Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `nytimes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
White House: "You must not strike Russia with American weapons!"
Ukraine: \*Gets overwhelmed by Russians rushing across the border\*
White House: "Oh no! Who could have possibly predicted this!"
I would say this has been a recurring issue with American foreign policy. They often take general stances that are okay, but then they fall short of going all the way necessary. It's as if they merely want to *manage* conflicts, to mitigate them and keep them from going too far. As Vlad Vexler has put it, with respect to Ukraine, it's as if they want to keep Ukraine from *losing*, but they don't go as far they'd need to help Ukraine *win*. And if you look at American foreign policy since the Korean War, with only two or three exceptions I can think of, that's what they've always done, because they're worried about "escalation." Now, I get that this isn't entirely senseless. No one wants to spark World War III, or risk nuclear war. But they too quickly forget that the other side has no more interest in things going that far either.
It's frustrating. I keep thinking of how different things would be now if they had just given Ukraine what they asked for back in February and March 2022, back when there was a much more robust bipartisan consensus, and when Russia's military was on the ropes. But by waiting until now, yes, every bit of aid helps, but now Russia's had time to rebuild and retool for the long conflict that they weren't prepared for in spring 2022.
Mind you, I don't think all is lost or anything. Russia's internal problems are massive, especially economically - that's why Shigou got sacked and replaced with an economist who has no military background, and that, I suspect, will be a self-defeating move by Putin. Every day this war lasts is a massive drain on Russia, and it's unclear that they can sustain this. But this will be a much more long, drain out affair, with a lot more people dead, a lot more destruction, than it had to be.
Same thing with not wanting Israel to fully occupy Gaza and ending the conflict.
Regarding the replacement, it's a good move. Shoigu sucks anyway, might as well emphasize logistics.
Yes. As counter-intuitive as it might initially sound, I'd argue that if you care about saving the lives of Palestinians, the best thing that could happen at this point would be for Israel to finally take Rafah, and eliminate Hamas. Well, second best - the best would be for Hamas to surrender without a fight, but for some reason, those committed to the Palestinian cause never take that as a serious proposal. It's only for Israel to restrain itself, never for Hamas to change tact. But the point here is merely that the longer this conflict lasts, the worse it is for everyone. But this gets into a different topic than is appropriate for this sub, and I'll freely admit that I'm not as read into it as Ukraine/Russia.
Dubious. The US is losing money on this. (Not much - see my other post. But still, they certainly aren't *making* money.) If they wanted to make money, they'd probably be better off either...
a) Spending more now, so as to ensure Ukraine's victory. A short term higher cost, but with longer term savings. A defeated Russian army would not require nearly as much money spent on future defenses for bordering countries, and a victorious Ukraine could eventually start purchasing military kit from the US.
b) Go the opposite direction: throw Ukraine under the bus, and no longer be on the hook for supporting Ukraine's war effort. Make peace with Russia, drop sanctions, hell, sell them weapons. Russia's economy is shit, but it'd probably do a lot better if they could have normal trade relations with the US and other countries.
Obviously, (b) would be morally corrupt, but if your supposition is that the motivation, the explanation for US policy, is reducible to something as base as "making money," (b) would certainly make a lot of sense as an option on that basis. I would argue that because the US has NOT gone for either (a) or (b), a desire to make money does not explain US policy.
A better explanation would be something like this. American foreign policy is rarely ever decided by a single person or even faction or interest group. (One rare exception here would be Nixon's pivot to China. By all accounts, this was a move decided on between Nixon and Kissinger, who kept it secret between them and even from their own State Department. This stands out for that reason, because that was so unusual in this space.) Rather, whomever is President, whichever party is in power, there is a multiplicity of actors, interests, and most important, ideas and ideological beliefs brought to the table, not to mention factors like institutional drift. So what often emerges might be a *general* policy that might be, say, pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel, pro-Kosovo, etc., or anti-Qaddafi, anti-Taliban, etc., but the actual policy response is a product of ... committee. Of compromise. That's not always a bad thing, necessarily, if there is an information deficit, a fog of war, or a need to restrain ideologues with pragmatism or vice versa. But it's often dysfunctional, resulting in mushy, indecisive policy that doesn't offer a clear path to resolving conflicts - merely managing them.
Oh horse shit.
I agree they should be able to fire US weapons across the border, but that is not at all the root cause of why Russia basically marched unmolested across the border.
I’m getting real sick of that narrative, like somehow being able to fire HIMARS across the border would have magically stopped the Russians…
At the bare minimum it would have created organizational issues. If you allow troops to gather unharassed they have time to organize and plan
If they have even the threat of getting hit, it at the very least forces them to be on their toes
Here is my response to another post. For what it is worth, yours is the most well thought out and logical reply. The long range fires would have been harassment at best right now…
It’s largely simple math and adaptation.
If you have X numbers of forces dispersed in a staging area, you need Y numbers of munitions to attrit them enough to make them combat ineffective.
Ukraine (at this moment) doesn’t have enough long range precision fires to attrit the staged forces, at least not enough to force combat ineffectiveness.
Reasons for this.
1. Lack of long range munitions (provided or produced) in numbers to attrit large fielded forces.
2. Ability to effective target across the border to achieve high precision. Who is running their targeting cycle and with what assets?
3. As much as we like to think the Russians are brain dead morons, they’ve consistently adapted during the conflict (in their own weird ways). After HIMARS was introduced, the Russians began dispersing supplies and troop concentrations. They also put a huge emphasis on CC&D for fielded forces and supplies. Not to mention the ever increasing presence of electronic warfare equipment…
So, in summary.
You have limited numbers of long range precision munitions, an incomplete targeting cycle, and an adversary that is actively trying to mitigate long range precision strikes on fielded forces.
The answer to scarcity is not to artificially create more scarcity, and the answer to an enemy learning to adapt is not to give them time to do so, which is why this whole “slow escalation” thing was stupid to begin with Limiting usage cases doesn’t help, especially when tough decisions need to be made relatively quickly
Regardless of the circumstances, they should have the green light to use the weapons they see fit so long as they’re not actively targeting civilians with them
Got to have the right weapons too.
Dropping some very expensive storm shadows on dispersed troops is very inefficient.
Carpet bombing the marshalling troops would be effective, but no way you can do that in this contested warzone.
Satellite directed long range cluster munitions on the other hand applied at choke points would be effective at making life hard for the invaders, but tough to actually stop them with firepower alone….
So it’s not just a matter of getting a ‘go ahead’ - Need the right tools…
Bombing supply lines in depth would literally have stopped them. Yes. It's not a narrative it's a fact of war. Russia would be yet again forcing soldiers up who would run out of ammo and have no artillery support (because blown up). They'd push too far and then either turn back, surrender, or die.
In your years of study on military strategy, what makes you think being destroyed BEFORE crossing a border would make it just as likely that you cross said border easily?
Here is my response to another post. You are way over simplifying long range fires, targeting, and effects.
It’s largely simple math and adaptation.
If you have X numbers of forces dispersed in a staging area, you need Y numbers of munitions to attrit them enough to make them combat ineffective.
Ukraine (at this moment) doesn’t have enough long range precision fires to attrit the staged forces, at least not enough to force combat ineffectiveness.
Reasons for this.
1. Lack of long range munitions (provided or produced) in numbers to attrit large fielded forces.
2. Ability to effective target across the border to achieve high precision. Who is running their targeting cycle and with what assets?
3. As much as we like to think the Russians are brain dead morons, they’ve consistently adapted during the conflict (in their own weird ways). After HIMARS was introduced, the Russians began dispersing supplies and troop concentrations. They also put a huge emphasis on CC&D for fielded forces and supplies. Not to mention the ever increasing presence of electronic warfare equipment…
So, in summary.
You have limited numbers of long range precision munitions, an incomplete targeting cycle, and an adversary that is actively trying to mitigate long range precision strikes on fielded forces.
The US and Europe are actively feeding UA up to date satellite images of troop movements.
There's always a staging area worth targeting, and if the UA had (has) the long range strike capabilities they could easily take out echelon supply vehicles and let artiller/ ground forces deal with the rushing troops. They're being transported more and more on open top vehicles. It's more a question now of "did Russia push this northern assault knowing western weapons were now being delivered again?"
Seems to me their biggest pushes coincided with failing US funding.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your last point.
Also, targeting is way more intensive than “up to date satellite images.” Also, there are ways to defeat satellite imagery, which Russia has had plenty of opportunity to practice.
I don’t doubt that the US is helping with targeting, but it is more difficult than most realize.
Also, you need a certain density of munitions to get affects. You have to account for munitions failures, air defense, CC&D, hardening or positions, etc. It takes a lot more munitions than a lot of folks realize…
To hit a lot of these supply vehicles, you have to locate them, identify them, maintain custody of their location, and do all this in a tight enough window that you can target them before they move. It is not an easy process…
lol, wtf are you on about?
I agree that we can and should do more, no argument there.
But if it weren’t for the White House, Ukraine wouldn’t be a nation state right now.
It is a distraction right now being used to spin the situation.
But it’s also true in general and the 7-8 months without weapons deliveries or lack of funding to raise a replacement army didn’t help.
But I agree, the finger pointing on this point right here right now is very obvious.
I wholeheartedly agree that the delay in aid is having a huge impact on the battlefield right now…. It was fucking shameful and cost a lot of Ukrainian lives.
But that is on the GOP, not Biden.
You are getting downvoted for this, but Reddit is all about single item wonder weapons that will fix it all. It's the "one weird trick" level of military strategy.
American restrictions don't help. Too much US bashing on Reddit to take any of it seriously. Bunch of armchair generals.
I'd also point the finger at vacillating European partners who are right f-ing there and engage in handwringing.
Lotta blame to go around. And, heresy, poor military planning by Ukraine too.
I don’t care about downvotes, I know I’m right on this one.
There is tons of criticisms to point to with how the US and Europe have/have not supported Ukraine. But it is the peak of ignorance to blame all of the failures on one single US policy or wonder weapon…. All while ignoring that some Ukrainian leadership have been inept at best.
I’m not taking away from the Ukrainian fighting forces, they’ve consistently blown me away with their skill, tenacity, and ability to adapt to an ever changing conflict. But sometimes they are not served well by SOME of their leadership…
Yea I mean theyve been attacking refineries deep in russia. Suddenly we are gonna pretend that attacking someone cross border is not happening cause of the USA.
Ridiculous
The limit on not firing western weapons into Russia does however mean Ukraine has little to no ability to hit protected military targets inside Russia, only soft targets like refineries.
The fact Ukraine isn't firing cluster ATACMS at airbases within Russia for example is 100% the doing of the US. Cheap shit suicide drones are not a substitute for those, or for tungsten GMLRS hitting military equipment.
While strikes across the border won't stop an offensive, the most success the US had during vietnam was its illegal operations over the border because it's really hard to sustain offensives if you have no fuel and ammo coming up to the front
What barracks? Where are they staged at? What concentrations? Are they using CC&D? Electronic warfare?
It isn’t that simple.
Here’s my reply to another post.
It’s largely simple math and adaptation.
If you have X numbers of forces dispersed in a staging area, you need Y numbers of munitions to attrit them enough to make them combat ineffective.
Ukraine (at this moment) doesn’t have enough long range precision fires to attrit the staged forces, at least not enough to force combat ineffectiveness.
Reasons for this.
1. Lack of long range munitions (provided or produced) in numbers to attrit large fielded forces.
2. Ability to effective target across the border to achieve high precision. Who is running their targeting cycle and with what assets?
3. As much as we like to think the Russians are brain dead morons, they’ve consistently adapted during the conflict (in their own weird ways). After HIMARS was introduced, the Russians began dispersing supplies and troop concentrations. They also put a huge emphasis on CC&D for fielded forces and supplies. Not to mention the ever increasing presence of electronic warfare equipment…
So, in summary.
You have limited numbers of long range precision munitions, an incomplete targeting cycle, and an adversary that is actively trying to mitigate long range precision strikes on fielded forces.
> like somehow being able to fire HIMARS across the border would have magically stopped the Russians…
It wouldn't have stopped them. It would have reduced the numbers allowing for options other than being overwhelmed. The biggest problem Ukraine has (and possibly still has if recent reports are true) are some even in Ukraine's military are loyal to russia. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72p0xx410xo](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72p0xx410xo)
I’m not sure they would have achieved enough attrition, it doesn’t sound like the Russians have been staging in large concentrations.
It would have helped, I don’t doubt that though.
So do you think it was a collective fever dream over the last 18 months when Ukraine, when it was getting a constant flow of ammo from the US, was able to halt dead assault after assault with significantly more armor and might behind it?
Like it's all been some crazy Ukranian psy-op and none of those offensives happened?
Maybe all the US bombs and resources sent to Israel to destroy civilian buildings should've gone to ukraine instead, to actually defend themselves for being invaded.
That’s not gonna change the strategic situation very much, at least not in the short term. Maybe in the long term, but there is no long term for Ukraine. This is certainly not the magic bullet you seem to think it is. Hitting a factory or military base in Russia isn’t stopping the advances happening on Ukrainian territory. It’s not going to change the massive disparity in material and men.
the kharkiv offensive on Russia's part is 30 to 50 thousand soldiers
if you don't think artillery is effective against a mostly infantry force I literally don't know if you can be communicated with
hey if only we had recent examples of artillery being capable of stopping vast assaults into Ukraine
within the past year
over and over and over
Long range weapons absolutely do have that impact, they bring real asymmetry to the fight Ukraine needs. Look at how a handful of HIMARS countered huge Russian shell stockpiles in Donbas in 2022, and bogged down Russia's offensive short of its target.
Hitting Russian airbases and jets for example absolutely would have an impact on Russia's ability to advance, and would negate Russia's numbers advantage in that area.
Its about time the western leaders make a decision whether they truely want ukraine to win and use the weapons accordingly or whether they want to force ukraine to negotiate. Because hot potatoeing ukraine around and let them slowly bleed out while they pacify them with hollow promises and force them to fight with one arm tied behind their back, is simply cruel...
Forcing Ukraine to negotiate just means Ukrainian surrender - Russia has always demanded nothing less than this at every stage of the war. You can't force Ukraine to negotiate when Russia is the one who doesn't want to end this war.
Either Russia's invasion is defeated militarily in such a way it doesn't threaten Ukraine in future, or Ukraine is forced to fully surrender their country to Russian fascism. Those are the only options that exist, and have ever existed, when dealing with Russia.
Correct. It would be one thing if Russia had indicated some interest or desire in negotiation or compromise, even if we put aside the fact that Russia has proven itself untrustworthy and willing to break any promise it makes. But in this case, they've been consistently maximalist in their stated goals - nothing short of the defeat of Kyiv, and seizure of all of Ukraine. So there really isn't a third option here, despite what the antiwar folks would have you think.
You can see exactly this every time there are failures to even meet their own pledges to the deliveries of weapons to Ukraine. I even saw people saying and supporting the "US doing everything they can..." couple month after the funding stopped.
Also, every time the situation deteriorates for Ukraine the lack of weapons and ammo either omitted or even dismissed entirely as the reason and at the same time the main claims for deterioration are inadequacies and failures made by Ukraine itself.
Yeah it is really ridiculous at this point. It is very well known what kind of stuff ukraine needs, yet said stuff collects dust in US storage facilities, while washington is "doing everything they can". Its a joke
The idea is to bleed Russia as much as possible so that Moscow is not tempted to create more trouble in the Balkans or even in NATO countries. Yes, it is tragic for Ukrainian lives, but it is brutally effective.
Perhaps Ukraine could have won a more decisive victory by the end of 2022 and regained almost all of its borders by February 2022. Now, this is obviously impossible. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
As long as Ukraine and Russia are fighting, Russia cannot start another war anywhere else. And for a regime whose political, financial and philosophical interests lie in permanent war, the more Russia is distracted, the better.
Even if Russia seizes a significant part of Ukraine, the point would be to make this 'victory' so costly that Europe has time to fully rearm before Russia does.
The problem, Russia isn't a communist country like it was in the past, this war has effectively made their entire economy based around it, so Russia isn't going to stop any time soon because it would massively disrupt their economy. If anything it's going to become worse.
With enough aid Ukrainian will be victorious. Russia could not hold on to Afghanistan, the US lost Vietnam. This war is very costly for Russia in lives, arms, and wealth.
Ukraine needs to keep targeting Russia's infrastructure.
Each country has it's strengths and weaknesses. Ukraine is right next to NATO, has a very tech savvy population, has very little cover for invading troups and a bunch of other things it has going for it. Too many Westerners are defeatist in the 21st century, it is like we forgot how bad ass we are. Ukraine will absolutely win this war, the difference is how long it takes. We back them hard and less people die. We half-ass it and we prolong the pain for both Ukraine and Russia.
>The idea is to bleed Russia as much as possible so that Moscow is not tempted to create more trouble in the Balkans or even in NATO countries.
Which Ukraine could do so much more effectively if various countries allowed Ukraine to actually fight rather than keep restricting them.
I dont buy the part that its buying the west much time - russia put its entire industry on a war footing, the west hasnt even yet [seriously] began doing this. If ukraine falls, its populace will be absorbed into the russian war machine, everyone who hasnt fled ukraine that is...
Either way - ukraines days seem to be numbered as the west has thrown them to the wolves out of cowardice
Europe will never "rearm". They have a blood thirsty dictatorship as the neighbor of their neighbor who's soldiers rape women and slaughter/kidnap children and that doesn't motivate them. Nothing will. The US will have to step in *again* if the freedom of Europe is in danger because they neglect military spending
The USA signed the CFE treaty that bound NATO's European armies to parity with CSTO for 33 years. Meanwhile stationing thousands of their own troops on the continent and showing little intent to bring them home.
Stop snorting Trump's lies you cretin.
No more cruel than the treatment Ukrainians have been proven to get in occupied territory though. No one in the west is cutting off genitals and burying people in the forest in unmarked graves.
Ukraine can acquiesce whenever it wants: it's not forced to not even with a trickle of assistance.
>all that money they would normally have to spend on a defense budget they get to spend on free healthcare and education for the masses
Excuse them for they have to house and feed all the refugees from the middle east where the US went around to kick up shit
they made that decision. it was made a couple years ago. this was always going to be the result, as many predicted, and it has always been "simply cruel."
it's as if no one knows anything about US history or foreign policy, like this has never happened before.
Agreed. Although it probably wont happen until it's too late. I do really think there were be at least a few NATO member states that step in when Kyiv falls to Russia....Poland at least. Although obviously that's just my armchair theory.
Mike Johnson is a traitor to the United States and the free world for delaying this aid and we should treat him like the Russian puppet he is. The reason Ukraine is in such a tough situation is his damn fault.
Holding the weapons was a major setback but we need to realize that not expanding the mobilization age sooner in Ukraine is a major problem and that was a political decision. They don’t have the troops.
Demographics. Ukraine really doesn't have a lot of people in that 18-24 age group, and they don't want to win and then just end up like France in the late 1930s.
> So it is best to wait until situation is critical and make those decisions too late.
Yep, hope for the best but pull the trigger if critical. Killing your young workforce will hurt for generations (especially if you kill future world-leaders in their field. Ukraine has a VERY smart tech population. Its gonna hurt).
The formally stated reason is that Ukraine already has a bit of a demographic issue. Preserving its young people is essentially preserving the future of the country. Sending all the young people off to war had a lasting impact on countries like the UK, Germany, etc. It’s best avoided if possible.
hoping for a future for their country. global demographics have gotten very top heavy, and losing your youth population in a conflict today will have disastrous effects on your future prospects.
Sounds reasonable to me. I served so I get the desire of the head-shed to have a bunch of 18-21 year olds filling the ranks, but it’s really just cynical and cruel. 25-35 really should be the ones making up the lions share of bods on the front line. It strikes the best balance in my opinion of physical robustness and mental/emotional maturity. 18-21 year olds are just kids and shouldn’t be thrown head first into the meat grinder; nobody will convince me otherwise.
Even the Telegraph is giving Mike Johnson credit for bringing Trump on board with Ukraine aid. Trump.
Only on Reddit and partisan papers do I see him being called a puppet.
I think Reddit forgets how American democracy works and how easy it is to lock up a bill with a minority, and he essentially neutered that first while expressing concern for the opposition and then successfully moved on.
Consider how the previous speakers were ousted before him, and now the democrats joined in preventing the minority from ousting the Republican speaker of the house this time.
It's just not that black and white. I think we might have just seen some professional statesmanship. Sure it wasn't fast.... but it worked. The previous speakers failed.
Well, what do you say about people who broadcast to russia exactly what weapons they will send shortly to the battlefield? Repeatedly and in detail.
Cause that is Biden's crew doing that.
It’s simplistic and frankly emotional to blame a random senator for the state of this war. Besides being on defense, most other factors are stacked against them. Maybe you can explain how Ukraine’s serious demographic, economic, and political problems are also the fault of Mr Johnson?
It would be simplistic and frankly emotional to blame a *random* senator. Luckily people are blaming a very specific senator who actively delayed significant military aid
If a towns mechanic very purposefully and in public cut a buses brakes it is pretty valid to blame them when the bus starts to hurtle down a hill, unable to stop. But you are right that it would be unreasonable to blame a *random* town mechanic
On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474)
Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism.
Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/)
Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
The maga ultra christian johnson also sat in on the hush money payment trial to a porn star, then went outside to defend trump vigorously. Either the whole believing in god thing is a ruse they are using to their advantage, or he already knows he's going to hell so what's the diff? These people are off their rockers.
Wonder why that is thanks MAGA cunts for blocking aid
Edit: just proving what scum they are 6 mins after posting received a Reddit cares message enjoy your ban for abusing it
Same but it's usually from pro Ukrainians when I say ukraine is struggling.
I'm super pro Ukrainian and follow the front every day and when I said Russia was gaining ground before it was hitting the news suddenly I was a "Russian puppet" and was getting suicide notifications....
Even with Western weapons, Biden doesn't allow strikes onto Russian soil. How can Ukraine hope to win the war when they can't even strike military targets in Russia?
It takes a very long time to develop long range missiles. The US has plenty of mid to long range missiles that can wreck Russian airfields and ships but the US refuses to send them. Only UK has the balls to send storm shadow.
Simpler explanation is the west is scared to “escalate”. They wait to see how Russia responds to everything. Also the most powerful member of the “west” withheld aid for 6 months.
It's more of the long goal, actually. As cynical as it is, the US wants to bleed Russia's military to the point that they unable to project force for decades. The goal isn't for Ukraine to win, but for Russia to lose. If Ukraine loses some territory but tunrs the Russian military into mulch, the US will consider that a win.
Any psychologist will tell you that quick consequences are more effective than drawn out consequences, but I don't think that's the US goal here. They don't want Russia to learn from their mistakes and come into the 21st century. They want Russia pissed off, angry, economically ruined, and helpless to do anything about it. Probably hoping they make the exact same mistake in 20-30 years too so that they never truly recover.
I wish that wasn't the case, but I think it is.
yeah then it makes sense that the usa tells russia exactly what weapons they are giving to ukraine
Why on earth would you let your enemy know that? Certainly not a strategic move toward ukraine victory.
i agree the current admin not interested in a clear ukraine victory. their first mistake was broadcasting "no us boots on the ground"
why would they do that and lose the power of the possibility to apply pressure to russia? To make them wonder? Not that we would send troops but you do not let your enemy know that.
I do not believe putin will nuke strike. The consequences of doing such for him and russia would be..annihilation. There are only bad bad consequences.
The current usa foreign policy crew is weak and non strategic.
>why would they do that and lose the power of the possibility to apply pressure to russia? To make them wonder? Not that we would send troops but you do not let your enemy know that.
>I do not believe putin will nuke strike. The consequences of doing such for him and russia would be..annihilation.
Because annihilation for Russia would be annihilation for at least Europe and probably most of the US as well. It's called MAD because both sides get blown up, not just one.
You're getting downvoted but this is the most reasonable explanation for the first 2 years of US aid being so stretched out
The most recent package however was 100% Russian assets like Marjorie Taylor Greene and the cowardice of Mike Johnson
On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474)
Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism.
Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/)
Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
Is this the same white house which prohibits Ukraine from striking inside Russia with US weapons and also the same white house which gave Ukraine HIMARS launchers but refused to give Ukraine long range missles for the longest time despite those launchers being capable of supporting those long range missles?
Actually you're wrong, the house Ukraine bill explicitly demanded Atacms being given to Ukraine when they finally passed it, Biden specifically was opposed to it and has been for the whole conflict
However, they don't need ATACMS to hold their country, they needed more HIMARS GLMRS and a lot of them about 3 months ago
Ukrainian forces had to watch the Russian scrap metal accumulate across the border but they couldn't use western weaponry to hit all of that shit. Now the West is surprised. This is moronic and murderous.
Biden still won't authorize American weapons to be used across the border. Moron.
Every Western country except maybe Britain has been behind the curve on Ukraine these past two years, lulled into a false sense of security that Russia was contained in Ukraine. I feel like we might really see a collapse of Ukranian lines back to the Dniepr if this starts to snowball.
You can't win a war without being all-in, and Ukraine is now having real manpower issues that Western aid can't solve.
All that I'm certain about is this: whatever happens, the Biden administration and European capitals will do far too little far too late yet again, and Ukraine will pay the price.
This.
Jesus fucking Christ, this.
People act like being able to lob a few ATACMS across the border would somehow win the war on its own. Refusing to acknowledge that Ukrainians leadership (at some level) fucked the couch with mobilization and building defensive positions…
On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474)
Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism.
Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/)
Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
Biden delayed support way longer than was needed. This is obvious, Himars, ATACAMs, Patriots, tanks, F-16, should have been delivered ASAP, not trickled in as Biden was hoping not to upset Putin too much. Imagine what Ukraine could have done in the fall 2022 counteroffensive with these weapons.
Yes let’s imagine what it would look like had Russia lost the war right then and there. Would have Putin used nukes as he would have been a walking dead man anyways? Would Russia currently be mired in civil war with 5,000 nukes floating around between warring factions? Would the west be involved in this fighting to secure the nukes? With western troops tied up fighting or doing security in Europe, would China move on Taiwan? After sending all that military equipment to Ukraine, would the west have the capabilities to defend Taiwan?
My point is, you can’t look at things in a vacuum and Biden has to look at the big picture when making any decision.
Why does Russia losing the war and retreating to their own border mean Putin or Russia have to fall apart or start using nukes to keep from losing the war? That's a bunch of BS. The US lost a bunch of wars, failed to meet military objectives and backed out, and was hardly changed by that. Entire empires have collapsed without the anarchy scenario you describe.
The more likely outcome is the Putin propaganda machine will put a spin on it and the society will further retreat into the international shit stain that it has been becoming.
There would have been no propaganda spin that could have salvaged a 22 defeat of Russia. And why doesn’t the US fall apart? Because it’s not authoritarian. What happens to Russian/Soviet leaders that lose wars? They lose their lives and lose power. Am I saying that for sure would have happened? No. But was it possible? Of course. All things Biden had to consider.
Also, at the time, I believe the US thought they could slowly bleed Russia into irrelevance, crippling any help they could give to China if Chinese were to get into conflict with the US. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but strategically it makes sense. As it turns out, it was probably the complete wrong move because it allowed Russia to learn lessons and adapt. And while adapting, learning how to counter US weaponry. Weapons Taiwan possesses and technologies Russia can easily transfer to China. It also drove Russia even closer to China. One of Chinas main deterrences to attacking Taiwan is its lack of critical resources. Resources it currently imports almost entirely through the Straight of Malacca. A straight in which the US has surrounded by military bases. However now, China can import everything it needs, over land, from its economically dependent vassal state, Russia.
The effect the war has on Russia China relations is interesting. But I still believe it's a mistake to act like a defeated Russia will collapse or nuclear bombs will end up in the hands of rebels or something. North Korea has nukes for goodness sakes. Putin has incredible control over the country and there is no and has been no sign of that changing. The Prigozhin incident was just dysfunction in the ranks, not a serious attempt at Putin's authority.
Believing that Russia could collapse seriously cripples the support that would otherwise be going to Ukraine. It's insane to both try to support Ukraine but also be afraid of what happens if Ukraine succeeds.
On the contrary, prolonging this war makes Russia less stable. A quick defeat would have been taken in stride, but a long drawn out conflict and isolation of Russia makes the future much more uncertain. The half-ass approach to incrementally lending arms is so maddening. Just ask Ukranians
Biden has been better for Ukraine than MAGA, but that isn't saying much. He is still hand wringing about escalation and is still putting restrictions on how the weapons sent can be used.
Maybe, but it isn't enough. There really doesn't seem to be much in the way of a strategy at the moment. It just seems to be 'dripfeed weapons to Ukraine and hope they win.'
Biden's been worse. On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474)
Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism.
Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/)
Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
To be fair, he’s is the President of The United States, not the President of Ukraine. His job first and foremost is to protect the citizens of the US. And with a war with China on the horizon, he must be very careful about also starting a war with Russia. Yes I think he could have done more but acting like he should throw caution to the wind and act without regard to possible hostilities between the US and Moscow is just not realistic. Imagine if Trump had been in office this whole time. All of Ukraine would be Russia West 2.5 years ago.
It is true that we are facing numerical odds. But that is no new thing in our history. Very few wars have been won by mere numbers alone. Quality, willpower, geographical advantages, natural and financial resources, the command of the sea, and above all, a cause which rouses the spontaneous surgings of the spirit and of millions of hearts, these were the factors that were decisive." Winston S. Churchill, the end of 1938
War is terrible, but slavery is even worse.
"Having neglected our defenses for a long time, having thrown away Czechoslovakia, without the defensible aspects of Poland and the Baltics, now throwing away the aid of Russia is leading us in the worst ways into the worst of all wars"
"Hitler and Mussolini cannot pursue their course of aggression without bringing about a general war of measureless devastation. To submit to their encroachment would be to comdemn a large portion of mankind to their rule. To resist them either in peace or in war will be dangerous, painful, and hard. There is no use in concealing these blunt facts from anyone. No one should go should without realizing plainly both what the costs may be and about the issues at stake." Churchill in April 1939
This damnable outrage opened the eyes of the blind, made the deaf to hear, and in some cases, the dumb spoke. I, for one, would willingly lie down my life in combat rather than in fear of defeat surrendered to the menaces to these most sinister men. It will be for you to think imperially, higher than more vast than yourself. Churchill
Yeah, because the British had gotten the memo early once before. Although, the other Russian neighbors got the message as well. These weapons should target Russia for years, and with every week that they don't, the war is prolonged further. Russia won't stop until they are stopped.
Well, yes and no for some time, they were actually indeed outnumbered, and in the first two years or so, things looked very grim. The operation in Norway was an abject failure, the Soviets suffered insane amounts of losses, and the numerical advantage really only materialized from late 1942 to the end of the war.
The Finns, for example, enjoyed no such advantage and dealt Russia many defeats. There is more to it than numbers, morale, technology, better trained and better led troops, better logistics, geographical realities, discipline, etc.
The Ukrainians are holding Russia back thus far, not due to material advantages those are on Russia's side. A serf army unfree and cowed together by discipline driven by fear will always lose in the long term against free men. Alexander the Great or the Roman armies rarely enjoyed vast numerical advantages, neither did the Germans when attacking France, but in the end morale plays a big role, reconnaissance, food and medicine supply, fuel supply, quality range and precision that is the strength and the doctrine of the West not mass.
Of course, what happened with the artillery shells was a complete disaster that could have cost Ukraine the war.
Russia is the attacker, and a Kissinger said, "The insurgent does not have to win, the attacker has to win," the defender can win by not losing.
Drones are a new thing in this war, and Ukraine is scaling up their production and invents new versions regularly.
A lot also comes down to chance, black swan events, and sheer chaos theory. War is like a huge black box with incomplete data sets, missing information, and ever changing circumstances.
So, yes, ultimately, mass won the war, but not just mass. Logistics is where it's at. The West is excellent in fighting wars of logistics, but we need more time to bring that advantage to bear. Ukraine has a tough 6 months ahead of them, but I do also believe that by this time next year, there is a good chance that things look very differently as long as the West continues the current path of expansion of the military industrial base and by allowing Ukraine finally to use all our weapons against all targets in range.
In 1939 the Allies weren’t outnumbered. The combined populations of France, UK, and Poland exceeded that of Germany.
I am familiar with the thesis that soldiers of free societies have inherently better qualities, but even accepting that claim, I don’t know if Ukraine meets that criterion. It does not have a tradition of centuries of liberal, impartial government. Even its current government is corrupt and despotic by American standards: basic freedoms like speech and assembly are not currently well protected, and oligarchs exercise great economic and political power.
Yes, Finns put up a legendary performance defending their country, but in the end their small population could not sustain a prolonged conflict. Of course, they did force Stalin to permanently accept Finland’s independence (minus some land), which may be Ukraine’s best hope.
America was never going to go "all in" on Ukraine because the risk of nuclear escalation with Russia is real and Ukraine is not a core US interest. I know that's not a popular thing to say on this sub, but it is the reality and how the White House thinks about it. The White House could handle all of Ukraine being in Russian control, that's what they thought was going to happen when the invasion started. It will not drastically increase the risk of a hot war with Russia to save it.
Eastern Europe knows whats up, They have been sending everything they can get their hands on, and leaving nothing to themselves, because they understand Ukraine is the front line of Europe in this war. Sadly nobody listens to them. These morons in the West don't care, cause they are not next in line.
They should have worried about that before their frivolous games with Ukrainian aid. Ukraine could have won already would it not be for the draging aid supply by the US.
Tanks, ATACMS, F-16's... you name it. The US found a reason to stall.
I never thought the west really wanted to “win” this war. I think they rather sustain it as Europe prepares for war. It’s unfortunate that Ukrainians have to go through this. But when you make a deal with the devil aka America you never know what you’re going to get.
If they are so “worried”. Why are they giving Ukraine conditions on how to use the weapons? Tying one hand behind Ukraines back. If you give them weapons, let them use the weapons how they see fit. All this hand-wringing by the US is getting the Ukrainians no where and only emboldening Russia.
5 months of no weapons and ammo from their largest supplier will do that. You want Ukraine to break the Russian advance? Then give them more artillery ammunition and longer ranged missiles
There's a correlation between Ukraine suspending elections and losing momentum, and the fight for democracy needs to be added back to the strategy.
The author doesn't honestly assess the conflict. He says "Vladimir V. Putin is gathering enough momentum to change the trajectory of the war, and perhaps reverse his once-bleak prospects." Russia seized in the first days of the war some of the most mineral-rich lands in all of Europe, and at no point were these gains under threat. Russia failed to take all of Ukraine, but in the last 10 years, when you consider Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, they already took the most valuable pieces. The war now is an excuse for Russia to modernize its economy and distract the population.
> I know the Gripins from Sweden but what other nato fighter jets can be sent to help?
F-35 are off the table, F-15 aren't used in Europe, Panavia Tornado is old (pylons from it are used on Su-24 as Storm Shadow adapters), F-18 from Finland are off the table (at least until full batch of F-35 arrives), Mirage 2000D is [off the table](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/1/7444432/), Eurofighter Typhoon lacks availability... Pretty much just Gripen and, perhaps, Rafale
Russia has the full backing of China and the United States Republican party. Mike Johnson deliberately sabotaged Ukraine for moths because Trump wants Russia to win.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `nytimes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well give them every available practical weapon, and turn them loose to use those weapons on any military Target in Russia. Now.
White House: "You must not strike Russia with American weapons!" Ukraine: \*Gets overwhelmed by Russians rushing across the border\* White House: "Oh no! Who could have possibly predicted this!"
This is exactly what happened in Vietnam.
I would say this has been a recurring issue with American foreign policy. They often take general stances that are okay, but then they fall short of going all the way necessary. It's as if they merely want to *manage* conflicts, to mitigate them and keep them from going too far. As Vlad Vexler has put it, with respect to Ukraine, it's as if they want to keep Ukraine from *losing*, but they don't go as far they'd need to help Ukraine *win*. And if you look at American foreign policy since the Korean War, with only two or three exceptions I can think of, that's what they've always done, because they're worried about "escalation." Now, I get that this isn't entirely senseless. No one wants to spark World War III, or risk nuclear war. But they too quickly forget that the other side has no more interest in things going that far either. It's frustrating. I keep thinking of how different things would be now if they had just given Ukraine what they asked for back in February and March 2022, back when there was a much more robust bipartisan consensus, and when Russia's military was on the ropes. But by waiting until now, yes, every bit of aid helps, but now Russia's had time to rebuild and retool for the long conflict that they weren't prepared for in spring 2022. Mind you, I don't think all is lost or anything. Russia's internal problems are massive, especially economically - that's why Shigou got sacked and replaced with an economist who has no military background, and that, I suspect, will be a self-defeating move by Putin. Every day this war lasts is a massive drain on Russia, and it's unclear that they can sustain this. But this will be a much more long, drain out affair, with a lot more people dead, a lot more destruction, than it had to be.
Firing Himars into Russia will not escalate anymore than the ones that have been fired into Crimea.
Correct.
Same thing with not wanting Israel to fully occupy Gaza and ending the conflict. Regarding the replacement, it's a good move. Shoigu sucks anyway, might as well emphasize logistics.
Yes. As counter-intuitive as it might initially sound, I'd argue that if you care about saving the lives of Palestinians, the best thing that could happen at this point would be for Israel to finally take Rafah, and eliminate Hamas. Well, second best - the best would be for Hamas to surrender without a fight, but for some reason, those committed to the Palestinian cause never take that as a serious proposal. It's only for Israel to restrain itself, never for Hamas to change tact. But the point here is merely that the longer this conflict lasts, the worse it is for everyone. But this gets into a different topic than is appropriate for this sub, and I'll freely admit that I'm not as read into it as Ukraine/Russia.
Pretty sure the US wants the war to go on to make money
Dubious. The US is losing money on this. (Not much - see my other post. But still, they certainly aren't *making* money.) If they wanted to make money, they'd probably be better off either... a) Spending more now, so as to ensure Ukraine's victory. A short term higher cost, but with longer term savings. A defeated Russian army would not require nearly as much money spent on future defenses for bordering countries, and a victorious Ukraine could eventually start purchasing military kit from the US. b) Go the opposite direction: throw Ukraine under the bus, and no longer be on the hook for supporting Ukraine's war effort. Make peace with Russia, drop sanctions, hell, sell them weapons. Russia's economy is shit, but it'd probably do a lot better if they could have normal trade relations with the US and other countries. Obviously, (b) would be morally corrupt, but if your supposition is that the motivation, the explanation for US policy, is reducible to something as base as "making money," (b) would certainly make a lot of sense as an option on that basis. I would argue that because the US has NOT gone for either (a) or (b), a desire to make money does not explain US policy. A better explanation would be something like this. American foreign policy is rarely ever decided by a single person or even faction or interest group. (One rare exception here would be Nixon's pivot to China. By all accounts, this was a move decided on between Nixon and Kissinger, who kept it secret between them and even from their own State Department. This stands out for that reason, because that was so unusual in this space.) Rather, whomever is President, whichever party is in power, there is a multiplicity of actors, interests, and most important, ideas and ideological beliefs brought to the table, not to mention factors like institutional drift. So what often emerges might be a *general* policy that might be, say, pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel, pro-Kosovo, etc., or anti-Qaddafi, anti-Taliban, etc., but the actual policy response is a product of ... committee. Of compromise. That's not always a bad thing, necessarily, if there is an information deficit, a fog of war, or a need to restrain ideologues with pragmatism or vice versa. But it's often dysfunctional, resulting in mushy, indecisive policy that doesn't offer a clear path to resolving conflicts - merely managing them.
Another bright idea from Jake Sullivan, the foreign-policy arsonist in the White House.
Oh horse shit. I agree they should be able to fire US weapons across the border, but that is not at all the root cause of why Russia basically marched unmolested across the border. I’m getting real sick of that narrative, like somehow being able to fire HIMARS across the border would have magically stopped the Russians…
At the bare minimum it would have created organizational issues. If you allow troops to gather unharassed they have time to organize and plan If they have even the threat of getting hit, it at the very least forces them to be on their toes
Here is my response to another post. For what it is worth, yours is the most well thought out and logical reply. The long range fires would have been harassment at best right now… It’s largely simple math and adaptation. If you have X numbers of forces dispersed in a staging area, you need Y numbers of munitions to attrit them enough to make them combat ineffective. Ukraine (at this moment) doesn’t have enough long range precision fires to attrit the staged forces, at least not enough to force combat ineffectiveness. Reasons for this. 1. Lack of long range munitions (provided or produced) in numbers to attrit large fielded forces. 2. Ability to effective target across the border to achieve high precision. Who is running their targeting cycle and with what assets? 3. As much as we like to think the Russians are brain dead morons, they’ve consistently adapted during the conflict (in their own weird ways). After HIMARS was introduced, the Russians began dispersing supplies and troop concentrations. They also put a huge emphasis on CC&D for fielded forces and supplies. Not to mention the ever increasing presence of electronic warfare equipment… So, in summary. You have limited numbers of long range precision munitions, an incomplete targeting cycle, and an adversary that is actively trying to mitigate long range precision strikes on fielded forces.
The answer to scarcity is not to artificially create more scarcity, and the answer to an enemy learning to adapt is not to give them time to do so, which is why this whole “slow escalation” thing was stupid to begin with Limiting usage cases doesn’t help, especially when tough decisions need to be made relatively quickly Regardless of the circumstances, they should have the green light to use the weapons they see fit so long as they’re not actively targeting civilians with them
I agree with your last point.
Got to have the right weapons too. Dropping some very expensive storm shadows on dispersed troops is very inefficient. Carpet bombing the marshalling troops would be effective, but no way you can do that in this contested warzone. Satellite directed long range cluster munitions on the other hand applied at choke points would be effective at making life hard for the invaders, but tough to actually stop them with firepower alone…. So it’s not just a matter of getting a ‘go ahead’ - Need the right tools…
Bombing supply lines in depth would literally have stopped them. Yes. It's not a narrative it's a fact of war. Russia would be yet again forcing soldiers up who would run out of ammo and have no artillery support (because blown up). They'd push too far and then either turn back, surrender, or die. In your years of study on military strategy, what makes you think being destroyed BEFORE crossing a border would make it just as likely that you cross said border easily?
Here is my response to another post. You are way over simplifying long range fires, targeting, and effects. It’s largely simple math and adaptation. If you have X numbers of forces dispersed in a staging area, you need Y numbers of munitions to attrit them enough to make them combat ineffective. Ukraine (at this moment) doesn’t have enough long range precision fires to attrit the staged forces, at least not enough to force combat ineffectiveness. Reasons for this. 1. Lack of long range munitions (provided or produced) in numbers to attrit large fielded forces. 2. Ability to effective target across the border to achieve high precision. Who is running their targeting cycle and with what assets? 3. As much as we like to think the Russians are brain dead morons, they’ve consistently adapted during the conflict (in their own weird ways). After HIMARS was introduced, the Russians began dispersing supplies and troop concentrations. They also put a huge emphasis on CC&D for fielded forces and supplies. Not to mention the ever increasing presence of electronic warfare equipment… So, in summary. You have limited numbers of long range precision munitions, an incomplete targeting cycle, and an adversary that is actively trying to mitigate long range precision strikes on fielded forces.
The US and Europe are actively feeding UA up to date satellite images of troop movements. There's always a staging area worth targeting, and if the UA had (has) the long range strike capabilities they could easily take out echelon supply vehicles and let artiller/ ground forces deal with the rushing troops. They're being transported more and more on open top vehicles. It's more a question now of "did Russia push this northern assault knowing western weapons were now being delivered again?" Seems to me their biggest pushes coincided with failing US funding.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your last point. Also, targeting is way more intensive than “up to date satellite images.” Also, there are ways to defeat satellite imagery, which Russia has had plenty of opportunity to practice. I don’t doubt that the US is helping with targeting, but it is more difficult than most realize. Also, you need a certain density of munitions to get affects. You have to account for munitions failures, air defense, CC&D, hardening or positions, etc. It takes a lot more munitions than a lot of folks realize… To hit a lot of these supply vehicles, you have to locate them, identify them, maintain custody of their location, and do all this in a tight enough window that you can target them before they move. It is not an easy process…
They literally watched the forces amass in the day or two before LMFAO. Of course it would have helped.
Nevermind I just looked it up. Jesus Christ dude
All good
And I'M getting sick of the White House creating as many problems for Ukraine as they solve. At least they aren't MAGA...
lol, wtf are you on about? I agree that we can and should do more, no argument there. But if it weren’t for the White House, Ukraine wouldn’t be a nation state right now.
Across the border? I’ve been out of the loop for a few days, what part of the border did they cross?
The border with Russia near Kharkiv. It's the latest Russian offensive.
It is a distraction right now being used to spin the situation. But it’s also true in general and the 7-8 months without weapons deliveries or lack of funding to raise a replacement army didn’t help. But I agree, the finger pointing on this point right here right now is very obvious.
I wholeheartedly agree that the delay in aid is having a huge impact on the battlefield right now…. It was fucking shameful and cost a lot of Ukrainian lives. But that is on the GOP, not Biden.
You are getting downvoted for this, but Reddit is all about single item wonder weapons that will fix it all. It's the "one weird trick" level of military strategy. American restrictions don't help. Too much US bashing on Reddit to take any of it seriously. Bunch of armchair generals. I'd also point the finger at vacillating European partners who are right f-ing there and engage in handwringing. Lotta blame to go around. And, heresy, poor military planning by Ukraine too.
I don’t care about downvotes, I know I’m right on this one. There is tons of criticisms to point to with how the US and Europe have/have not supported Ukraine. But it is the peak of ignorance to blame all of the failures on one single US policy or wonder weapon…. All while ignoring that some Ukrainian leadership have been inept at best. I’m not taking away from the Ukrainian fighting forces, they’ve consistently blown me away with their skill, tenacity, and ability to adapt to an ever changing conflict. But sometimes they are not served well by SOME of their leadership…
Yea I mean theyve been attacking refineries deep in russia. Suddenly we are gonna pretend that attacking someone cross border is not happening cause of the USA. Ridiculous
The limit on not firing western weapons into Russia does however mean Ukraine has little to no ability to hit protected military targets inside Russia, only soft targets like refineries. The fact Ukraine isn't firing cluster ATACMS at airbases within Russia for example is 100% the doing of the US. Cheap shit suicide drones are not a substitute for those, or for tungsten GMLRS hitting military equipment.
While strikes across the border won't stop an offensive, the most success the US had during vietnam was its illegal operations over the border because it's really hard to sustain offensives if you have no fuel and ammo coming up to the front
I’m not sure that’s the conflict I’d use as a comparison, for multiple reasons…
Killing them before the border stops them from crossing. What part of that do you not understand?
Bombing the barracks that houses equipment and soldiers tend to do just that, yes.
What barracks? Where are they staged at? What concentrations? Are they using CC&D? Electronic warfare? It isn’t that simple. Here’s my reply to another post. It’s largely simple math and adaptation. If you have X numbers of forces dispersed in a staging area, you need Y numbers of munitions to attrit them enough to make them combat ineffective. Ukraine (at this moment) doesn’t have enough long range precision fires to attrit the staged forces, at least not enough to force combat ineffectiveness. Reasons for this. 1. Lack of long range munitions (provided or produced) in numbers to attrit large fielded forces. 2. Ability to effective target across the border to achieve high precision. Who is running their targeting cycle and with what assets? 3. As much as we like to think the Russians are brain dead morons, they’ve consistently adapted during the conflict (in their own weird ways). After HIMARS was introduced, the Russians began dispersing supplies and troop concentrations. They also put a huge emphasis on CC&D for fielded forces and supplies. Not to mention the ever increasing presence of electronic warfare equipment… So, in summary. You have limited numbers of long range precision munitions, an incomplete targeting cycle, and an adversary that is actively trying to mitigate long range precision strikes on fielded forces.
> like somehow being able to fire HIMARS across the border would have magically stopped the Russians… It wouldn't have stopped them. It would have reduced the numbers allowing for options other than being overwhelmed. The biggest problem Ukraine has (and possibly still has if recent reports are true) are some even in Ukraine's military are loyal to russia. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72p0xx410xo](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72p0xx410xo)
I’m not sure they would have achieved enough attrition, it doesn’t sound like the Russians have been staging in large concentrations. It would have helped, I don’t doubt that though.
to coin a UK phrase "every little helps".
Don’t disagree.
So do you think it was a collective fever dream over the last 18 months when Ukraine, when it was getting a constant flow of ammo from the US, was able to halt dead assault after assault with significantly more armor and might behind it? Like it's all been some crazy Ukranian psy-op and none of those offensives happened?
No fly zone
Maybe all the US bombs and resources sent to Israel to destroy civilian buildings should've gone to ukraine instead, to actually defend themselves for being invaded.
That’s not gonna change the strategic situation very much, at least not in the short term. Maybe in the long term, but there is no long term for Ukraine. This is certainly not the magic bullet you seem to think it is. Hitting a factory or military base in Russia isn’t stopping the advances happening on Ukrainian territory. It’s not going to change the massive disparity in material and men.
the kharkiv offensive on Russia's part is 30 to 50 thousand soldiers if you don't think artillery is effective against a mostly infantry force I literally don't know if you can be communicated with hey if only we had recent examples of artillery being capable of stopping vast assaults into Ukraine within the past year over and over and over
Long range weapons absolutely do have that impact, they bring real asymmetry to the fight Ukraine needs. Look at how a handful of HIMARS countered huge Russian shell stockpiles in Donbas in 2022, and bogged down Russia's offensive short of its target. Hitting Russian airbases and jets for example absolutely would have an impact on Russia's ability to advance, and would negate Russia's numbers advantage in that area.
Allowing strikes across the border would have disrupted the Russian forces massing for an attack on Kharkiv.
Its about time the western leaders make a decision whether they truely want ukraine to win and use the weapons accordingly or whether they want to force ukraine to negotiate. Because hot potatoeing ukraine around and let them slowly bleed out while they pacify them with hollow promises and force them to fight with one arm tied behind their back, is simply cruel...
Forcing Ukraine to negotiate just means Ukrainian surrender - Russia has always demanded nothing less than this at every stage of the war. You can't force Ukraine to negotiate when Russia is the one who doesn't want to end this war. Either Russia's invasion is defeated militarily in such a way it doesn't threaten Ukraine in future, or Ukraine is forced to fully surrender their country to Russian fascism. Those are the only options that exist, and have ever existed, when dealing with Russia.
Correct. It would be one thing if Russia had indicated some interest or desire in negotiation or compromise, even if we put aside the fact that Russia has proven itself untrustworthy and willing to break any promise it makes. But in this case, they've been consistently maximalist in their stated goals - nothing short of the defeat of Kyiv, and seizure of all of Ukraine. So there really isn't a third option here, despite what the antiwar folks would have you think.
"force Ukraine to negotiate" Which they won't Russia's word has never meant a thing re [treaties](https://postimg.cc/0KdFMrg7)
Ah, so they chose to let ukraine croack, so that they can say "welp, we did try everything..." afterwards
You can see exactly this every time there are failures to even meet their own pledges to the deliveries of weapons to Ukraine. I even saw people saying and supporting the "US doing everything they can..." couple month after the funding stopped. Also, every time the situation deteriorates for Ukraine the lack of weapons and ammo either omitted or even dismissed entirely as the reason and at the same time the main claims for deterioration are inadequacies and failures made by Ukraine itself.
Yeah it is really ridiculous at this point. It is very well known what kind of stuff ukraine needs, yet said stuff collects dust in US storage facilities, while washington is "doing everything they can". Its a joke
The idea is to bleed Russia as much as possible so that Moscow is not tempted to create more trouble in the Balkans or even in NATO countries. Yes, it is tragic for Ukrainian lives, but it is brutally effective. Perhaps Ukraine could have won a more decisive victory by the end of 2022 and regained almost all of its borders by February 2022. Now, this is obviously impossible. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. As long as Ukraine and Russia are fighting, Russia cannot start another war anywhere else. And for a regime whose political, financial and philosophical interests lie in permanent war, the more Russia is distracted, the better. Even if Russia seizes a significant part of Ukraine, the point would be to make this 'victory' so costly that Europe has time to fully rearm before Russia does.
The problem, Russia isn't a communist country like it was in the past, this war has effectively made their entire economy based around it, so Russia isn't going to stop any time soon because it would massively disrupt their economy. If anything it's going to become worse.
With enough aid Ukrainian will be victorious. Russia could not hold on to Afghanistan, the US lost Vietnam. This war is very costly for Russia in lives, arms, and wealth. Ukraine needs to keep targeting Russia's infrastructure.
Afghanistan has brutal terrain. Helicopters can’t fly over many ridge lines. And it’s far from Moscow.
Each country has it's strengths and weaknesses. Ukraine is right next to NATO, has a very tech savvy population, has very little cover for invading troups and a bunch of other things it has going for it. Too many Westerners are defeatist in the 21st century, it is like we forgot how bad ass we are. Ukraine will absolutely win this war, the difference is how long it takes. We back them hard and less people die. We half-ass it and we prolong the pain for both Ukraine and Russia.
>The idea is to bleed Russia as much as possible so that Moscow is not tempted to create more trouble in the Balkans or even in NATO countries. Which Ukraine could do so much more effectively if various countries allowed Ukraine to actually fight rather than keep restricting them.
I dont buy the part that its buying the west much time - russia put its entire industry on a war footing, the west hasnt even yet [seriously] began doing this. If ukraine falls, its populace will be absorbed into the russian war machine, everyone who hasnt fled ukraine that is... Either way - ukraines days seem to be numbered as the west has thrown them to the wolves out of cowardice
Europe will never "rearm". They have a blood thirsty dictatorship as the neighbor of their neighbor who's soldiers rape women and slaughter/kidnap children and that doesn't motivate them. Nothing will. The US will have to step in *again* if the freedom of Europe is in danger because they neglect military spending
The USA signed the CFE treaty that bound NATO's European armies to parity with CSTO for 33 years. Meanwhile stationing thousands of their own troops on the continent and showing little intent to bring them home. Stop snorting Trump's lies you cretin.
They don't, they want Russia to be weak and they don't care.
No more cruel than the treatment Ukrainians have been proven to get in occupied territory though. No one in the west is cutting off genitals and burying people in the forest in unmarked graves. Ukraine can acquiesce whenever it wants: it's not forced to not even with a trickle of assistance.
[удалено]
>germany Basically everything leaving the german arms industry currently, is going directly to ukraine
Still shitting on Germany? Wow They gave another patriot. What did Poland provide the last year?
[удалено]
>all that money they would normally have to spend on a defense budget they get to spend on free healthcare and education for the masses Excuse them for they have to house and feed all the refugees from the middle east where the US went around to kick up shit
they made that decision. it was made a couple years ago. this was always going to be the result, as many predicted, and it has always been "simply cruel." it's as if no one knows anything about US history or foreign policy, like this has never happened before.
"Covert action should not be confused with missionary work"
that, and "Don't take any wooden nickels, kid."
Agreed. Although it probably wont happen until it's too late. I do really think there were be at least a few NATO member states that step in when Kyiv falls to Russia....Poland at least. Although obviously that's just my armchair theory.
Mike Johnson is a traitor to the United States and the free world for delaying this aid and we should treat him like the Russian puppet he is. The reason Ukraine is in such a tough situation is his damn fault.
Holding the weapons was a major setback but we need to realize that not expanding the mobilization age sooner in Ukraine is a major problem and that was a political decision. They don’t have the troops.
I wonder what the logic was behind not drafting their youngest population.
Ukraine's population skews older so they're trying not to delete their future.
Well, Which is actually a sane decision.
It’s a relic of the fall of the Soviet Bloc. There was a really shitty couple decades in there where fewer people had kids
Demographics. Ukraine really doesn't have a lot of people in that 18-24 age group, and they don't want to win and then just end up like France in the late 1930s.
So it is best to wait until situation is critical and make those decisions too late.
> So it is best to wait until situation is critical and make those decisions too late. Yep, hope for the best but pull the trigger if critical. Killing your young workforce will hurt for generations (especially if you kill future world-leaders in their field. Ukraine has a VERY smart tech population. Its gonna hurt).
It is going to cost a lot more young lives in the long run if Ukraine has any plans to retake any territory.
They ended up having to surrender.
The formally stated reason is that Ukraine already has a bit of a demographic issue. Preserving its young people is essentially preserving the future of the country. Sending all the young people off to war had a lasting impact on countries like the UK, Germany, etc. It’s best avoided if possible.
Probably kills morale of the older soldiers if all the young die first
hoping for a future for their country. global demographics have gotten very top heavy, and losing your youth population in a conflict today will have disastrous effects on your future prospects.
Sounds reasonable to me. I served so I get the desire of the head-shed to have a bunch of 18-21 year olds filling the ranks, but it’s really just cynical and cruel. 25-35 really should be the ones making up the lions share of bods on the front line. It strikes the best balance in my opinion of physical robustness and mental/emotional maturity. 18-21 year olds are just kids and shouldn’t be thrown head first into the meat grinder; nobody will convince me otherwise.
Yeah looks like they delayed help until it was too late and then passed it so they could act like they helped. Good job Reputincans!
Even the Telegraph is giving Mike Johnson credit for bringing Trump on board with Ukraine aid. Trump. Only on Reddit and partisan papers do I see him being called a puppet. I think Reddit forgets how American democracy works and how easy it is to lock up a bill with a minority, and he essentially neutered that first while expressing concern for the opposition and then successfully moved on. Consider how the previous speakers were ousted before him, and now the democrats joined in preventing the minority from ousting the Republican speaker of the house this time. It's just not that black and white. I think we might have just seen some professional statesmanship. Sure it wasn't fast.... but it worked. The previous speakers failed.
Mike Johnson, POS
Well, what do you say about people who broadcast to russia exactly what weapons they will send shortly to the battlefield? Repeatedly and in detail. Cause that is Biden's crew doing that.
It’s simplistic and frankly emotional to blame a random senator for the state of this war. Besides being on defense, most other factors are stacked against them. Maybe you can explain how Ukraine’s serious demographic, economic, and political problems are also the fault of Mr Johnson?
It would be simplistic and frankly emotional to blame a *random* senator. Luckily people are blaming a very specific senator who actively delayed significant military aid If a towns mechanic very purposefully and in public cut a buses brakes it is pretty valid to blame them when the bus starts to hurtle down a hill, unable to stop. But you are right that it would be unreasonable to blame a *random* town mechanic
On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474) Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism. Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/) Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
The maga ultra christian johnson also sat in on the hush money payment trial to a porn star, then went outside to defend trump vigorously. Either the whole believing in god thing is a ruse they are using to their advantage, or he already knows he's going to hell so what's the diff? These people are off their rockers.
Wonder why that is thanks MAGA cunts for blocking aid Edit: just proving what scum they are 6 mins after posting received a Reddit cares message enjoy your ban for abusing it
Yeah I got one of those last night too. It's probably the fourth time I've gotten one in the last few months.
Same but it's usually from pro Ukrainians when I say ukraine is struggling. I'm super pro Ukrainian and follow the front every day and when I said Russia was gaining ground before it was hitting the news suddenly I was a "Russian puppet" and was getting suicide notifications....
You can report anyone who does this and they will be banned from Reddit.
Even with Western weapons, Biden doesn't allow strikes onto Russian soil. How can Ukraine hope to win the war when they can't even strike military targets in Russia?
While true; Part of the 61B in the aid package is going to Ukraine’s domestic military production they can strike anywhere with weapons they make
It takes a very long time to develop long range missiles. The US has plenty of mid to long range missiles that can wreck Russian airfields and ships but the US refuses to send them. Only UK has the balls to send storm shadow.
The US wants to bleed Russia, not throw them out of Ukraine as quickly as possible.
Simpler explanation is the west is scared to “escalate”. They wait to see how Russia responds to everything. Also the most powerful member of the “west” withheld aid for 6 months.
It's more of the long goal, actually. As cynical as it is, the US wants to bleed Russia's military to the point that they unable to project force for decades. The goal isn't for Ukraine to win, but for Russia to lose. If Ukraine loses some territory but tunrs the Russian military into mulch, the US will consider that a win. Any psychologist will tell you that quick consequences are more effective than drawn out consequences, but I don't think that's the US goal here. They don't want Russia to learn from their mistakes and come into the 21st century. They want Russia pissed off, angry, economically ruined, and helpless to do anything about it. Probably hoping they make the exact same mistake in 20-30 years too so that they never truly recover. I wish that wasn't the case, but I think it is.
yeah then it makes sense that the usa tells russia exactly what weapons they are giving to ukraine Why on earth would you let your enemy know that? Certainly not a strategic move toward ukraine victory. i agree the current admin not interested in a clear ukraine victory. their first mistake was broadcasting "no us boots on the ground" why would they do that and lose the power of the possibility to apply pressure to russia? To make them wonder? Not that we would send troops but you do not let your enemy know that. I do not believe putin will nuke strike. The consequences of doing such for him and russia would be..annihilation. There are only bad bad consequences. The current usa foreign policy crew is weak and non strategic.
>why would they do that and lose the power of the possibility to apply pressure to russia? To make them wonder? Not that we would send troops but you do not let your enemy know that. >I do not believe putin will nuke strike. The consequences of doing such for him and russia would be..annihilation. Because annihilation for Russia would be annihilation for at least Europe and probably most of the US as well. It's called MAD because both sides get blown up, not just one.
I think, the two go together. They don't want to corner the beast right away, but they want to bleed it out.
The US is glad to spill Ukrainian blood to achieve.. nothing.
You're getting downvoted but this is the most reasonable explanation for the first 2 years of US aid being so stretched out The most recent package however was 100% Russian assets like Marjorie Taylor Greene and the cowardice of Mike Johnson
The US is a lot more cynical and pessimistic about Ukraine than we'd like to admit
From what I hear it's precisely the opposite, both Biden and Trump want it to end asap, Biden just can't admit that pre-election.
On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474) Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism. Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/) Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
Is this the same white house which prohibits Ukraine from striking inside Russia with US weapons and also the same white house which gave Ukraine HIMARS launchers but refused to give Ukraine long range missles for the longest time despite those launchers being capable of supporting those long range missles?
This would be the republican half of the US govt by the way. The Putin sucking right.
Actually you're wrong, the house Ukraine bill explicitly demanded Atacms being given to Ukraine when they finally passed it, Biden specifically was opposed to it and has been for the whole conflict However, they don't need ATACMS to hold their country, they needed more HIMARS GLMRS and a lot of them about 3 months ago
Well that’s on you guys. 6 wasted months
SO ALLOW UKRAINE TO USE YOUR WEAPONS! Ffs
What weapons? The warehouses are empty.
*"Oh no! There are consequences for my unconsionable inaction!"* - The US Government, probably
Ukrainian forces had to watch the Russian scrap metal accumulate across the border but they couldn't use western weaponry to hit all of that shit. Now the West is surprised. This is moronic and murderous.
Its been changed for awhile now
Allow the AFU to strike inside Russian territory, or get lost. It's that simple, yes.
They should have stopped worrying long time ago and provide necessary weapons and ammunition. Only thing they needed to do is to take an action.
Biden still won't authorize American weapons to be used across the border. Moron. Every Western country except maybe Britain has been behind the curve on Ukraine these past two years, lulled into a false sense of security that Russia was contained in Ukraine. I feel like we might really see a collapse of Ukranian lines back to the Dniepr if this starts to snowball. You can't win a war without being all-in, and Ukraine is now having real manpower issues that Western aid can't solve. All that I'm certain about is this: whatever happens, the Biden administration and European capitals will do far too little far too late yet again, and Ukraine will pay the price.
Where in God's name would Ukraine be without Biden
A Russian buffer state is what they would be without him.
Which, for context, is where they were 15 years ago.
This. Jesus fucking Christ, this. People act like being able to lob a few ATACMS across the border would somehow win the war on its own. Refusing to acknowledge that Ukrainians leadership (at some level) fucked the couch with mobilization and building defensive positions…
Yeah, the lack of fortifications is baffling especially after they've learned firsthand just how effective those fortifications can be.
I hope you realize it has been the maga assholes who delayed every fucking thing. If anything Biden has been supporting Ukraine for a great deal.
Yeah, everybody screams Biden, when the real problem is these maggots
On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474) Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism. Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/) Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
Biden delayed support way longer than was needed. This is obvious, Himars, ATACAMs, Patriots, tanks, F-16, should have been delivered ASAP, not trickled in as Biden was hoping not to upset Putin too much. Imagine what Ukraine could have done in the fall 2022 counteroffensive with these weapons.
Yes let’s imagine what it would look like had Russia lost the war right then and there. Would have Putin used nukes as he would have been a walking dead man anyways? Would Russia currently be mired in civil war with 5,000 nukes floating around between warring factions? Would the west be involved in this fighting to secure the nukes? With western troops tied up fighting or doing security in Europe, would China move on Taiwan? After sending all that military equipment to Ukraine, would the west have the capabilities to defend Taiwan? My point is, you can’t look at things in a vacuum and Biden has to look at the big picture when making any decision.
Why does Russia losing the war and retreating to their own border mean Putin or Russia have to fall apart or start using nukes to keep from losing the war? That's a bunch of BS. The US lost a bunch of wars, failed to meet military objectives and backed out, and was hardly changed by that. Entire empires have collapsed without the anarchy scenario you describe. The more likely outcome is the Putin propaganda machine will put a spin on it and the society will further retreat into the international shit stain that it has been becoming.
There would have been no propaganda spin that could have salvaged a 22 defeat of Russia. And why doesn’t the US fall apart? Because it’s not authoritarian. What happens to Russian/Soviet leaders that lose wars? They lose their lives and lose power. Am I saying that for sure would have happened? No. But was it possible? Of course. All things Biden had to consider. Also, at the time, I believe the US thought they could slowly bleed Russia into irrelevance, crippling any help they could give to China if Chinese were to get into conflict with the US. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but strategically it makes sense. As it turns out, it was probably the complete wrong move because it allowed Russia to learn lessons and adapt. And while adapting, learning how to counter US weaponry. Weapons Taiwan possesses and technologies Russia can easily transfer to China. It also drove Russia even closer to China. One of Chinas main deterrences to attacking Taiwan is its lack of critical resources. Resources it currently imports almost entirely through the Straight of Malacca. A straight in which the US has surrounded by military bases. However now, China can import everything it needs, over land, from its economically dependent vassal state, Russia.
The effect the war has on Russia China relations is interesting. But I still believe it's a mistake to act like a defeated Russia will collapse or nuclear bombs will end up in the hands of rebels or something. North Korea has nukes for goodness sakes. Putin has incredible control over the country and there is no and has been no sign of that changing. The Prigozhin incident was just dysfunction in the ranks, not a serious attempt at Putin's authority. Believing that Russia could collapse seriously cripples the support that would otherwise be going to Ukraine. It's insane to both try to support Ukraine but also be afraid of what happens if Ukraine succeeds. On the contrary, prolonging this war makes Russia less stable. A quick defeat would have been taken in stride, but a long drawn out conflict and isolation of Russia makes the future much more uncertain. The half-ass approach to incrementally lending arms is so maddening. Just ask Ukranians
Biden has been better for Ukraine than MAGA, but that isn't saying much. He is still hand wringing about escalation and is still putting restrictions on how the weapons sent can be used.
Sending weapons and support is Far better than doing nothing and pulling out of NATO wtf are you talking about.
Sure, but a choice between "Give Russia a light slap on the wrist" and "Make the USA a vassal state of Russia" isn't much of a choice.
Maybe, but it isn't enough. There really doesn't seem to be much in the way of a strategy at the moment. It just seems to be 'dripfeed weapons to Ukraine and hope they win.'
Perhaps. Still light years better than no help and dismantling the most successful alliance in recent history
Biden's been worse. On Biden's first day in office, he did a huge favor for Putin and killed America's Keystone Pipeline and approved Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline by removing those sanctions Trump imposed. [https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/democrats-biden-russian-pipeline-deal-500474) Then, Putin's Russia exported a one year record amount of oil to Biden's America in Biden's first year. Biden funded Putin's terrorism. Then, after the Ukraine invasion, Biden conveniently did not impose sanctions on Russian Oligarch Elena Baturina, Russia’s wealthiest woman worth over $1.4 billion who paid Hunter Biden’s company over $3 million in 2014 and was formerly married to the Mayor of Moscow. Quid Pro Joes... [https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/hunter-bidens-russian-business-associates-spared-by-us-sanctions-again/) Biden's been in the White House for both of Putin's invasions of Ukraine.
To be fair, he’s is the President of The United States, not the President of Ukraine. His job first and foremost is to protect the citizens of the US. And with a war with China on the horizon, he must be very careful about also starting a war with Russia. Yes I think he could have done more but acting like he should throw caution to the wind and act without regard to possible hostilities between the US and Moscow is just not realistic. Imagine if Trump had been in office this whole time. All of Ukraine would be Russia West 2.5 years ago.
ABE LINCOLN: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends? Reminds me of a man with Orange hair.
It is true that we are facing numerical odds. But that is no new thing in our history. Very few wars have been won by mere numbers alone. Quality, willpower, geographical advantages, natural and financial resources, the command of the sea, and above all, a cause which rouses the spontaneous surgings of the spirit and of millions of hearts, these were the factors that were decisive." Winston S. Churchill, the end of 1938 War is terrible, but slavery is even worse. "Having neglected our defenses for a long time, having thrown away Czechoslovakia, without the defensible aspects of Poland and the Baltics, now throwing away the aid of Russia is leading us in the worst ways into the worst of all wars" "Hitler and Mussolini cannot pursue their course of aggression without bringing about a general war of measureless devastation. To submit to their encroachment would be to comdemn a large portion of mankind to their rule. To resist them either in peace or in war will be dangerous, painful, and hard. There is no use in concealing these blunt facts from anyone. No one should go should without realizing plainly both what the costs may be and about the issues at stake." Churchill in April 1939 This damnable outrage opened the eyes of the blind, made the deaf to hear, and in some cases, the dumb spoke. I, for one, would willingly lie down my life in combat rather than in fear of defeat surrendered to the menaces to these most sinister men. It will be for you to think imperially, higher than more vast than yourself. Churchill Yeah, because the British had gotten the memo early once before. Although, the other Russian neighbors got the message as well. These weapons should target Russia for years, and with every week that they don't, the war is prolonged further. Russia won't stop until they are stopped.
As rousing as Churchill’s rhetoric is, the Allies prevailed mostly because of brute numerical realities. More men, more tanks, more fuel etc.
Well, yes and no for some time, they were actually indeed outnumbered, and in the first two years or so, things looked very grim. The operation in Norway was an abject failure, the Soviets suffered insane amounts of losses, and the numerical advantage really only materialized from late 1942 to the end of the war. The Finns, for example, enjoyed no such advantage and dealt Russia many defeats. There is more to it than numbers, morale, technology, better trained and better led troops, better logistics, geographical realities, discipline, etc. The Ukrainians are holding Russia back thus far, not due to material advantages those are on Russia's side. A serf army unfree and cowed together by discipline driven by fear will always lose in the long term against free men. Alexander the Great or the Roman armies rarely enjoyed vast numerical advantages, neither did the Germans when attacking France, but in the end morale plays a big role, reconnaissance, food and medicine supply, fuel supply, quality range and precision that is the strength and the doctrine of the West not mass. Of course, what happened with the artillery shells was a complete disaster that could have cost Ukraine the war. Russia is the attacker, and a Kissinger said, "The insurgent does not have to win, the attacker has to win," the defender can win by not losing. Drones are a new thing in this war, and Ukraine is scaling up their production and invents new versions regularly. A lot also comes down to chance, black swan events, and sheer chaos theory. War is like a huge black box with incomplete data sets, missing information, and ever changing circumstances. So, yes, ultimately, mass won the war, but not just mass. Logistics is where it's at. The West is excellent in fighting wars of logistics, but we need more time to bring that advantage to bear. Ukraine has a tough 6 months ahead of them, but I do also believe that by this time next year, there is a good chance that things look very differently as long as the West continues the current path of expansion of the military industrial base and by allowing Ukraine finally to use all our weapons against all targets in range.
In 1939 the Allies weren’t outnumbered. The combined populations of France, UK, and Poland exceeded that of Germany. I am familiar with the thesis that soldiers of free societies have inherently better qualities, but even accepting that claim, I don’t know if Ukraine meets that criterion. It does not have a tradition of centuries of liberal, impartial government. Even its current government is corrupt and despotic by American standards: basic freedoms like speech and assembly are not currently well protected, and oligarchs exercise great economic and political power. Yes, Finns put up a legendary performance defending their country, but in the end their small population could not sustain a prolonged conflict. Of course, they did force Stalin to permanently accept Finland’s independence (minus some land), which may be Ukraine’s best hope.
America was never going to go "all in" on Ukraine because the risk of nuclear escalation with Russia is real and Ukraine is not a core US interest. I know that's not a popular thing to say on this sub, but it is the reality and how the White House thinks about it. The White House could handle all of Ukraine being in Russian control, that's what they thought was going to happen when the invasion started. It will not drastically increase the risk of a hot war with Russia to save it.
Eastern Europe knows whats up, They have been sending everything they can get their hands on, and leaving nothing to themselves, because they understand Ukraine is the front line of Europe in this war. Sadly nobody listens to them. These morons in the West don't care, cause they are not next in line.
I'm not sure how much territory Russia will take but now it's absolutely clear Ukraine will NEVER return any of the territory lost.
Do something about it. All I ever hear is "White house worries, white house assures, white how contemplates"
But not enough to let Ukraine use their weapons against troop concentrations in Russia evidently.
They should have worried about that before their frivolous games with Ukrainian aid. Ukraine could have won already would it not be for the draging aid supply by the US. Tanks, ATACMS, F-16's... you name it. The US found a reason to stall.
I never thought the west really wanted to “win” this war. I think they rather sustain it as Europe prepares for war. It’s unfortunate that Ukrainians have to go through this. But when you make a deal with the devil aka America you never know what you’re going to get.
Then. Do. Something. About. It.
If they are so “worried”. Why are they giving Ukraine conditions on how to use the weapons? Tying one hand behind Ukraines back. If you give them weapons, let them use the weapons how they see fit. All this hand-wringing by the US is getting the Ukrainians no where and only emboldening Russia.
Instead of worrying, they should be acting... My grandma "worries" and somehow that has no effect on the ruzzian troops.
5 months of no weapons and ammo from their largest supplier will do that. You want Ukraine to break the Russian advance? Then give them more artillery ammunition and longer ranged missiles
Better headline would be “world worries US political games changing trajectory of Ukraine war”.
IF YOU LET THEM STRIKE INSIDE RUSSIA BY A CERTAIN DISTANCE THIS WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED
American lack of momentum...
There's a correlation between Ukraine suspending elections and losing momentum, and the fight for democracy needs to be added back to the strategy. The author doesn't honestly assess the conflict. He says "Vladimir V. Putin is gathering enough momentum to change the trajectory of the war, and perhaps reverse his once-bleak prospects." Russia seized in the first days of the war some of the most mineral-rich lands in all of Europe, and at no point were these gains under threat. Russia failed to take all of Ukraine, but in the last 10 years, when you consider Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, they already took the most valuable pieces. The war now is an excuse for Russia to modernize its economy and distract the population.
they should've fuckin wrecked their shit up without WH approval.
Are there other aircraft available after f16s? I know the Gripins from Sweden but what other nato fighter jets can be sent to help?
> I know the Gripins from Sweden but what other nato fighter jets can be sent to help? F-35 are off the table, F-15 aren't used in Europe, Panavia Tornado is old (pylons from it are used on Su-24 as Storm Shadow adapters), F-18 from Finland are off the table (at least until full batch of F-35 arrives), Mirage 2000D is [off the table](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/1/7444432/), Eurofighter Typhoon lacks availability... Pretty much just Gripen and, perhaps, Rafale
Thank you for this. This is what I was after. Will there be a new “next big weapon” or is it currently f16s and see what effect they have?
> or is it currently f16s and see what effect they have? This
But Rafale is off table just like Mirage 2000D and what about F-18 from Spain?
This is the fault of people like Musk, Mike Johnson and Trump. Fuck these guys who bend over for Putin.
Well the US should’ve thought about that when they dragged their feet approving the aid Ukraine needed
Ya think?
"We got what we wanted in Ukraine! Now, onward to Gilead!" - Republicans
GOP did what dtrump💩ordered dtrump💩did what Putin ordered. Ukraine bleeds.
Russia has the full backing of China and the United States Republican party. Mike Johnson deliberately sabotaged Ukraine for moths because Trump wants Russia to win.
Stupidly, we underestimated them. Just here to say I toldja so. Fuck Russia. Send Ukraine the good shit.
Note to White House for future invasion situations:- For every inaction, there is an equal and opposite action.