6 ms·

No one has/had political will to help Ukraine win. USA actually had will to help Russia to continue invasion. Imagine USA to send lend-lease weapons with strin

No one has/had political will to help Ukraine win. USA actually had will to help Russia to continue invasion. Imagine USA to send lend-lease weapons with strings attached: do not use against Hitler's troops in German territories. But that's exactly what is happening in Ukraine war.

littlestymaar 1y ago
The US had limited interest in the Ukraine winning and a lot to gain from Russia wearing down until they are far from even dreaming of being a peer adversary. The EU on the other hand is under existential threat from Russia so they (we, actually as I'm French) really ought to do something serious to help Ukraine not only stabilize the front line and wear down Russia, but win this war. But because we underinvested in defense for decades (because the Western Europe couldn't imagine a conflict was possible with their biggest trade partner, and because eastern Europe was too keen on trading political influence inside the EU to the US in exchange for security guarantees against Russia without having to build a capable military on their own) we ended up in 2022 with little capabilities to really help Ukraine. And because of the obsession with public spending and debt reduction, countries refused to seriously invest seriously in their industrial capabilities to supply the Ukrainians with a war-changing amount of ammo and other assets. (the fact that South Korea alone was able to give more ammo to the Ukrainians than the whole of EU in 2023 is a sad joke really). I can't really blame the US, they played their own interests while minimizing consequences for them (and that's also why they wanted to avoid escalation in priority). But I do blame European leaders, including my own president, for not taking this matter as seriously as they should have. (For a full 10 month in 2023 Les forges de Tarbes, France's main production of 155mm shells, has been stuck with no way of producing anything because they couldn't pay their suppliers because they lacked liquidity to do so, this was utterly ridiculous and should have been solved with a single phone call. But nobody in charge bothered, for almost a year…)
- ponector 1y ago
  >> The EU on the other hand is under existential threat from Russia EU as an entity is under threat. But only few members bordering Russia actually feel the threat. Russia is not going to invade France or Spain anytime soon, they are relaxed.
  - littlestymaar 1y ago
    That's the key problem yes. The economic consequences of the war have been severe for Germany though, but they don't seem to care that much unfortunately…
  - 627467 1y ago
    > Our threat is not Russia bringing its troops across the Pyrenees - Pedro Sanchez > He also wrote that a 5 percent defense spending goal would jeopardize the country’s welfare system, > Sánchez said that 17% of this year’s military spending would go to natural disaster relief. The Spaniards are the only ones outright saying it, but seem very obvious that the silent (and overwhelmingly economical) majority in EU think this way
    - tim333 1y ago
      Spain is part of NATO and the EU though and so kind of obliged to help defend EU and NATO countries near Russia.
  - rcxdude 1y ago
    Which is a very short-sighted view, because a Russia that manages to expand its territory is a Russia that will look to continue to expand into a now-weaker Europe.
- ahartmetz 1y ago
  At the beginning of the Ukraine war, Rheinmetall of Germany "could not" deliver artillery shells because they were busy manufacturing a large order from Hungary aka Putin's submarine in the EU. Ridiculous.
pydry 1y ago
>No one has/had political will to help Ukraine win All of the main neocon actors (e.g. lindsay graham) say this. The idea that western military resources are unlimited is a neocon article of faith. It's weird coz it is possible to count the number of e.g. shells and air defense missiles manufactured and stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough. That is why Ukraine losing was inevitable. >Imagine USA to send lend-lease weapons with strings attached: do not use against Hitler's troops Imagine the USA supplying weapons to a leader who is actually just like Hitler while he is committing a genocide. You dont have to imagine too hard.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  > It's weird coz it is possible to count the number of e.g. shells and air defense missiles manufactured and stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough. It's all a matter of investment in industrial capacities, especially for mundane early-twentieth century technology like 155mm shells. It's not inevitable that North Korea is able to supply more shells than any individual NATO member, you know.
  - pydry 1y ago
    >It's not inevitable that North Korea is able to supply more shells It is if American military exceptionalism is treated as an article of faith, which it was, so here we are. Scaling up industrial production was never treated as a serious problem and still isnt because all you need, apparently, as OP said, is political will. Putin made a bet on American and western hubris and it seems to have paid off.
    - tim333 1y ago
      I don't know if was western hubris so much as gullibility. Putin was saying he wouldn't invade right up until the day before and western politicians have the choice of whether to put money into shell production or schools and hospitals and went for the latter. I'm not sure the bet paid off much either - Russia is way down in money, human lives, global reputation, military equipment and so forth. And I doubt the war will develop much in Russia's favour going forward. You can get so far by say we're your friend, we won't attack to peaceful people and then hitting them when their guard is down but they wise up.

littlestymaar 1y ago

The US had limited interest in the Ukraine winning and a lot to gain from Russia wearing down until they are far from even dreaming of being a peer adversary. The EU on the other hand is under existential threat from Russia so they (we, actually as I'm French) really ought to do something serious to help Ukraine not only stabilize the front line and wear down Russia, but win this war. But because we underinvested in defense for decades (because the Western Europe couldn't imagine a conflict was possible with their biggest trade partner, and because eastern Europe was too keen on trading political influence inside the EU to the US in exchange for security guarantees against Russia without having to build a capable military on their own) we ended up in 2022 with little capabilities to really help Ukraine. And because of the obsession with public spending and debt reduction, countries refused to seriously invest seriously in their industrial capabilities to supply the Ukrainians with a war-changing amount of ammo and other assets. (the fact that South Korea alone was able to give more ammo to the Ukrainians than the whole of EU in 2023 is a sad joke really). I can't really blame the US, they played their own interests while minimizing consequences for them (and that's also why they wanted to avoid escalation in priority). But I do blame European leaders, including my own president, for not taking this matter as seriously as they should have. (For a full 10 month in 2023 Les forges de Tarbes, France's main production of 155mm shells, has been stuck with no way of producing anything because they couldn't pay their suppliers because they lacked liquidity to do so, this was utterly ridiculous and should have been solved with a single phone call. But nobody in charge bothered, for almost a year…)

ponector 1y ago
>> The EU on the other hand is under existential threat from Russia EU as an entity is under threat. But only few members bordering Russia actually feel the threat. Russia is not going to invade France or Spain anytime soon, they are relaxed.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  That's the key problem yes. The economic consequences of the war have been severe for Germany though, but they don't seem to care that much unfortunately…
- 627467 1y ago
  > Our threat is not Russia bringing its troops across the Pyrenees - Pedro Sanchez > He also wrote that a 5 percent defense spending goal would jeopardize the country’s welfare system, > Sánchez said that 17% of this year’s military spending would go to natural disaster relief. The Spaniards are the only ones outright saying it, but seem very obvious that the silent (and overwhelmingly economical) majority in EU think this way
  - tim333 1y ago
    Spain is part of NATO and the EU though and so kind of obliged to help defend EU and NATO countries near Russia.
- rcxdude 1y ago
  Which is a very short-sighted view, because a Russia that manages to expand its territory is a Russia that will look to continue to expand into a now-weaker Europe.
ahartmetz 1y ago
At the beginning of the Ukraine war, Rheinmetall of Germany "could not" deliver artillery shells because they were busy manufacturing a large order from Hungary aka Putin's submarine in the EU. Ridiculous.

pydry 1y ago

>No one has/had political will to help Ukraine win All of the main neocon actors (e.g. lindsay graham) say this. The idea that western military resources are unlimited is a neocon article of faith. It's weird coz it is possible to count the number of e.g. shells and air defense missiles manufactured and stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough. That is why Ukraine losing was inevitable. >Imagine USA to send lend-lease weapons with strings attached: do not use against Hitler's troops Imagine the USA supplying weapons to a leader who is actually just like Hitler while he is committing a genocide. You dont have to imagine too hard.

littlestymaar 1y ago
> It's weird coz it is possible to count the number of e.g. shells and air defense missiles manufactured and stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough. It's all a matter of investment in industrial capacities, especially for mundane early-twentieth century technology like 155mm shells. It's not inevitable that North Korea is able to supply more shells than any individual NATO member, you know.
- pydry 1y ago
  >It's not inevitable that North Korea is able to supply more shells It is if American military exceptionalism is treated as an article of faith, which it was, so here we are. Scaling up industrial production was never treated as a serious problem and still isnt because all you need, apparently, as OP said, is political will. Putin made a bet on American and western hubris and it seems to have paid off.
  - tim333 1y ago
    I don't know if was western hubris so much as gullibility. Putin was saying he wouldn't invade right up until the day before and western politicians have the choice of whether to put money into shell production or schools and hospitals and went for the latter. I'm not sure the bet paid off much either - Russia is way down in money, human lives, global reputation, military equipment and so forth. And I doubt the war will develop much in Russia's favour going forward. You can get so far by say we're your friend, we won't attack to peaceful people and then hitting them when their guard is down but they wise up.