4 ms·

> They're probably both fighting at maximum capability already. Absolutely not. In my view, NATO should be supplying 1M+ artillery shells per month, so that U

by throwaway2037 2y ago

> They're probably both fighting at maximum capability already. Absolutely not. In my view, NATO should be supplying 1M+ artillery shells per month, so that UA can unleash scorched earth tactics on Russian positions inside UA territories.

ben_w 2y ago
> In my view, NATO should be supplying 1M+ artillery shells per month, so that UA can unleash scorched earth tactics on Russian positions inside UA territories Sure, but that's not Russia or Ukraine, that's us as outsiders. If Ukraine has secret weapons to fall back on in the scenario that — as per the comment I'm replying to — the US stops giving them weapons, why aren't they already using them? Likewise if Russia has any significant number of other weapons they could actually use*, why did they not use them already? * while Russia may have plenty of unused submarines, they're not going to be of any significance beyond the handful of SLBMs that might spook the rest of the world into thinking it's World-War-Three-O'Clock
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Because the US would withdraw weapons access immediately and - there was a tit- for tat situation implicitly, you attack my refinery, i attack your dam. But moscow has run out of tat. They have destroyed all they can destroy, after the 20th its payback time.
jonasenordin 2y ago
This expression is often misused, it seems. It sounds so cool, 'scorched-earth tactics'... like 'medieval', 'fire-and-brimstone', 'kill it with fire', etcetera. Maybe read up on the specifics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth And BTW, there just aren't any 1M+ shells per month to send. Maybe in 2028 or something. Production takes time to build. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ammunition-ukraine/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ammunition-ukraine/ (Aug-24)

ben_w 2y ago

> In my view, NATO should be supplying 1M+ artillery shells per month, so that UA can unleash scorched earth tactics on Russian positions inside UA territories Sure, but that's not Russia or Ukraine, that's us as outsiders. If Ukraine has secret weapons to fall back on in the scenario that — as per the comment I'm replying to — the US stops giving them weapons, why aren't they already using them? Likewise if Russia has any significant number of other weapons they could actually use*, why did they not use them already? * while Russia may have plenty of unused submarines, they're not going to be of any significance beyond the handful of SLBMs that might spook the rest of the world into thinking it's World-War-Three-O'Clock

InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Because the US would withdraw weapons access immediately and - there was a tit- for tat situation implicitly, you attack my refinery, i attack your dam. But moscow has run out of tat. They have destroyed all they can destroy, after the 20th its payback time.

jonasenordin 2y ago

This expression is often misused, it seems. It sounds so cool, 'scorched-earth tactics'... like 'medieval', 'fire-and-brimstone', 'kill it with fire', etcetera. Maybe read up on the specifics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth And BTW, there just aren't any 1M+ shells per month to send. Maybe in 2028 or something. Production takes time to build. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ammunition-ukraine/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ammunition-ukraine/ (Aug-24)