5 ms·

Loans are not the same as heavy weaponry and intelligence. Other American administrations have been spending decades begging NATO allies to keep their militari

Loans are not the same as heavy weaponry and intelligence. Other American administrations have been spending decades begging NATO allies to keep their militaries up to a higher standard. Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order.

newhotelowner 2y ago
Isn't it heavy weaponry is mostly the junk that US military didn't want to use. Mostly expired weapons.
- PartiallyTyped 2y ago
  It's stuff that would actually cost to trash, the us is at least a generation ahead of that equipment.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    >the us is at least a generation ahead of that equipment. Can you list the in service equipment that is a generation ahead of M777 and ATACMs? I sure wish we could get some of these wiz-bang fires assets out here in the First Island Chain.
    - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
      While a replace for M777 may not be in service, the US had stopped manufacturing and continued only after Ukraine requested it. This indicates that it isn’t an integral tool to the US’ arsenal, and has been superseded. > November 2024 BAE announced the opening of a new artillery factory in Sheffield during 2025 to resume production of complete M777 artillery pieces for Ukraine and to help fulfil orders for fresh titanium cast spare parts from the US supplementing its US parts factory which also resumed production during 2024. Similarly, ATACMs production was also halted. Really, your question, tone and phrasing really indicates that you are not really looking for an actual conversation but rather a gotcha moment. It’s worth noting that variants of weapons and exist, and sending older ones to Ukraine does not imply that it is getting access to newest and greatest.
      - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
        I made some grammar errors when i was writing this — i was on the phone. The gist is there; both weapons had their manufacturing ceased which means either the US had enough stockpiles or they were superseded. The weapons were either sold to Ukraine or other countries, and it was only after Ukraine requested more of them that production started again, which implies the US had no need to produce them because they were superseded in US’ arsenal. Furthermore, just because Ukraine received X weapon, doesn’t mean they received the latest and greatest variant that’s in use — they might have very well received a previous generation of said weapon. Asking which weapon or system replaced them as is in service does not look like discussing in good faith simply because the systems might change or newer variants may be used. Do better.
        CapricornNoble 2y ago
        >which implies the US had no need to produce them because they were superseded in US’ arsenal. No, it does not imply that they were superseded. It means that the stockpile of weapons and spare parts was considered large enough to support the US's expected burn rate of material. Supplying Ukraine in a peer conflict changed that calculus, requiring new production to keep parts supplies above a certain desired threshold. The M777 is proving to be....not that reliable in the harsh conditions of the Eastern Front.[1][2] >Furthermore, just because Ukraine received X weapon, doesn’t mean they received the latest and greatest variant that’s in use — they might have very well received a previous generation of said weapon. This is supposition on your part....and it's WRONG. That's my point. You're simply stating things that are factually incorrect. Ukraine received M777A2s[3], the most modern variant of the M777 in service with US forces.[4] >Asking which weapon or system replaced them as is in service does not look like discussing in good faith simply because the systems might change or newer variants may be used. >Do better. It's not a question of "variants", it's not a question of whether systems "might change", and it's not an issue of grammar errors. You made a false statement, perhaps unknowingly. I asked you to clarify with specifics, perhaps you know some weapon system I'm not aware of (despite having a rough idea of the IOC fielding plan for Marine fires assets in my AO over the next several years), and you've now made 2 posts bereft of details or references to obfuscate the fact that your original post was completely wrong and baseless. All this does is lower HN's already-low signal-to-noise ratio on military subjects. US Army and USMC towed Field Artillery batteries are equipped with M777A2, the same weapons platform and variant we sent to Ukraine. We are not "a generation ahead" of the equipment sent to Ukraine. Period. [1] https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-is-burning-through-155mm-m777-howitzer-barrels-so-fast-the-u-s-army-cant-keep-up https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-is-burning-through-155mm-m7... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/ukraine-artillery-breakdown.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/ukraine-artillery-brea... [3] https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/m777a2-howitzer-proves-to-be-the-best-in-1731925964.html https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/m777a2-howitzer-proves-to-be... [4] https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/ https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    There are some cases where that is true, there are some cases where Ukraine got the same stuff that is current with the US, and there are cases where Ukraine was literally the first user of new tech (the GLSDB, for instance.) One reason for this mix is that the Russo-Ukrainian war has defied some US expectations of what future wars it might need to deal with might look like, making previously-retired equipment relevant again (the drone war has made a lot of retired anti-aircraft tech more relevant, because relative cheap short-range missiles and short range anti-aircraft guns are a lot more useful against drones than they are against modern fighters, for instance) and, in other cases driving new weapons development.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  It's the stuff from the 80s and 90s designed to turn back a Russian land invasion in Europe. It's proven to be perfectly adequate for the job.
lukan 2y ago
"Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order." I would think, the US going against the International Court of Justice, threatening allies over land and making deals with a official emperor is doing worse.
- philipov 2y ago
  I hadn't heard about anyone becoming officially an emperor recently. Who are you referring to?
  - lukan 2y ago
    Putin obviously. And no, "formally" he is surely a elected president. Just one who talks about and compares himself to the great emperors of russian past a lot and acts pretty much the same.
    - philipov 2y ago
      Okay, so when you said official, you meant unofficial. Got it. I'm with you completely on the rest of it.
      - lukan 2y ago
        No, I meant de facto official. Putin is de facto a emperor, just not de jure. (but not need to further do pedantic semantics ..)
        justinclift 2y ago
        That's now how "official" works. ;)
        emmelaich 2y ago
        Keep up with times man. "de facto" now connotes "de jure" just as "literally" connotes metaphorically.
abeppu 2y ago
It does seem there's been plenty of actual arms, vehicles etc in military aid from European countries to Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain... And the share of NATO members meeting a 2% of GDP target is now a majority, after recent marked increases. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...
cluckindan 2y ago
You are echoing Russian propaganda. European states are not expecting money back from Ukraine.
- fooker 2y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-france-minerals-rare-earths-defense-weapons-lecornu-e5fc5fa487d0b8fd884c7783356812d4 https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-france-minerals-rare-eart...
- LAC-Tech 2y ago
  You realise in a propaganda war, parts of each sides propaganda are bound to be objectively true, right? It's not like one side just lies and the other side just tells the truth. This isn't a movie.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
What i do not get is the lack of understanding that contractsecurity goes with the western world order too. Investments worldwide are as safe as a owing a mc donalds in russia, in a multipolar autorian world. How a whole world is willing to risk their retirement funds and pensions like this, for peanuts..
kergonath 2y ago
> Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order. That is partially true, but the world order would be in tatters because of Trump, regardless of the military spending of the rest of NATO.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Trump is merely another step in the bar being lowered. And make no mistake, it can go lower. The Western acceptance of authoritarianism in exchange for a good deal is what got us here. It's not just the US; it's Europe too. Putin did what he did because he knew that Europe was willing to exchange the end of Russian subordination to the post-Cold War world order for cheap gas. Middle Eastern countries have seen their awful human rights records punished by the granting of a World Cup by FIFA and European tourism to Dubai. Both China and Russia were made Olympic hosts in the last 20 years. Russia hosted a World Cup in 2018, four years after the invasion of Crimea and ten years after its invasion of Georgia. The message? Authoritarianism pays.
  - ReflectedImage 2y ago
    Well China's economy is currently tied up in a housing pyramid scheme that's gone burst. Russia's economy is on such a war footing regardless of if it wins or losses in Ukraine, the economic shock of the end of the war will bankrupt the country. See Dutch disease. And no one wants to host the Olympics, it's a huge money sink. So it doesn't really pay, it's just bankrupts you. Even Trump's America is having massive stock sell offs and other countries dumping the dollar.

newhotelowner 2y ago

Isn't it heavy weaponry is mostly the junk that US military didn't want to use. Mostly expired weapons.

PartiallyTyped 2y ago
It's stuff that would actually cost to trash, the us is at least a generation ahead of that equipment.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  >the us is at least a generation ahead of that equipment. Can you list the in service equipment that is a generation ahead of M777 and ATACMs? I sure wish we could get some of these wiz-bang fires assets out here in the First Island Chain.
  - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
    While a replace for M777 may not be in service, the US had stopped manufacturing and continued only after Ukraine requested it. This indicates that it isn’t an integral tool to the US’ arsenal, and has been superseded. > November 2024 BAE announced the opening of a new artillery factory in Sheffield during 2025 to resume production of complete M777 artillery pieces for Ukraine and to help fulfil orders for fresh titanium cast spare parts from the US supplementing its US parts factory which also resumed production during 2024. Similarly, ATACMs production was also halted. Really, your question, tone and phrasing really indicates that you are not really looking for an actual conversation but rather a gotcha moment. It’s worth noting that variants of weapons and exist, and sending older ones to Ukraine does not imply that it is getting access to newest and greatest.
    - PartiallyTyped 2y ago
      I made some grammar errors when i was writing this — i was on the phone. The gist is there; both weapons had their manufacturing ceased which means either the US had enough stockpiles or they were superseded. The weapons were either sold to Ukraine or other countries, and it was only after Ukraine requested more of them that production started again, which implies the US had no need to produce them because they were superseded in US’ arsenal. Furthermore, just because Ukraine received X weapon, doesn’t mean they received the latest and greatest variant that’s in use — they might have very well received a previous generation of said weapon. Asking which weapon or system replaced them as is in service does not look like discussing in good faith simply because the systems might change or newer variants may be used. Do better.
      - CapricornNoble 2y ago
        >which implies the US had no need to produce them because they were superseded in US’ arsenal. No, it does not imply that they were superseded. It means that the stockpile of weapons and spare parts was considered large enough to support the US's expected burn rate of material. Supplying Ukraine in a peer conflict changed that calculus, requiring new production to keep parts supplies above a certain desired threshold. The M777 is proving to be....not that reliable in the harsh conditions of the Eastern Front.[1][2] >Furthermore, just because Ukraine received X weapon, doesn’t mean they received the latest and greatest variant that’s in use — they might have very well received a previous generation of said weapon. This is supposition on your part....and it's WRONG. That's my point. You're simply stating things that are factually incorrect. Ukraine received M777A2s[3], the most modern variant of the M777 in service with US forces.[4] >Asking which weapon or system replaced them as is in service does not look like discussing in good faith simply because the systems might change or newer variants may be used. >Do better. It's not a question of "variants", it's not a question of whether systems "might change", and it's not an issue of grammar errors. You made a false statement, perhaps unknowingly. I asked you to clarify with specifics, perhaps you know some weapon system I'm not aware of (despite having a rough idea of the IOC fielding plan for Marine fires assets in my AO over the next several years), and you've now made 2 posts bereft of details or references to obfuscate the fact that your original post was completely wrong and baseless. All this does is lower HN's already-low signal-to-noise ratio on military subjects. US Army and USMC towed Field Artillery batteries are equipped with M777A2, the same weapons platform and variant we sent to Ukraine. We are not "a generation ahead" of the equipment sent to Ukraine. Period. [1] https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-is-burning-through-155mm-m777-howitzer-barrels-so-fast-the-u-s-army-cant-keep-up https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-is-burning-through-155mm-m7... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/ukraine-artillery-breakdown.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/25/us/ukraine-artillery-brea... [3] https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/m777a2-howitzer-proves-to-be-the-best-in-1731925964.html https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/m777a2-howitzer-proves-to-be... [4] https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/ https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  There are some cases where that is true, there are some cases where Ukraine got the same stuff that is current with the US, and there are cases where Ukraine was literally the first user of new tech (the GLSDB, for instance.) One reason for this mix is that the Russo-Ukrainian war has defied some US expectations of what future wars it might need to deal with might look like, making previously-retired equipment relevant again (the drone war has made a lot of retired anti-aircraft tech more relevant, because relative cheap short-range missiles and short range anti-aircraft guns are a lot more useful against drones than they are against modern fighters, for instance) and, in other cases driving new weapons development.
lenerdenator 2y ago
It's the stuff from the 80s and 90s designed to turn back a Russian land invasion in Europe. It's proven to be perfectly adequate for the job.

lukan 2y ago

"Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order." I would think, the US going against the International Court of Justice, threatening allies over land and making deals with a official emperor is doing worse.

philipov 2y ago
I hadn't heard about anyone becoming officially an emperor recently. Who are you referring to?
- lukan 2y ago
  Putin obviously. And no, "formally" he is surely a elected president. Just one who talks about and compares himself to the great emperors of russian past a lot and acts pretty much the same.
  - philipov 2y ago
    Okay, so when you said official, you meant unofficial. Got it. I'm with you completely on the rest of it.
    - lukan 2y ago
      No, I meant de facto official. Putin is de facto a emperor, just not de jure. (but not need to further do pedantic semantics ..)
      - justinclift 2y ago
        That's now how "official" works. ;)
        emmelaich 2y ago
        Keep up with times man. "de facto" now connotes "de jure" just as "literally" connotes metaphorically.

abeppu 2y ago

It does seem there's been plenty of actual arms, vehicles etc in military aid from European countries to Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain... And the share of NATO members meeting a 2% of GDP target is now a majority, after recent marked increases. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...

cluckindan 2y ago

You are echoing Russian propaganda. European states are not expecting money back from Ukraine.

fooker 2y ago
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-france-minerals-rare-earths-defense-weapons-lecornu-e5fc5fa487d0b8fd884c7783356812d4 https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-france-minerals-rare-eart...
LAC-Tech 2y ago
You realise in a propaganda war, parts of each sides propaganda are bound to be objectively true, right? It's not like one side just lies and the other side just tells the truth. This isn't a movie.

ashoeafoot 2y ago

What i do not get is the lack of understanding that contractsecurity goes with the western world order too. Investments worldwide are as safe as a owing a mc donalds in russia, in a multipolar autorian world. How a whole world is willing to risk their retirement funds and pensions like this, for peanuts..

kergonath 2y ago

> Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order. That is partially true, but the world order would be in tatters because of Trump, regardless of the military spending of the rest of NATO.

lenerdenator 2y ago
Trump is merely another step in the bar being lowered. And make no mistake, it can go lower. The Western acceptance of authoritarianism in exchange for a good deal is what got us here. It's not just the US; it's Europe too. Putin did what he did because he knew that Europe was willing to exchange the end of Russian subordination to the post-Cold War world order for cheap gas. Middle Eastern countries have seen their awful human rights records punished by the granting of a World Cup by FIFA and European tourism to Dubai. Both China and Russia were made Olympic hosts in the last 20 years. Russia hosted a World Cup in 2018, four years after the invasion of Crimea and ten years after its invasion of Georgia. The message? Authoritarianism pays.
- ReflectedImage 2y ago
  Well China's economy is currently tied up in a housing pyramid scheme that's gone burst. Russia's economy is on such a war footing regardless of if it wins or losses in Ukraine, the economic shock of the end of the war will bankrupt the country. See Dutch disease. And no one wants to host the Olympics, it's a huge money sink. So it doesn't really pay, it's just bankrupts you. Even Trump's America is having massive stock sell offs and other countries dumping the dollar.