6 ms·

>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 u

by 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.
    - pydry 1y ago
      >Putin was saying he wouldn't invade right up until the day before This was seemingly in an attempt to provide a diplomatic off ramp where everybody could pretend that they didnt back down in the face of a naked threat of force. America and Ukraine both rejected the 3 point ultimatum though - basically saying "bring it on". Since then the deal offered by Russia has worsened relative to Ukraine's steadily declining negotiating leverage. >I'm not sure the bet paid off much either - Russia is way down in money, human lives They have a casualty exchange ratio of 44:1 at this point. This is why Europe is in a bit of a collective panic and Trump is flailing around trying to make a deal. None of that would be happening if the original plan of "levy a crushing defeat" was working out. So yes, the bet is paying off. >And I doubt the war will develop much in Russia's favour going forward In that case events of the next year will probably shock you.
      - tim333 1y ago
        Well time will tell I guess. I'm not sure how you figure there was an 'original plan of "levy a crushing defeat"' - don't know how that would have worked with zero NATO troops and minimal assistance to Ukraine. I think it was more hoping Russia would behave like a normal civilised country and not murder their peaceful neighbours. That one obviously didn't pan out but you can't win them all.
        pydry 1y ago
        Minimal assistance? We sent half of our inventories. European capitals are stripped bare of air defense missiles. >I think it was more hoping Russia would behave like a normal civilised country Theyre acting like the countries who are currently supporting a Nazi-level genocide were trying to set up a string of offensive military bases along their most vulnerable border. This is why they were only sanctioned by western countries. The global south that faced the full brunt of western colonialism is better able to appreciate how unpredictable and threatening we actually are.
        littlestymaar 1y ago
ponector 1y ago
>>> stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough War is not only the 155mm shells. NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war with USSR, they could send everything to Ukraine and it will help a lot. As an example, just check how many old Abrams the are in storage and never will be used and how many have been sent.
- pydry 1y ago
  >War is not only the 155mm shells. In this war it is most: >Artillery has been known as the “king of battle” for centuries, and this largely remains true today. In the Russia-Ukraine war, artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties on both sides. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-russia-and-ukraine https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-ru... >NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war Many, like the F16 proved expensive and fairly useless. And, at some point they had to start deciding whether to strip their inventories bare or hold back weapons deliveries to Ukraine. So, while there are many stockpiles, theyre not necessarily much help. In a supreme act of irony the NATO member that stripped its inventories the most now has America threatening its territory.
  - tim333 1y ago
    >Artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties is no longer the case. Now it's drones https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-80-of-casualties-in-ukraine-russia-war/ https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-... which I guess show that things can change. If it had been a NATO vs Russia war it would have been air power or maybe nukes which everyone wants to avoid. The switch to drone warfare may be a problem of Russia. They had a clear advantage in artillery but it's more even with drones and western collaboration like this Project Octopus may give Ukraine the advantage. (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western-funded-drone-surge-could-end-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western...)
    - littlestymaar 1y ago

by pydry 1y ago

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.
  - pydry 1y ago
    >Putin was saying he wouldn't invade right up until the day before This was seemingly in an attempt to provide a diplomatic off ramp where everybody could pretend that they didnt back down in the face of a naked threat of force. America and Ukraine both rejected the 3 point ultimatum though - basically saying "bring it on". Since then the deal offered by Russia has worsened relative to Ukraine's steadily declining negotiating leverage. >I'm not sure the bet paid off much either - Russia is way down in money, human lives They have a casualty exchange ratio of 44:1 at this point. This is why Europe is in a bit of a collective panic and Trump is flailing around trying to make a deal. None of that would be happening if the original plan of "levy a crushing defeat" was working out. So yes, the bet is paying off. >And I doubt the war will develop much in Russia's favour going forward In that case events of the next year will probably shock you.
    - tim333 1y ago
      Well time will tell I guess. I'm not sure how you figure there was an 'original plan of "levy a crushing defeat"' - don't know how that would have worked with zero NATO troops and minimal assistance to Ukraine. I think it was more hoping Russia would behave like a normal civilised country and not murder their peaceful neighbours. That one obviously didn't pan out but you can't win them all.
      - pydry 1y ago
        Minimal assistance? We sent half of our inventories. European capitals are stripped bare of air defense missiles. >I think it was more hoping Russia would behave like a normal civilised country Theyre acting like the countries who are currently supporting a Nazi-level genocide were trying to set up a string of offensive military bases along their most vulnerable border. This is why they were only sanctioned by western countries. The global south that faced the full brunt of western colonialism is better able to appreciate how unpredictable and threatening we actually are.
        littlestymaar 1y ago

ponector 1y ago

>>> stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough War is not only the 155mm shells. NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war with USSR, they could send everything to Ukraine and it will help a lot. As an example, just check how many old Abrams the are in storage and never will be used and how many have been sent.

pydry 1y ago
>War is not only the 155mm shells. In this war it is most: >Artillery has been known as the “king of battle” for centuries, and this largely remains true today. In the Russia-Ukraine war, artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties on both sides. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-russia-and-ukraine https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-ru... >NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war Many, like the F16 proved expensive and fairly useless. And, at some point they had to start deciding whether to strip their inventories bare or hold back weapons deliveries to Ukraine. So, while there are many stockpiles, theyre not necessarily much help. In a supreme act of irony the NATO member that stripped its inventories the most now has America threatening its territory.
- tim333 1y ago
  >Artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties is no longer the case. Now it's drones https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-80-of-casualties-in-ukraine-russia-war/ https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-... which I guess show that things can change. If it had been a NATO vs Russia war it would have been air power or maybe nukes which everyone wants to avoid. The switch to drone warfare may be a problem of Russia. They had a clear advantage in artillery but it's more even with drones and western collaboration like this Project Octopus may give Ukraine the advantage. (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western-funded-drone-surge-could-end-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western...)
  - littlestymaar 1y ago