among other things). That did not help, did it?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Which happened and kept happening for a long time now We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    I heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue. No, it's not. For small-scale war, we are amply stocked. For large-scale war, stocks don't matter, production does.
    - Hamuko 2y ago
      Surely if the US was actually in a situation where it was attacked and had to defend itself, they’d be able to do that. If nothing else, the civilians have a whole lot of guns too and attacks on the US (think Pearl Harbor, 911) have a massive rallying effect. As far as I know, the biggest thing preventing a civilian semi-automatic from being converted to an automatic firearm is the risk of a long prison stint.
      - jonplackett 2y ago
        The USA is a giant ocean away in any direction from any meaningful threat. No-one is invading the USA. Everyone will be nuked to oblivion before that would ever come to pass.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      It is not true. The US has THOUSANDS of tanks and THOUSANDS of Bradleys. We have sent Ukraine 32 Abrams and 300 Bradleys. For reference, Australia was able to swing sending Ukraine 50 Abrams. The US has THOUSANDS of F16s, and is starting to build up thousands of F35s. We have full munition stockpiles for all missions for both platforms. We gave Ukraine about 1000 various "armored vehicles", like hundreds of M113s which are nearly useless on a modern battlefield except as glorified trucks. We sent Ukraine 200 "Strykers" that we considered a failure in the middle east. We sent a few hundred MRAPs. We sent 20 HIMARs systems, out of over 600 built. The US sent only a single patriot battery. I encourage you to go look at the numbers the US put together for the various gulf wars. We sent a trickle of supplies. The only substantial supply we offered was 3 million 155mm artillery rounds, which is a large fraction of our stockpile but the US (before Ukraine) did not care for tube artillery, preferring instead to lob JDAMs and other air launched munitions. This is also only a problem because American Industry refuses to invest in increasing production capacity unless we bribe them, you know, just like capitalism says it should work. The people who said we were harming our weapons stocks were lying. Reconsider who shared that information with you.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    No, but it's a good way to put some fear in our NATO allies and it is a good way to waste a bunch of Russian resources.
- libertine 2y ago
  > That did not help, did it? I'm sorry, but this is the type of claim of someone who gets news from the Joe Rogan podcast. Ukraine managed to defend its capital from annexation, liberated thousands of miles of territory, and managed to improve its protection of civilians thanks to air defense systems, has lower casualty rates than Russia, and now is starting to create a buffer zone into Russian territory. How isn't this a sign that it didn't help? Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. The drip feed has been one of the worse strategic decisions in this conflict, almost like there's no strategy in place. But Ukraine needs to develop its deterrence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    I do not get news from Joe Rogan podcasts, and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to claim so. Something that people seem to not realize is that the Minsk Agreements refer to two accords (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, specifically in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved. With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress, given his emphasis on unconventional approaches to negotiation and relationships with key stakeholders, potentially (and hopefully) providing a better opportunity to bring an end to the long-stalemated conflict. > Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. This protracted conflict has already pushed global economies toward collapse, with ordinary taxpayers shouldering the financial burden of a war they never chose to participate in. It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.
- petre 2y ago
  Billions of dollars worth of Gulf War era weapons some of which they need to replenish anyway. It actually did help a lot but it's apparently still not enough to win this war. I beleieve that the US strategy is to slowly grind the Russians, supplying Ukraine with just enough weapons so that both sides are fighting a positional warfare. The trouble is this strategy is not working and Russia has already escalated by involving DPRK troops.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
CapricornNoble 2y ago
What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? The entire Western world doesn't produce enough Patriot missiles to meet Ukraine's air defense needs, just as one critical example. We are aiming for a global production target of 750 missiles/year ( https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795 ).... Russia has fired about 6,000 missiles and large drones per year ( https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-over-2-000-russian-missiles-downed-over-ukraine-since-start-of-all-out-war/ https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-over-2-000-russ... ). You can send Ukraine all of the F-16s in the world, it won't matter if there aren't enough Ukrainian pilots with the linguistic skills to get them through the Western training pipelines. The reality is that the West can't make the math work at a level of commitment/investment that it is willing to accept. To say nothing of the steadily-worsening problem of "lack of living, breathing Ukrainian men willing to do the fighting in the first place"...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? More long-range offensive weapons and clearance to hit sites in Russia. Let Israel know that we wouldn't mind them taking out the Iranian drone factories supplying Russia.
  - jonplackett 2y ago
    Even the pentagons own assessments say this won’t make much difference.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Even the pentagons own assessments say this won’t make much difference I mean yes, it’s also what the press secretary has been saying. They’ve been wrong at every step to date because Biden has been wrong about this.
    - fractallyte 2y ago
      The Pentagon made a number of flawed assessments, each one upended by Ukraine's determined actions. And let's use some Feynman-style common sense: taking out airfields, ammunition depots, and logistics WILL help Ukraine's defense immensely. I would go further and question which clowns are running the show in the Pentagon, but maybe I should keep my cool over that matter.

Best course of action at this time would be to properly arm Ukraine.

by petre 2y ago

Best course of action at this time would be to properly arm Ukraine.

andrewflnr 2y ago

It's the right thing to do anyway, but especially as a way to respond to Russia.

johnisgood 2y ago

Which happened and kept happening for a long time now, including the US sending billions of dollars and weapons (among other things). That did not help, did it?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Which happened and kept happening for a long time now We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  I heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue. No, it's not. For small-scale war, we are amply stocked. For large-scale war, stocks don't matter, production does.
  - Hamuko 2y ago
    Surely if the US was actually in a situation where it was attacked and had to defend itself, they’d be able to do that. If nothing else, the civilians have a whole lot of guns too and attacks on the US (think Pearl Harbor, 911) have a massive rallying effect. As far as I know, the biggest thing preventing a civilian semi-automatic from being converted to an automatic firearm is the risk of a long prison stint.
    - jonplackett 2y ago
      The USA is a giant ocean away in any direction from any meaningful threat. No-one is invading the USA. Everyone will be nuked to oblivion before that would ever come to pass.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    It is not true. The US has THOUSANDS of tanks and THOUSANDS of Bradleys. We have sent Ukraine 32 Abrams and 300 Bradleys. For reference, Australia was able to swing sending Ukraine 50 Abrams. The US has THOUSANDS of F16s, and is starting to build up thousands of F35s. We have full munition stockpiles for all missions for both platforms. We gave Ukraine about 1000 various "armored vehicles", like hundreds of M113s which are nearly useless on a modern battlefield except as glorified trucks. We sent Ukraine 200 "Strykers" that we considered a failure in the middle east. We sent a few hundred MRAPs. We sent 20 HIMARs systems, out of over 600 built. The US sent only a single patriot battery. I encourage you to go look at the numbers the US put together for the various gulf wars. We sent a trickle of supplies. The only substantial supply we offered was 3 million 155mm artillery rounds, which is a large fraction of our stockpile but the US (before Ukraine) did not care for tube artillery, preferring instead to lob JDAMs and other air launched munitions. This is also only a problem because American Industry refuses to invest in increasing production capacity unless we bribe them, you know, just like capitalism says it should work. The people who said we were harming our weapons stocks were lying. Reconsider who shared that information with you.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  No, but it's a good way to put some fear in our NATO allies and it is a good way to waste a bunch of Russian resources.
libertine 2y ago
> That did not help, did it? I'm sorry, but this is the type of claim of someone who gets news from the Joe Rogan podcast. Ukraine managed to defend its capital from annexation, liberated thousands of miles of territory, and managed to improve its protection of civilians thanks to air defense systems, has lower casualty rates than Russia, and now is starting to create a buffer zone into Russian territory. How isn't this a sign that it didn't help? Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. The drip feed has been one of the worse strategic decisions in this conflict, almost like there's no strategy in place. But Ukraine needs to develop its deterrence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 2y ago
  I do not get news from Joe Rogan podcasts, and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to claim so. Something that people seem to not realize is that the Minsk Agreements refer to two accords (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, specifically in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved. With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress, given his emphasis on unconventional approaches to negotiation and relationships with key stakeholders, potentially (and hopefully) providing a better opportunity to bring an end to the long-stalemated conflict. > Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. This protracted conflict has already pushed global economies toward collapse, with ordinary taxpayers shouldering the financial burden of a war they never chose to participate in. It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.
petre 2y ago
Billions of dollars worth of Gulf War era weapons some of which they need to replenish anyway. It actually did help a lot but it's apparently still not enough to win this war. I beleieve that the US strategy is to slowly grind the Russians, supplying Ukraine with just enough weapons so that both sides are fighting a positional warfare. The trouble is this strategy is not working and Russia has already escalated by involving DPRK troops.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

CapricornNoble 2y ago

What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? The entire Western world doesn't produce enough Patriot missiles to meet Ukraine's air defense needs, just as one critical example. We are aiming for a global production target of 750 missiles/year ( https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795 ).... Russia has fired about 6,000 missiles and large drones per year ( https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-over-2-000-russian-missiles-downed-over-ukraine-since-start-of-all-out-war/ https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-over-2-000-russ... ). You can send Ukraine all of the F-16s in the world, it won't matter if there aren't enough Ukrainian pilots with the linguistic skills to get them through the Western training pipelines. The reality is that the West can't make the math work at a level of commitment/investment that it is willing to accept. To say nothing of the steadily-worsening problem of "lack of living, breathing Ukrainian men willing to do the fighting in the first place"...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? More long-range offensive weapons and clearance to hit sites in Russia. Let Israel know that we wouldn't mind them taking out the Iranian drone factories supplying Russia.
- jonplackett 2y ago
  Even the pentagons own assessments say this won’t make much difference.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Even the pentagons own assessments say this won’t make much difference I mean yes, it’s also what the press secretary has been saying. They’ve been wrong at every step to date because Biden has been wrong about this.
  - fractallyte 2y ago
    The Pentagon made a number of flawed assessments, each one upended by Ukraine's determined actions. And let's use some Feynman-style common sense: taking out airfields, ammunition depots, and logistics WILL help Ukraine's defense immensely. I would go further and question which clowns are running the show in the Pentagon, but maybe I should keep my cool over that matter.