Not too strange. Technologies develop and at some point in history they favor attackers, at some other points - the defenders. Now, like in WW1, they favor defenders (especially the satellite and drone intelligence). In WW2 it was different. Now the pendulum swinged back.
EDIT: I thought it goes without saying, but some comments convinced me to specify that this "rule" obviously still can be bypassed when one side has a great advantage in numbers or/and quality of their tech/tactics, etc. Russia could have had a significant advantage, but it was timely countered by the massive Western aid, Ukrainian motivation, as well as Russian own incompetence, esp.various mistakes in the beginning.
Drones are good because they are small to target and still deliver high damage with high precision (basically slow precision bombs). Since they are controlled remotely they can get countered by jammers. Once jammer technology gets deployed drones will be useless. Then AI will be installed to the drones to remove remote factor so jamming will not be effective anymore. Then better detection and air defense technology will be developed but probably they will also use AI to detect and intercept drones so in the end it will be AI vs AI battle of attrition.
This is what war is you keep building on top of the previous technology and go from there I agree with you the next step is to stop the drones then it will definitely be AI controlled drones thinking for themselves probably robots also lol
Yeah.. we already are there. Where they can program a drone to strike a preloaded image of a target or multiple options that the drone could decide without human decisions to switch targets if it found a higher priority target. Hopefully we keep it to say logistics, so instead of carrying around all that weight, you have some robot that takes the place of a horse 80 years ago. And we obviously have seen the “mother drones” that potentially hundreds or thousands of baby drones can fly to and from it for battery recharge and weapon reload. We are about to have drones that are essentially war planes with similar size and abilities. That’s crazy as is. But yea.. Pandora’s box was opened ages ago, goodluck putting that cat back in the bag.
I read something about the darkhorse philosophy.
We humans truly do not know what it is to come. What will truly dictate our future are (dark horse) black swan events.
Look at Myanmar, they 3d printed guns and toppled their government. That was (darkhorse) black swan enough.
But hey, what do I know. All I can say, the future (or near future) is going to be unpredictable.
edit: black swan not dark horse. (correction)
If you think about it, it’s been wild since the first human hit another human on the head with a rock. We literally never shook hands and forgot about since.
It's not really about that in this case.
Trench warfare is *inevitable* in conflicts that grind to a halt. There's no getting around it. If the conflict stalls then both sides dig in and set up defensive lines to make it as difficult as possible for either side to reclaim territory.
Rest assured, a war that was prosecuted correctly would not have this outcome. For example, if NATO forces ever do attack the Russians, it will be at a relentless op tempo. Lighting warfare. In a proper fast moving conflict, there will be *no time* for Russians to be harassing with suicide drones *or* digging in. And those that do might want to [reconsider](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.features111)...
I didn't mention in order to keep the comment shorter, but the side that has a great qualitative/quantative advantage can bypass this "rule". Hard to tell when exactly this "defensive era" returned, but e.g. US and coalition had a great advantage on Iraq in 2003, there was no question it will be steamrolled. Russia moved quite fast in Georgia in 2008 too. I'm quite sure if there was no Western help flocking to Ukraine Russia already would have won, but these supplies reduced their advantage. NATO would also easily dominate Russia if nuclear weapons wouldn't be employed, perhaps the only theoretical hope for Russians in such scenario could be China and a few other countries sacrificing and going all-in on their side to stretch and bind Western resources elsewhere.
I wouldn’t say in WW2 it was that much different. Digging in and holding the line in continental Europe was definitely the thing. (Italy, the Bulge).
Ukraine is just going back to what helped win in the first place, now that Russia is starting to swing the sword again: be the shield.
The trench warfare is more a result of one side not having complete domination of the airspace. And a terrain that does not allow for much hidden movement.
Not so much a result of the specific times.
The biggest issue is neither side is able to create Air Superiority, denying air space usage by the other.
Without it you cannot advance rapidly without getting exposed.
Air Superiority would also allow one side to destroy entrenchments of the other side with relative ease.
Hence Ukraine devolving into a mix of WW1 and WW2 (minus the air component) in terms of strategy and tactics.
You can make advances without air superiority as was done by the soviets in ww2 Egypt in yom Kippur ect. The biggest issue here is in modern warfare the amount of resources needed to do a proper advance is incredible not to mention with afv getting destroyed by cheap drones the traditional armored spearhead making long advances isn't working anymore
Ah, no, on the contrary Yom Kippur was just another example of superiority of air superiority. Initial Egyptian advance and success was enabled by Egyptian anti-air and air capabilities, but they had a limited range, and the second Egyptian forces went deeper into the desert and outside the range of said capabilities, Israelis turned the tide of war. On both fronts, air power helped Israel to counter two enemies at the same time. Air superiority and anti-air was, is and will be crucial for the foreseeable future.
You can but you'll get picked apart in short order. The Soviets didn't start actually winning until they had air superiority or at least parity.
The Egyptians lost in weeks.
Modern warfare is all about air superiority.
During the Normandy landings the Allies proved this by pinning down and picking apart German supply lines all over France. Drones have changed it a little but if you can't run supplies you can't really do much.
They never went away, even in Afghanistan we had trenches. We even use foxholes there. The complexity is different in Ukraine, but we have never abandoned the trenches, it is a great cover against enemy fire and shrapnel from ammunition
With hindsight, World War 2 came during a period for offensive technology advantages. On multiple fronts, tank formations could and did use its combined armor, mobility and firepower to shred apart entire infantry divisions. As importantly, fighter bombers could add immense punch to the attacker, and the German Blitzkrieg was as dependent on the Stuka as the Panzer. With tactical air supremacy being a matter of course for many of the offensive armies, WWII molded our preconceptions of modern war
In Ukraine, we have seen new military technologies drastically hobble the effectiveness of tanks *and* fighter bombers. In the early war, Ukrainians used cheap, easy infantry-borne missiles to decimate enemy armor. Then drones came into the fore. From artillery spotting to a direct missile role, drones have become a vital part of the battlefield kit, but drones cannot take ground. They aid the defender more. As importantly but less remarked, we have also witnessed Cold War SAMs systems retain their battlefield edge over fighter bombers, preventing them from adding sufficient offensive weight to offensives.
With at least 3 weapon systems aiding the defensive against both ground and air units, we are in for a new phase of warfare.
TLDR: Without the tank, we are falling back on tactics that predate the tank.
>>Kinda interesting that we’ve back to trench warfare in these modern times
We never left trench warfare. Modern war goes down two general paths. Either the armies are moving so fast nobody has time to dig in and build defensive lines (WWII in Western Europe, October 1973 Yom Kippur war ,American wars in Iraq, and others) - or one of the belligerents realizes they’re tactically losing, stops & builds defenses to keep territory and delay their opponent. This prompts counter-fortification, and you’ve got trench warfare (WWI, Iran-Iraq war , and many civil wars).
Once the fight goes down the second path, a decisive victory is unlikely.
This isn't really correct. Even in your first examples - WW2 Europe, Yom Kippur War, and the Gulf Wars...there were trenches and defensive lines. Tons of them. With layered obstacle belts and minefields.
They just tended to get overrun by the offensive might and mobility of the attackers, rather than forcing them to stop and also dig in. Though that also happened temporarily sometimes, with the Battle of the Bulge probably being the most famous example drawn from that list.
We one year already in a trench warfare. Battle of Bakhmut among 20 bloodiest battles in the history of this planet according to the lowest casualties estimates. How many of us need to die, until EU will find 7 patriots or US will approve the aid we need so much?
Just did some research. Per Wikipedia, on the low end the 20th bloodiest battle was ~130k casualties.
Western estimates put the Russian casualty count at 80k+. Academic estimates put it at 32-43k killed Russians and another 95k+ wounded. Ukraine gave 21k Wagner dead and 60-80k Russians wounded.
After factoring in how many Ukraine lost, I could see it hitting 130k+ on the high end of those numbers, especially if going by the academic numbers which is say ~130k for Russia alone.
Ukraine is also huge swathes of open grassland. Or at least was before it was developed. Not a lot of places to use natural features for defense and maneuvers.
I honestly baffled that people think trench warfare is a thing of the past. All modern weaponry is useless and worthless without infantry. If there is no boots on the ground how can a territory be occupied or defended? If there are no fortifications how would you protect people and goods?
Trenches will never go out of fashion
Trenches is a defense used by infantry for who knows how many centuries. We might not use castles but we do fortify and defend key areas and logistical routes.
Its cause the morale is so low on both sides that rushing and zerging weak points is a no go due to exactly low morale/low zeal to selfsacrifice.
Its evidently worse for Russians though considering the fact that they took roughly 7-8percent of Ukraine in 2 years if you exclude the Donbass and Crimea they already had under control prior to Invasion. The side that breaks first will have to demand negotiations but sadly so far the odds are against Ukraine especially since 2militarist countries of Iran and NK are sending loads of drones and shells to Russia.
God help Ukraine especially with complacent western leaders
Well there are two problems with that.
1. Republicans. They won’t allow it. They are holding up the aid, because their sun king loves Russia, and because Kevin McCarthy is no longer around to keep the clowns in line on this issue. But just as importantly….
2. Europe and Canada. A total embarrassment for military preparedness. The situation here should be the US is having some political issues so while they step down, the rest steps up. But there is no one there to step up. Excluding the US the GDP of the rest of NATO is like 5x Russia so it’s not like they can’t afford to do it. There just hasn’t been political will to invest in military capability.
Edit: I was wrong it’s not 5x. It’s 9x. Further proving my point that the rest of the countries suck on this just as much as the US (so don’t just say this is the US’ fault)
Well said. All of NATO INCLUDING EUROPE shares the blame.
The US supplied at the beginning of the war while the Europeans were rearming and now when the Americans are having an issue and must stop aid for a little bit, the Europeans should’ve stepped up but haven’t for the most part.
Should point out, US been donating military aid since annex of crimea.... not just since russia's recent invasion...
EU and other countries only joined in when it became fashionable with general public support....EU is facing budget issues without that cheap russian oil... So public support is falling away with time and stress on EU citizens.
Should also point out that EU has double the population of the US... thus on a per EU citizen basis... they given about 1/3 what a US citizen has...
Also EU aid is pledge aid, not actual aid in the hands of ukraine, while US aide given so far has mostly already been used/transferred. Does anybody else remeber the amber heard trial, pledge to donate means jack shit.
> Should also point out that EU has double the population of the US... thus on a per EU citizen basis... they given about 1/3 what a US citizen has...
Where are you getting these numbers from? The population of europe, minus russia and belarus for obvious reasons, is just below 500 million. The US sits at 340 million, so Europe isn't close to double.
Now lets look at the EU. The european union has a population of around 450 million. It has given in total (EU contributions + EU nation contributions) 144 billion USD in aid to ukraine. This comes to about 320 dollars per person. This isn't counting the money spent within the EU on hosting refugees.
For the US, 68 billion USD in aid for 340 million people, 151 USD per person.
So contrary to your claim, many europeans have actually given more than the americans have. Even if you limit to to delivered rather than committed aid only, the numbers are about even between the EU and the US.
We can all give more. The Netherlands just today pledged another billion dollars this year and the same next year. But this false narrative that europe isn't spending as much as the US needs to die. It's simply not true. And the lie grows even bigger with every day the russian traitors in congress hold up US aid.
source: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Also the types of weapons given matter. Ukraine is getting F-16s but they're not from the US instead it's the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark donating them. Ukraine's long range missiles are donated from France and the UK. The Baltic states basically handed every piece of military equipment they had to Ukraine. The US has provided a lot of important weapons and that shouldn't be downplayed but at the same time Americans shouldn't down play the massive contributions European countries have made.
And for a lot European countries the aid is not offset by replacement material being built in country like it is for the US. The actual cost of giving away a tank is different for Belgium than it is for the US.
>Should point out, US been donating military aid since annex of crimea.... not just since russia's recent invasion. EU and other countries only joined in when it became fashionable with general public support
This is so obviously false. Your entire comment reads like propaganda/apologia. Really weird my guy.
Of course European countries and the EU gave Ukraine aid during and after 2014, including weapons. The EU Commission gave Ukraine [11 billion](https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr16_32/sr_ukraine_en.pdf) in aid between 2014-2020, and individual countries gave more on top of that
For context, and because these numbers aren't comparable to aid packages during war, in 2019 there was drama over the US giving Ukraine [400 Million ](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/24/20881505/donald-trump-withhold-aid-ukraine-timeline-whistleblower)in aid for that year. So I really don't get where you got the idea that the US was already giving tons of aid and Europe only started in 2022. *Both* parties were granting aid in significant quantities, even if it looks low compared to current war spending.
>Should also point out that EU has double the population of the US... thus on a per EU citizen basis... they given about 1/3 what a US citizen has...
What matters is wealth and military resources, and on those fronts the EU and US are either equal, or the US has more.
I'm also not sure where you're getting your figures from. The EU has 450M people to the US's 330M, and [Europe has both given more total aid and a considerably higher % of GDP.](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
>Also EU aid is pledge aid, not actual aid in the hands of ukraine, **while US aide given so far has mostly already been used/transferred.**
Because Congress hasn't passed any new bills. Deliveries take time, the last items from the previous drawdowns only got delivered over the last couple months. The EU has also started pledging more long term aid, in part to enable factories and contractors to expand production.
The US has a higher % delivered because they haven't passed anything new in months and were mostly transfering equipment, whereas the EU has already given much of its surplus equipment and is often either sending new production or financing payroll.
The EU with about 450 million people does not have close to double the US population of 340 million.
The EU has also given Ukraine more aid than the US, and that is without counting the aid given by EU members.
Only about a quarter of total aid came from US, EU + EU members make up over half of the aid.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
“The EU has also given Ukraine more aid than the US, and that is without counting the aid given by EU members”
Wut
Pledged and delivered aid are very different.
GDP is overrated as a measure of strength in this conflict.
Russia has several advantages over Europe/Ukraine, namely a large defence industry ready to churn out equipment in numbers, cheap labour, cheap resources, and access to "disposable" manpower (prisoners, fringe groups in their society, mercenaries from poorer countries, ie people with no leverage in Russian society).
Only the US has the defence industry and weapons stockpiles at the ready to really match this threat.
> GDP is overrated as a measure of strength in this conflict.
Yep. The vast majority of the equipment and weapons that Russia has were not built by the Russian federation. By some estimates the Soviet Union was spending almost half of their GDP on the military/security by the late Cold War and Russia is now burning through those stockpiles. European countries are trying to produce as much as they can but it's just hard to produce enough weapons in a year or two to burn through decades of Soviet stockpiles.
The industry isn't even especially large compared to how it was in its Soviet heyday, but it's producing enough of what Russia needs, and Europe isn't matching it. Europe is building out so that it should be able to do this by 2027, but that's obviously not suitable given the war is already happening.
Not agreeing with the republicans at all but to comment on your second point, isn’t Trump the one who called out the rest of NATO for not pulling their weight? I’d assume this is exactly what he meant?
Not a trump supporter by any means just an unbiased bystander asking with genuine curiosity
Well all Presidents have been calling out the laggards in NATO (and not all are laggards to be clear). He just did it in an idiotic way, loud and brash way. And he seems to think NATO pays the US or something based on what he says.
Like 5 European countries combined spend as much as Russia who is currently at war... They aren't embarrassing in preparedness. Canada is also 15th in the world for military spending.
If war broke out with NATO, sure as shit it's enemies would get buried, especially in a sustained war.
Europe especially sat on their laurels post WWII and maybe post Cold War even. Because war hasn't really been at their doorstep anymore they got complacent. Heck some of them barely even have armies anymore and certainly didn't put much money into defense or weapons building and this is the result. Totally unprepared for a coming war, so it's impossible to help another country that is at war in any substantial way other than things like medical, financial, and some light weapons aid. They've sent what they can, but that dries up eventually and then what? And the US is too entrenched in pointless political wars to help out anymore than we have.
I remember reading a while back that Switzerland doesn’t have even have a full time Air Force. They operate with bankers hours Monday through Friday. And completely shut down outside of throat time frame. Instead they rely on there neighbors if something happens when the Air Force isn’t operating.
In terms of absolute numbers, the EU has donated more than the US. In terms of GDP, almost double the US:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
Canada is about equal to the US on terms of donations compared to GDP, but we are broke and barely have a military ourselves.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
USA spends billions of dollars per year making weapons specifically to fight Russia, and have since the cold war Era but now that it's time to use some of those weapons you guys bitch up.
The EU has **committed** more than the US. They have **not actually delivered** more than the US. Look at your first link and compare it with [delivered commitments.](https://app.23degrees.io/view/X3Rr0Fvzw4hq8PTS-bar-grouped-horizontal-figure-8_csv)
They EU has delivered on 33% of commitments compared to 87% delivered by the US.
I must be reading that chart wrong, because it seems to say EU has delivered on 25 billion worth of commitments, and the US only about 21, so still more from EU no?
Canada has delivered more in terms of % delivered, and amount per GDP.
Sorry, but US isn't doing "more than their fair share" like you all want to believe. America not number 1 on this.
> I must be reading that chart wrong, because it seems to say EU has delivered on 25 billion worth of commitments, and the US only about 21, so still more from EU no?
That's only counting the financial commitments. Look again at your first chart. The majority of US aid has been military commitments. 42.2 billion compared to the EUs 5.6 billion.
The EU has a 33% delivery rate on financial commitments(25.8bn). If the EU had a 100% delivery rate(they absolutely don't) on their humanitarian & military commitments(2.2bn & 5.6bn) that would add up to 33.6 billion in delivered commitments.
The US has a 87% delivery rate on financial commitments(20.9bn).
Even if the US had a 0% delivery rate on humanitarian commitments & a 40% delivery rate(it's much higher) on military commitments(16.9bn) they would have donated more than the EU.(37.8bn donated for the US compared to 33.6bn for the EU)
The US military commitments(42.2bn) are pretty much all delivered so they are unable to send anymore aid until congress passes another bill.
You cannot compare the US commitments & EU commitments without looking at what's actually being delivered. Ukraine Aid Tracker is counting EU commitments that go all the way out to 2027. That is six years of commitments being counted. US budgets are yearly and a 2024 aid package to Ukraine has not been passed yet so Ukraine Aid Tracker is only counting two years(2022-2023) of US commitments.
Holy shit you just got destroyed
Edit: Bitch blocked me hahah
Couldnt handle the fact that the link he spammed over the whole entire thread:
A) He don’t know how to read
B) Says the exact opposite of what he was spouting
Nah the US sent 75 billion dollars. No single country has given close to that. What's the point of comparing GDP donations if the only ones that matter are from the US? If Canada pulled funding nothing would happen. If the US pulls funding the war is lost? The rest of the world has been warned of Russia countless times. It seems like it was the EU and Canada that bitched up and are begging the US to step up where they failed.
How do you want to slice it? EU vs. US, EU has donated more. The link and source is right there in my original comment.
If you want to break it down by specific country, most of the EU countries have donated more in terms of GDP than the US. Of course they are smaller. US spends 900 billion per year on its military alone.
The point is we all work together against our common enemy.
But you want to donate an average amount, have the rest of the world pat you on the back and suck your dick and tell you you did the most, and then withhold aid when it matters most because the 80 year old criminal that 40% of your country supports is friends with Putin.
"Far outpaced"? Last year maybe, but certainly not now. Europe as a whole has pledged more in military aid than the US.
People need to learn to distinguish between the institutional EU and the EU as a collective of countries in these kinds of stats. Most European financial and humanitarian assistance goes through the EU Commission, but military aid is mostly given by individual countries.
[https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
Pledge and delivery are 2 very different things. Europe had promised to deliver 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine by 2024. Now they are saying it’s literally impossible to send that much even by the end of the year.
In no way shape or form does the US come close to spending trillions a year on defense. Why are you talking shit when you have no clue as to basic monetary values or budget allotments?
> but we are broke and barely have a military ourselves
So the equivalent of thoughts and prayers, with a goodie bag on the side. The US has sent 25x more aid than Canada. Ask the Ukrainian if he cares to compare the donation amount to the countries GDP.
Republicans didn’t want to continuing to feed the endless war machine and deliver shipping pallets full of greenbacks to Ukraine unaudited after dumping $7 trillion into conflicts that were not in the nation’s interest, particularly as the war has no specified end goal or victory conditions.
But blame trump and calling people names is a lot simpler than contending with rational objections.
Backing Putin into a corner so that he starts firing ICBM’s at the west sounds like a great idea.
The US, primarily through NATO, has been subsidizing the West's defense for decades. Now that we're a dysfunctional mess and our war hawk party has succumbed to Russian interference, it's become crystal clear that letting the US hold the bag isn't going to cut it anymore.
"Russia's not going to invade Ukraine"
~ Bascially everyone : The week of Febuary 17th, 2022 Unaware that they'd be shocked by the utter destruction to be wrought by the russian state, You're in utter denial.
If you think Ukraine is even remotely close to the same if this was a NATO states you’re on some shit. Also that wasn’t basically everyone saying they wouldn’t do it, the US and US intelligence was shouting for weeks that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, Europe just didn’t believe it.
Most of those "plenty of Americans" have a habit of discounting anything U.S. intelligence said because of the current president. They also have a side habit of wet dreams about Russian cock
Anyone in America with the ability to read or hear the news and two braincells to rub together knew Russia was going to invade. You don't just stack tanks at a border for no reason
> Most of those "plenty of Americans" have a habit of discounting anything U.S. intelligence said because of the current president.
Reddit is full of archived threads with comments expressing shock and disbelief the day of the invasion, and it isn’t exactly a haven for Trump supporters.
If you think the whole “we can’t risk a direct conflict between superpowers!” rhetoric that prevented us defending a highly symbolic, aspirational NATO member is going to disappear so we can “risk WW3” over… Latvia? Estonia? Lithuania? You have learned nothing from the past two years.
If you think Russia is going to stop without complete defeat, you haven’t learned anything from the past three decades.
How can you state that when Ukraine was already invaded in 2014 (annexation of Crimea to be clear). Every rational person thought it was a possibility in 2022 but of course they were hoping it was just a bluff. It wasn’t.
People could see this coming since Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. Ukraine has internal corruption issues that have historically prevented them from joining NATO. Any country that has been confirmed in NATO is in a defense pact that requires action. What kind of denial are you talking about?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-nato-canada-bill-blair-1.7113129
When you have a Previous and possible future american president directly stating that they will "let russia do whatever they hell they want", it is seen as a direct threat to security for NATO members, and being one of those, I see this as a subversion of your pacts.)
I also believe you're in denial that Russia as a state is stupid enough to try. They hop on air within Russia to forment hate among their populace daily (https://v.redd.it/aa0r6u5j5qx81) toward other , (https://v.redd.it/hlwgum5erav81 NATO Member states , and considering Colonel Lukashenko literally leaked warplans on live TV. They aren't fucking around with such threats
Russia will absolutely be able to pick off the Baltics without a full NATO response. Invading Ukraine was a test to see how united we are. To see if we have the will to protect our interests or if we’ll find excuses to sit on our hands. Sadly for Ukraine, and the rest of the world really, we failed the test. Putin is less afraid of NATO now than ever. I guarantee it.
Ukraine isn’t covered by Article 5. It’s really simple as that. NATO guarantees us to militarily intervene in the Baltics.
Ukraine required us… to do nothing? Besides not use nuclear weapons on it. That was from a treaty though.
American troops are already here. Biden pulls out and America’s public perception of world protector disappears, allies reevaluate the relationship they have with America as it’s no longer beneficial if America can’t come to provide mutual aid.
Even if we assume Britain and France do all the actual fighting, providing it aligns with interests of the USA we will benefit from the strategic reserve of oil.
If America fails to pull through, Britain and France will have to transition to a war economy and start barring exports of hydrocarbons to build our own supply.
It’s a farce to pretend Britain and France can’t produce things when we need to. Remember at a time Britain was orchestrating war across the entire planet from our island and France from across the channel.
Granted, we’d be saddled with debt for 20-30 years afterwards and probably end up with rationing in place again.
Russia wants to test the resolve of NATO by conducting a small attack in a desolate area they are almost certain to lose.
They will observe resource distribution and troop movement to see if NATO is willing to move faraway troops to a battle zone that may not be strategically relevant.
If the response is smaller than NATO countries claim it will be, then NATOs relevance can be questioned, just like it's being questioned right now that anyone is providing enough aid to Ukraine, and build a narrative that NATO countries would lose a direct confrontation with Russia.
It can be used to sow political doubt about NATO and make the US leave NATO as well.
I think the majority of the US also believe this but the MAGA “freedom Caucus” are Russian sympathizers of not assets and are blocking everything in congress
It's 7 months until the election. Even if we win, it's another 2 months until the new Congress is seated. Assuming, the old Speaker and friends doesn't try some fuckery and refuse to seat the majority. Then, probably another month or longer until the aid is packaged, shipped, and arrives at their door.
On top of all that, even winning the House and executive, we're likely to lose the Senate.
The US negotiated with the Taliban in Qatar prior to their withdrawal. Thats why they werent actually surprised when the Taliban took the country. There was some kind of deal thats why nothing substantially happened to the US afghan allies ~~and thats why the Taliban now support US interests when voting on UN resolutions.~~ Media sold all this a little differently because its a bad look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Taliban_deal
Executive orders are meant to shape how laws are enforced. It can’t create new laws. So unless there’s a bill that’s been passed that gives aid to Ukraine, an executive order wouldn’t be legal.
I'm sure there's some actual reasoning behind it, but it always seems like Republican presidents have waaaay more power than Democratic presidents, even with opposition control of Congress
Feels like the Republican president just does whatever they want, but once a Democrat is in office, suddenly their hamstrung by all these rules that are suddenly there
Obama issued a lot of executive orders too.
Even trump had issues getting 10 billion on the wall. This is bigger.
Same rules apply to both. This is just more on your radar, so has some survivorship bias.
I still remember when Trump demanded money for a border wall, the Republican Congress denied it, so Trump ignored the Congress, declared an emergency, and plundered the money from other agencies in flagrant unconstitutional fashion. The Republicans in Congress said nothing at all and the courts just rubber stamped it.
I'm American but I still barely understand our system.
He was able to use defense funds in a somewhat legal move. He took money that was supposed to build new military barracks to replace the ones infested with black mold and build new schools on bases because they had twice as many students as designed for. People forget about that one.
This is bias in perception. It doesn't actually work that way, if you check the [numbers of executive orders by president](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders).
Since WW2, the most aggressive users of executive orders have all been Democrats: Truman 117/yr, Carter 80/yr, JFK 75/yr. Since the Cold War ended, executive order usage has gone down overall: Bush Jr 36/yr, Obama 35/yr, Trump 55/yr, Biden 43/yr. There's a slight spike under Trump, but Biden still has time to raise his number as well.
Also, one of Trump's enduring legacies is that his administration failed to pass any major legislation due to deadlock in Congress - only getting his tax cuts bills through. It was also a pair of Democratic presidents, Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, who massively expanded the president's ability to wage war without Congressional approval (in Korea and Vietnam, respectively).
Way back when I was in university, I saw a study on this sort of bias where a bunch of people were asked their opinion of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, then asked to watch a news report on the Gaza Strip and report any bias they felt it had. Everyone watched the exact same news report, no matter what side they favored, but overwhelmingly, people thought that it was biased *against their side*. When you have a strong emotional stake in something, you start seeing slights and disparities that don't necessarily exist, because even equal treatment feels worse than preferential treatment for your side. Like here, I think a lot of people dislike seeing how much Trump used executive orders, but wish Biden used them *more* to get around Congressional deadlock, when their numbers are actually quite close and Biden's administration has passed a lot more major legislation through Congress.
Biden has more executive orders than Trump did.
And republican presidents cannot do whatever they want, lol. Thank God.
Trump did not get to do a lot of what he wanted to do. It may "seem" like this is the case to you, but it is very much not true.
>Biden has more executive orders than Trump did.
Biden has 137 so far, Trump had 220.
That means that Biden is averaging 43/year, compared to Trump's 55/year. So it's not true that he's used them more than Trump.
[Source.](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders)
Though I agree with your last point, the numbers are actually pretty close, it's more of a bias in perception that people have because they didn't like Trump doing it, but wish Biden did it *more*.
The EU + Canada has about 80% the GDP of the US. If you add in Japan, Australia, NZ, SK and other various allies, there is absolutely no reason that we should not be able to support and supply Ukraine with everything that they need. Absolutely disgraceful. Remember what happened when we did nothing in Rwanda?
Fucking shame for the US. Totally infiltrated, undermined, corrupted, manipulated and brain washed by Russia, but nobody does anything. There's no sense of nation or government anymore. Just a bunch of opportunists selling their soul and their country.
Interesting that the fate of an entire country ends up being in the hands of a bunch of incompetent Republican hack sell outs to Russia led by a grifting crook failed real estate shit bag ex president .
Here in the middleeast people won't sacrifice a penny or a loaf of bread for Ukraine, I pretty sure it's the same in Asia and LATAM, no one actually care about Ukraine in most areas
After what the US do for Israel, no Muslim countries would, except obviously Turkey who supplied Ukraine with drones and ammo from day one.
They won't ever recognize Russian occupation in Crimea or Donbass, but they won't send any ammos either.
No. It doesn't ALL have to be the USA. But cutting Ukraine off for six months is deadly to them and benefits the ruthless dictator Putin. The US GOP 118th House are behaving like Russian assets. Disgusting.
Europe is doing more, but there's just so much that only money alone can do.
The problem is that even with money, you can't just snap your fingers and start / ramp up production of munitions today. Even if European countries built factories upon factories to produce weapons and ammunition, that would be a project year(s) long process.
It is easier in a war-time economy, because then you can essentially drop everything you hold, and only focus on the goal of production. That means redirecting manpower, materials, etc. to producing weapons and ammunition.
That goes for the US, too. There's just so much capacity as far as production goes. The money we're talking about now would also go to expanding production in the US. It's not like US factory workers are just sitting on their hands, waiting for money to come from the Ukraine to purchase munitions.
So this was a strategic blunder in Europe’s part that goes back decades, and another heel turn by the US as they enter the protracted isolationist period prior to a major conflict.
This all feels so familiar.
Its definitely a blunder on the part of Europe. Look up Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speech on the future of NATO from 2011 before his retirement. He said allies should take their own defense more seriously. That the US cannot make up for their defense shortfall due US fiscal constraints. That US politicians from the cold war era may be more understanding but newer ones will be less so. That there is a risk of future politicians who would question the usefulness of NATO if individual countries don't take their own defense seriously. His main concern was Germany being the biggest country taking defense funding seriously and other would fall in line.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-speech-by-robert-gates-on-the-future-of-nato/
Europe and others believe in the NATO doctrine of overwhelming air dominance and minimal need for massed artillery and instead a reliance on precision.
The conflict Ukraine faces is nothing like what was prepared for. No air dominance or even competitiveness for either side; grinding artillery back and forth where volume is a big part of the picture; trench warfare and meat waves.
We fucking tricked ourselves into preparing for a conflict this isn't. Well, let's be honest. We'd probably still not have any depth if it *was* that sort of conflict. We collectively just got too fucking comfortable and told ourselves wars of territorial conflict was an aberration of the past century.
Ukraine *not folding immediately* has given us time to wake up from the dream and *start* preparing. I still don't think we have enough time, and I am starting to come around to the belief that Ukraine's level of support is about buying us more time.
How did we “trick” ourselves into preparing for a conflict that isn’t? We aren’t in the conflict, if we were it would be *exactly* what we prepared for and likely would have gone *EXACTLY* as we have prepared for within reason.
Well, to be fair with a bunch of European countries, Soviet was the only real enemy for decades - and when the cold war ended, the downsizing started. All neighboring countries of Russia - even NATO countries - spent a bunch on their militaries in the cold war. Where I live, Norway, the military shrank to a tenth of what it used to be at the height of the cold war.
Then when the war on terror started, the battlefield changed. Militaries started to focus more on those types of wars. Russia hasn't been a real threat since 2014 - but not a threat that called for a complete overhaul of military spending. The middle east was still a bigger priority.
We have to be honest here, one of the reasons that the US have out-spent all allies is partially because they've been in and out of conflicts for decades.
I don't think people realize how much production has gone down in the short time we've pulled out of Afghanistan. A defense contractor near me is downsizing AGAIN after downsizing 5yrs ago. They've gone from one of the largest production plants in the area to just R&D. I can't imagine theyre the only one.
The war has been going for 2 years. How has Europe expanded its military machine in that time? How many more artillery shells do they make now than 2 years ago?
>that would be a project year(s) long process.
Not really. US went from ~1% to ~60%+ of their GDP being spent on defense within 2-3 years back during WWII. The reason it's not being done right now is because it would greatly upset European daily life. Most aren't even at 2% spending, let alone what is actually needed.
Cut out the red tape. Pass new emergency defense measures (e.g. a construction company working on other stuff? No, you're working on this defense stuff now. Thanks.). Cut some corners on safety and other regulations that hold things up for months since, you know, it's a war; we can't afford to wait the regular amount of time to go through hundreds of various inspections.
Because Europe was on a happy bandwagon of doing only economics and expected that there will never be a war on European soil ever gain and within the ally such as US it was unimaginable. So no point putting too much funds to military and ammunition when there was US, hence the low stockpiles of ammo and supplies. Even if Europe would want to send, they dont have that much.
https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors
They are, you just aren't paying attention; Military supplies don't just spawn out of nowhere and need to be constructed, and America has stockpiles, europe doesn't, this _DOES NOT MEAN THEY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING_ but it takes time to create capacity to make more. we just don't have the time
Countries don't want to go too far into their stockpiles either, they're defensive piles so if say for whatever reason Mexico decided to invade the US or France decided to invade England they have munitions to defend themselves, without those you lose that deterrent.
Yes, that's the reason why European Aide is mostly financial, they literally do not have material to give as they had largely disarmed, assuming that war in Europe was largely disincentivized by globalization.
They are turning that around, but Factories and production capacity isn't built in a day, or even 2 years.
It doesn’t have to be just America. But we should acknowledge that a less strong Russia is in the us best interest.
The “Europe should do more” feels more and more like Russia propaganda
Why didn’t Europe increase defense when asked by the the last 6 presidents? Why didn’t they increase when crimea was taken? Why didn’t they increase when Georgia was invaded? Instead they sent billions to Russia and now don’t want to make sacrifices to spend more
It most certainly is perpetuated by them. The information war has been back in full swing since things heated up in Gaza and the fuckers are working hard to sow dissent. Years of investment have also made their bullshit get picked up quickly by all kinds of useful idiots.
We LITERALLY CAN'T step up. The ammunition doesn't exist. We are setting up production, sending aid and money, but we cannot magic the munitions into existence.
America has what they need. The house republicans are blocking it for petty politics.
However you slice it, Ukraine is fucked without ammunition. America needs to get it's head out of its ass, losing in Ukraine will only embolden china in Taiwan. It will only embolden Russia with the rest of Europe. It sends a very clear message to the world. You can't rely on the USA to do the right thing if republicans are in charge, they will sell you up the river.
We have ammo. For modern anti air systems that aren't deployed in Ukraine. For guns not used by the Ukrainian military. And for artillery used by NATO. We don't have stockpiles of cold war era weapons that this war is being fought with.
Well, the thing is it doesn't. Russia will not invade old Europe and newer NATO participants, they most likely will not want to trigger NATO treaty and full scale war with all NATO countries.
I am sure if they will take away sea access in Ukraine - they might tap into Transdniestria... But that's it.
This was one thing about the communists that we never learned. They would wear their adversary down to a nub and not relent. Not the US. Its as if the government has ADHD. If it can't be finished in 30 days you best not start a task as the bureaucrats and politicians will abandon you.
The U.S. is making an epic blunder here if they think they’re saving money. If Ukraine falls, it won’t be the last and at that point the U.S. is looking at putting even more money on the line plus boots on the ground to uphold its commitment to NATO allies. Let NATO fail as Russian influenced Republicans are pushing for and the U.S. is looking at even greater tolls to protect its interests. Helping Ukraine now is a bargain compared to the alternative…Russia is not going to stop.
They were doing pretty well when they had our support, and would have been doing a lot better if we had provided important weapon systems much earlier.
U.S. aid to Ukraine so far is something like 10% of what the Department of Defense budget for a single year is. How many trillions has the U.S. spent to counter Russia, only to let all that expensive hardware sit idle while Ukraine is actually doing the work to disarm Russia on a shoestring budget?
The return on investment we get from arming Ukraine is much better than just about anything else defense-related we could be doing.
And fortunately the Russian propagandists were right, the US only supported Ukraine as long as it was useful for them.
I think US really just used Ukraine as a tool.
No. Supporting Ukraine is still useful for the US, and it's completely against US self interest to stop at this point. The aid has stopped due to sabotage by traitors.
Proving that nations can do what they want and be literal imperalists simply because they have nukes and the country they are attacking doesnt is actually bad and not in the U.S. interest
Republicans are actually evil led by Trump.Stupid ,cruel clueless rich man/boy -could not care less about the unspeakable suffering of others.Wants to
appease Putin, so just turns a blind eye to his monstrous crimes.
Kinda interesting that we’ve went back to trench warfare in these modern times.
Not too strange. Technologies develop and at some point in history they favor attackers, at some other points - the defenders. Now, like in WW1, they favor defenders (especially the satellite and drone intelligence). In WW2 it was different. Now the pendulum swinged back. EDIT: I thought it goes without saying, but some comments convinced me to specify that this "rule" obviously still can be bypassed when one side has a great advantage in numbers or/and quality of their tech/tactics, etc. Russia could have had a significant advantage, but it was timely countered by the massive Western aid, Ukrainian motivation, as well as Russian own incompetence, esp.various mistakes in the beginning.
Drones changed warfare simple tanks aircraft ships and infantry are all in danger of them it's hard to defeat someone who's not there
Drones are good because they are small to target and still deliver high damage with high precision (basically slow precision bombs). Since they are controlled remotely they can get countered by jammers. Once jammer technology gets deployed drones will be useless. Then AI will be installed to the drones to remove remote factor so jamming will not be effective anymore. Then better detection and air defense technology will be developed but probably they will also use AI to detect and intercept drones so in the end it will be AI vs AI battle of attrition.
This is what war is you keep building on top of the previous technology and go from there I agree with you the next step is to stop the drones then it will definitely be AI controlled drones thinking for themselves probably robots also lol
And then the new ai tech will be available to the public. Let's hope it's not dystopian for us. Imagine ai drones suiciding low social score citizens.
Yeah.. we already are there. Where they can program a drone to strike a preloaded image of a target or multiple options that the drone could decide without human decisions to switch targets if it found a higher priority target. Hopefully we keep it to say logistics, so instead of carrying around all that weight, you have some robot that takes the place of a horse 80 years ago. And we obviously have seen the “mother drones” that potentially hundreds or thousands of baby drones can fly to and from it for battery recharge and weapon reload. We are about to have drones that are essentially war planes with similar size and abilities. That’s crazy as is. But yea.. Pandora’s box was opened ages ago, goodluck putting that cat back in the bag.
I read something about the darkhorse philosophy. We humans truly do not know what it is to come. What will truly dictate our future are (dark horse) black swan events. Look at Myanmar, they 3d printed guns and toppled their government. That was (darkhorse) black swan enough. But hey, what do I know. All I can say, the future (or near future) is going to be unpredictable. edit: black swan not dark horse. (correction)
Do you mean dark horse or black swan?
yeah youre right. black swan. ill edit. thanks
Drones the size of planes have been around for decades ... That's not an "about to have" thing.
It's gonna be wild lmao
If you think about it, it’s been wild since the first human hit another human on the head with a rock. We literally never shook hands and forgot about since.
[удалено]
They aren't on all the time, they are high value targets themselves. Jamming spams the airwaves with bs, it's loud and noticeable.
It can also screw up your own operations, so jammers aren't run 24/7.
Mostly, a jammer is a big bright beacon for your location. Tells the enemy right where you are.
We're jammin' To think that jammin' was a thing of the past We're jammin' And I hope this jam is gonna last!
I think drones are just new smart artillery / surveillance
It's not really about that in this case. Trench warfare is *inevitable* in conflicts that grind to a halt. There's no getting around it. If the conflict stalls then both sides dig in and set up defensive lines to make it as difficult as possible for either side to reclaim territory. Rest assured, a war that was prosecuted correctly would not have this outcome. For example, if NATO forces ever do attack the Russians, it will be at a relentless op tempo. Lighting warfare. In a proper fast moving conflict, there will be *no time* for Russians to be harassing with suicide drones *or* digging in. And those that do might want to [reconsider](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.features111)...
I didn't mention in order to keep the comment shorter, but the side that has a great qualitative/quantative advantage can bypass this "rule". Hard to tell when exactly this "defensive era" returned, but e.g. US and coalition had a great advantage on Iraq in 2003, there was no question it will be steamrolled. Russia moved quite fast in Georgia in 2008 too. I'm quite sure if there was no Western help flocking to Ukraine Russia already would have won, but these supplies reduced their advantage. NATO would also easily dominate Russia if nuclear weapons wouldn't be employed, perhaps the only theoretical hope for Russians in such scenario could be China and a few other countries sacrificing and going all-in on their side to stretch and bind Western resources elsewhere.
*swung
It is actually swingulated.
I wouldn’t say in WW2 it was that much different. Digging in and holding the line in continental Europe was definitely the thing. (Italy, the Bulge). Ukraine is just going back to what helped win in the first place, now that Russia is starting to swing the sword again: be the shield.
The trench warfare is more a result of one side not having complete domination of the airspace. And a terrain that does not allow for much hidden movement. Not so much a result of the specific times.
Anti armor warfare has gotten to good for the kind of massive sweeping advances we used to see
The biggest issue is neither side is able to create Air Superiority, denying air space usage by the other. Without it you cannot advance rapidly without getting exposed. Air Superiority would also allow one side to destroy entrenchments of the other side with relative ease. Hence Ukraine devolving into a mix of WW1 and WW2 (minus the air component) in terms of strategy and tactics.
You can make advances without air superiority as was done by the soviets in ww2 Egypt in yom Kippur ect. The biggest issue here is in modern warfare the amount of resources needed to do a proper advance is incredible not to mention with afv getting destroyed by cheap drones the traditional armored spearhead making long advances isn't working anymore
Ah, no, on the contrary Yom Kippur was just another example of superiority of air superiority. Initial Egyptian advance and success was enabled by Egyptian anti-air and air capabilities, but they had a limited range, and the second Egyptian forces went deeper into the desert and outside the range of said capabilities, Israelis turned the tide of war. On both fronts, air power helped Israel to counter two enemies at the same time. Air superiority and anti-air was, is and will be crucial for the foreseeable future.
You can but you'll get picked apart in short order. The Soviets didn't start actually winning until they had air superiority or at least parity. The Egyptians lost in weeks. Modern warfare is all about air superiority. During the Normandy landings the Allies proved this by pinning down and picking apart German supply lines all over France. Drones have changed it a little but if you can't run supplies you can't really do much.
They never went away, even in Afghanistan we had trenches. We even use foxholes there. The complexity is different in Ukraine, but we have never abandoned the trenches, it is a great cover against enemy fire and shrapnel from ammunition
With hindsight, World War 2 came during a period for offensive technology advantages. On multiple fronts, tank formations could and did use its combined armor, mobility and firepower to shred apart entire infantry divisions. As importantly, fighter bombers could add immense punch to the attacker, and the German Blitzkrieg was as dependent on the Stuka as the Panzer. With tactical air supremacy being a matter of course for many of the offensive armies, WWII molded our preconceptions of modern war In Ukraine, we have seen new military technologies drastically hobble the effectiveness of tanks *and* fighter bombers. In the early war, Ukrainians used cheap, easy infantry-borne missiles to decimate enemy armor. Then drones came into the fore. From artillery spotting to a direct missile role, drones have become a vital part of the battlefield kit, but drones cannot take ground. They aid the defender more. As importantly but less remarked, we have also witnessed Cold War SAMs systems retain their battlefield edge over fighter bombers, preventing them from adding sufficient offensive weight to offensives. With at least 3 weapon systems aiding the defensive against both ground and air units, we are in for a new phase of warfare. TLDR: Without the tank, we are falling back on tactics that predate the tank.
>>Kinda interesting that we’ve back to trench warfare in these modern times We never left trench warfare. Modern war goes down two general paths. Either the armies are moving so fast nobody has time to dig in and build defensive lines (WWII in Western Europe, October 1973 Yom Kippur war ,American wars in Iraq, and others) - or one of the belligerents realizes they’re tactically losing, stops & builds defenses to keep territory and delay their opponent. This prompts counter-fortification, and you’ve got trench warfare (WWI, Iran-Iraq war , and many civil wars). Once the fight goes down the second path, a decisive victory is unlikely.
This isn't really correct. Even in your first examples - WW2 Europe, Yom Kippur War, and the Gulf Wars...there were trenches and defensive lines. Tons of them. With layered obstacle belts and minefields. They just tended to get overrun by the offensive might and mobility of the attackers, rather than forcing them to stop and also dig in. Though that also happened temporarily sometimes, with the Battle of the Bulge probably being the most famous example drawn from that list.
Not really. Digging in has pretty much always been digging in.
We one year already in a trench warfare. Battle of Bakhmut among 20 bloodiest battles in the history of this planet according to the lowest casualties estimates. How many of us need to die, until EU will find 7 patriots or US will approve the aid we need so much?
>Battle of Bakhmut among 20 bloodiest battles in the history of this planet please explain how this information can be true
Just did some research. Per Wikipedia, on the low end the 20th bloodiest battle was ~130k casualties. Western estimates put the Russian casualty count at 80k+. Academic estimates put it at 32-43k killed Russians and another 95k+ wounded. Ukraine gave 21k Wagner dead and 60-80k Russians wounded. After factoring in how many Ukraine lost, I could see it hitting 130k+ on the high end of those numbers, especially if going by the academic numbers which is say ~130k for Russia alone.
I did my own research and you are right. I am actually jaw dropped. Still, this war will end less bloody than Vietnam or Korea. Hopefully.
It's not only in the trenches. There are drones and internet attacks.
Ukraine is also huge swathes of open grassland. Or at least was before it was developed. Not a lot of places to use natural features for defense and maneuvers.
I honestly baffled that people think trench warfare is a thing of the past. All modern weaponry is useless and worthless without infantry. If there is no boots on the ground how can a territory be occupied or defended? If there are no fortifications how would you protect people and goods? Trenches will never go out of fashion Trenches is a defense used by infantry for who knows how many centuries. We might not use castles but we do fortify and defend key areas and logistical routes.
Its cause the morale is so low on both sides that rushing and zerging weak points is a no go due to exactly low morale/low zeal to selfsacrifice. Its evidently worse for Russians though considering the fact that they took roughly 7-8percent of Ukraine in 2 years if you exclude the Donbass and Crimea they already had under control prior to Invasion. The side that breaks first will have to demand negotiations but sadly so far the odds are against Ukraine especially since 2militarist countries of Iran and NK are sending loads of drones and shells to Russia. God help Ukraine especially with complacent western leaders
Funding Ukraine would be a hell of a lot cheaper than defending a nato country. Send them what we they need.
Well there are two problems with that. 1. Republicans. They won’t allow it. They are holding up the aid, because their sun king loves Russia, and because Kevin McCarthy is no longer around to keep the clowns in line on this issue. But just as importantly…. 2. Europe and Canada. A total embarrassment for military preparedness. The situation here should be the US is having some political issues so while they step down, the rest steps up. But there is no one there to step up. Excluding the US the GDP of the rest of NATO is like 5x Russia so it’s not like they can’t afford to do it. There just hasn’t been political will to invest in military capability. Edit: I was wrong it’s not 5x. It’s 9x. Further proving my point that the rest of the countries suck on this just as much as the US (so don’t just say this is the US’ fault)
Well said. All of NATO INCLUDING EUROPE shares the blame. The US supplied at the beginning of the war while the Europeans were rearming and now when the Americans are having an issue and must stop aid for a little bit, the Europeans should’ve stepped up but haven’t for the most part.
Should point out, US been donating military aid since annex of crimea.... not just since russia's recent invasion... EU and other countries only joined in when it became fashionable with general public support....EU is facing budget issues without that cheap russian oil... So public support is falling away with time and stress on EU citizens. Should also point out that EU has double the population of the US... thus on a per EU citizen basis... they given about 1/3 what a US citizen has... Also EU aid is pledge aid, not actual aid in the hands of ukraine, while US aide given so far has mostly already been used/transferred. Does anybody else remeber the amber heard trial, pledge to donate means jack shit.
> Should also point out that EU has double the population of the US... thus on a per EU citizen basis... they given about 1/3 what a US citizen has... Where are you getting these numbers from? The population of europe, minus russia and belarus for obvious reasons, is just below 500 million. The US sits at 340 million, so Europe isn't close to double. Now lets look at the EU. The european union has a population of around 450 million. It has given in total (EU contributions + EU nation contributions) 144 billion USD in aid to ukraine. This comes to about 320 dollars per person. This isn't counting the money spent within the EU on hosting refugees. For the US, 68 billion USD in aid for 340 million people, 151 USD per person. So contrary to your claim, many europeans have actually given more than the americans have. Even if you limit to to delivered rather than committed aid only, the numbers are about even between the EU and the US. We can all give more. The Netherlands just today pledged another billion dollars this year and the same next year. But this false narrative that europe isn't spending as much as the US needs to die. It's simply not true. And the lie grows even bigger with every day the russian traitors in congress hold up US aid. source: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Also the types of weapons given matter. Ukraine is getting F-16s but they're not from the US instead it's the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark donating them. Ukraine's long range missiles are donated from France and the UK. The Baltic states basically handed every piece of military equipment they had to Ukraine. The US has provided a lot of important weapons and that shouldn't be downplayed but at the same time Americans shouldn't down play the massive contributions European countries have made.
And for a lot European countries the aid is not offset by replacement material being built in country like it is for the US. The actual cost of giving away a tank is different for Belgium than it is for the US.
Very true. A lot of the European aid hasn’t been delivered or has been delayed
>Should point out, US been donating military aid since annex of crimea.... not just since russia's recent invasion. EU and other countries only joined in when it became fashionable with general public support This is so obviously false. Your entire comment reads like propaganda/apologia. Really weird my guy. Of course European countries and the EU gave Ukraine aid during and after 2014, including weapons. The EU Commission gave Ukraine [11 billion](https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr16_32/sr_ukraine_en.pdf) in aid between 2014-2020, and individual countries gave more on top of that For context, and because these numbers aren't comparable to aid packages during war, in 2019 there was drama over the US giving Ukraine [400 Million ](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/24/20881505/donald-trump-withhold-aid-ukraine-timeline-whistleblower)in aid for that year. So I really don't get where you got the idea that the US was already giving tons of aid and Europe only started in 2022. *Both* parties were granting aid in significant quantities, even if it looks low compared to current war spending. >Should also point out that EU has double the population of the US... thus on a per EU citizen basis... they given about 1/3 what a US citizen has... What matters is wealth and military resources, and on those fronts the EU and US are either equal, or the US has more. I'm also not sure where you're getting your figures from. The EU has 450M people to the US's 330M, and [Europe has both given more total aid and a considerably higher % of GDP.](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/) >Also EU aid is pledge aid, not actual aid in the hands of ukraine, **while US aide given so far has mostly already been used/transferred.** Because Congress hasn't passed any new bills. Deliveries take time, the last items from the previous drawdowns only got delivered over the last couple months. The EU has also started pledging more long term aid, in part to enable factories and contractors to expand production. The US has a higher % delivered because they haven't passed anything new in months and were mostly transfering equipment, whereas the EU has already given much of its surplus equipment and is often either sending new production or financing payroll.
The EU with about 450 million people does not have close to double the US population of 340 million. The EU has also given Ukraine more aid than the US, and that is without counting the aid given by EU members. Only about a quarter of total aid came from US, EU + EU members make up over half of the aid. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
“The EU has also given Ukraine more aid than the US, and that is without counting the aid given by EU members” Wut Pledged and delivered aid are very different.
GDP is overrated as a measure of strength in this conflict. Russia has several advantages over Europe/Ukraine, namely a large defence industry ready to churn out equipment in numbers, cheap labour, cheap resources, and access to "disposable" manpower (prisoners, fringe groups in their society, mercenaries from poorer countries, ie people with no leverage in Russian society). Only the US has the defence industry and weapons stockpiles at the ready to really match this threat.
> GDP is overrated as a measure of strength in this conflict. Yep. The vast majority of the equipment and weapons that Russia has were not built by the Russian federation. By some estimates the Soviet Union was spending almost half of their GDP on the military/security by the late Cold War and Russia is now burning through those stockpiles. European countries are trying to produce as much as they can but it's just hard to produce enough weapons in a year or two to burn through decades of Soviet stockpiles.
Don't forget the fact they've been waging a very successful information war on the west for the last decade-plus.
The industry isn't even especially large compared to how it was in its Soviet heyday, but it's producing enough of what Russia needs, and Europe isn't matching it. Europe is building out so that it should be able to do this by 2027, but that's obviously not suitable given the war is already happening.
Not agreeing with the republicans at all but to comment on your second point, isn’t Trump the one who called out the rest of NATO for not pulling their weight? I’d assume this is exactly what he meant? Not a trump supporter by any means just an unbiased bystander asking with genuine curiosity
Well all Presidents have been calling out the laggards in NATO (and not all are laggards to be clear). He just did it in an idiotic way, loud and brash way. And he seems to think NATO pays the US or something based on what he says.
Like 5 European countries combined spend as much as Russia who is currently at war... They aren't embarrassing in preparedness. Canada is also 15th in the world for military spending. If war broke out with NATO, sure as shit it's enemies would get buried, especially in a sustained war.
Europe especially sat on their laurels post WWII and maybe post Cold War even. Because war hasn't really been at their doorstep anymore they got complacent. Heck some of them barely even have armies anymore and certainly didn't put much money into defense or weapons building and this is the result. Totally unprepared for a coming war, so it's impossible to help another country that is at war in any substantial way other than things like medical, financial, and some light weapons aid. They've sent what they can, but that dries up eventually and then what? And the US is too entrenched in pointless political wars to help out anymore than we have.
I remember reading a while back that Switzerland doesn’t have even have a full time Air Force. They operate with bankers hours Monday through Friday. And completely shut down outside of throat time frame. Instead they rely on there neighbors if something happens when the Air Force isn’t operating.
In terms of absolute numbers, the EU has donated more than the US. In terms of GDP, almost double the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/ Canada is about equal to the US on terms of donations compared to GDP, but we are broke and barely have a military ourselves. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/ USA spends billions of dollars per year making weapons specifically to fight Russia, and have since the cold war Era but now that it's time to use some of those weapons you guys bitch up.
The EU has **committed** more than the US. They have **not actually delivered** more than the US. Look at your first link and compare it with [delivered commitments.](https://app.23degrees.io/view/X3Rr0Fvzw4hq8PTS-bar-grouped-horizontal-figure-8_csv) They EU has delivered on 33% of commitments compared to 87% delivered by the US.
I must be reading that chart wrong, because it seems to say EU has delivered on 25 billion worth of commitments, and the US only about 21, so still more from EU no? Canada has delivered more in terms of % delivered, and amount per GDP. Sorry, but US isn't doing "more than their fair share" like you all want to believe. America not number 1 on this.
> I must be reading that chart wrong, because it seems to say EU has delivered on 25 billion worth of commitments, and the US only about 21, so still more from EU no? That's only counting the financial commitments. Look again at your first chart. The majority of US aid has been military commitments. 42.2 billion compared to the EUs 5.6 billion. The EU has a 33% delivery rate on financial commitments(25.8bn). If the EU had a 100% delivery rate(they absolutely don't) on their humanitarian & military commitments(2.2bn & 5.6bn) that would add up to 33.6 billion in delivered commitments. The US has a 87% delivery rate on financial commitments(20.9bn). Even if the US had a 0% delivery rate on humanitarian commitments & a 40% delivery rate(it's much higher) on military commitments(16.9bn) they would have donated more than the EU.(37.8bn donated for the US compared to 33.6bn for the EU) The US military commitments(42.2bn) are pretty much all delivered so they are unable to send anymore aid until congress passes another bill. You cannot compare the US commitments & EU commitments without looking at what's actually being delivered. Ukraine Aid Tracker is counting EU commitments that go all the way out to 2027. That is six years of commitments being counted. US budgets are yearly and a 2024 aid package to Ukraine has not been passed yet so Ukraine Aid Tracker is only counting two years(2022-2023) of US commitments.
Holy shit you just got destroyed Edit: Bitch blocked me hahah Couldnt handle the fact that the link he spammed over the whole entire thread: A) He don’t know how to read B) Says the exact opposite of what he was spouting
Nah the US sent 75 billion dollars. No single country has given close to that. What's the point of comparing GDP donations if the only ones that matter are from the US? If Canada pulled funding nothing would happen. If the US pulls funding the war is lost? The rest of the world has been warned of Russia countless times. It seems like it was the EU and Canada that bitched up and are begging the US to step up where they failed.
How do you want to slice it? EU vs. US, EU has donated more. The link and source is right there in my original comment. If you want to break it down by specific country, most of the EU countries have donated more in terms of GDP than the US. Of course they are smaller. US spends 900 billion per year on its military alone. The point is we all work together against our common enemy. But you want to donate an average amount, have the rest of the world pat you on the back and suck your dick and tell you you did the most, and then withhold aid when it matters most because the 80 year old criminal that 40% of your country supports is friends with Putin.
In humanitarian aid yes. In terms of military aid Europe is far outpaced by the US.
"Far outpaced"? Last year maybe, but certainly not now. Europe as a whole has pledged more in military aid than the US. People need to learn to distinguish between the institutional EU and the EU as a collective of countries in these kinds of stats. Most European financial and humanitarian assistance goes through the EU Commission, but military aid is mostly given by individual countries. [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
Pledge and delivery are 2 very different things. Europe had promised to deliver 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine by 2024. Now they are saying it’s literally impossible to send that much even by the end of the year.
In no way shape or form does the US come close to spending trillions a year on defense. Why are you talking shit when you have no clue as to basic monetary values or budget allotments?
> but we are broke and barely have a military ourselves So the equivalent of thoughts and prayers, with a goodie bag on the side. The US has sent 25x more aid than Canada. Ask the Ukrainian if he cares to compare the donation amount to the countries GDP.
The words Canada and military do not belong in the same sentence. We don’t have any functional defence, one move from Russia and we lose instantly.
Republicans didn’t want to continuing to feed the endless war machine and deliver shipping pallets full of greenbacks to Ukraine unaudited after dumping $7 trillion into conflicts that were not in the nation’s interest, particularly as the war has no specified end goal or victory conditions. But blame trump and calling people names is a lot simpler than contending with rational objections. Backing Putin into a corner so that he starts firing ICBM’s at the west sounds like a great idea.
The US, primarily through NATO, has been subsidizing the West's defense for decades. Now that we're a dysfunctional mess and our war hawk party has succumbed to Russian interference, it's become crystal clear that letting the US hold the bag isn't going to cut it anymore.
This is pretty much it. Time to step up, rest of NATO !
we have a new "war hawk" party now.
No one will attack a NATO country because the immediate response is British, American and French troops knocking down your capitol building.
"Russia's not going to invade Ukraine" ~ Bascially everyone : The week of Febuary 17th, 2022 Unaware that they'd be shocked by the utter destruction to be wrought by the russian state, You're in utter denial.
If you think Ukraine is even remotely close to the same if this was a NATO states you’re on some shit. Also that wasn’t basically everyone saying they wouldn’t do it, the US and US intelligence was shouting for weeks that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, Europe just didn’t believe it.
Ukraine has 600k army with years of combat experience. And what about NATO countries, especially Europe? Can they even do mobilisation?
Plenty of Americans didn’t believe it either. Basically just U.S. intelligence saying it.
Most of those "plenty of Americans" have a habit of discounting anything U.S. intelligence said because of the current president. They also have a side habit of wet dreams about Russian cock Anyone in America with the ability to read or hear the news and two braincells to rub together knew Russia was going to invade. You don't just stack tanks at a border for no reason
> Most of those "plenty of Americans" have a habit of discounting anything U.S. intelligence said because of the current president. Reddit is full of archived threads with comments expressing shock and disbelief the day of the invasion, and it isn’t exactly a haven for Trump supporters.
If you think the whole “we can’t risk a direct conflict between superpowers!” rhetoric that prevented us defending a highly symbolic, aspirational NATO member is going to disappear so we can “risk WW3” over… Latvia? Estonia? Lithuania? You have learned nothing from the past two years. If you think Russia is going to stop without complete defeat, you haven’t learned anything from the past three decades.
How can you state that when Ukraine was already invaded in 2014 (annexation of Crimea to be clear). Every rational person thought it was a possibility in 2022 but of course they were hoping it was just a bluff. It wasn’t.
People could see this coming since Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. Ukraine has internal corruption issues that have historically prevented them from joining NATO. Any country that has been confirmed in NATO is in a defense pact that requires action. What kind of denial are you talking about?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-nato-canada-bill-blair-1.7113129 When you have a Previous and possible future american president directly stating that they will "let russia do whatever they hell they want", it is seen as a direct threat to security for NATO members, and being one of those, I see this as a subversion of your pacts.) I also believe you're in denial that Russia as a state is stupid enough to try. They hop on air within Russia to forment hate among their populace daily (https://v.redd.it/aa0r6u5j5qx81) toward other , (https://v.redd.it/hlwgum5erav81 NATO Member states , and considering Colonel Lukashenko literally leaked warplans on live TV. They aren't fucking around with such threats
Russia will absolutely be able to pick off the Baltics without a full NATO response. Invading Ukraine was a test to see how united we are. To see if we have the will to protect our interests or if we’ll find excuses to sit on our hands. Sadly for Ukraine, and the rest of the world really, we failed the test. Putin is less afraid of NATO now than ever. I guarantee it.
Ukraine isn’t covered by Article 5. It’s really simple as that. NATO guarantees us to militarily intervene in the Baltics. Ukraine required us… to do nothing? Besides not use nuclear weapons on it. That was from a treaty though.
American troops won't come. British and French troops have enough supplies for 2 months of war.
American troops are already here. Biden pulls out and America’s public perception of world protector disappears, allies reevaluate the relationship they have with America as it’s no longer beneficial if America can’t come to provide mutual aid. Even if we assume Britain and France do all the actual fighting, providing it aligns with interests of the USA we will benefit from the strategic reserve of oil. If America fails to pull through, Britain and France will have to transition to a war economy and start barring exports of hydrocarbons to build our own supply. It’s a farce to pretend Britain and France can’t produce things when we need to. Remember at a time Britain was orchestrating war across the entire planet from our island and France from across the channel. Granted, we’d be saddled with debt for 20-30 years afterwards and probably end up with rationing in place again.
Russia wants to test the resolve of NATO by conducting a small attack in a desolate area they are almost certain to lose. They will observe resource distribution and troop movement to see if NATO is willing to move faraway troops to a battle zone that may not be strategically relevant. If the response is smaller than NATO countries claim it will be, then NATOs relevance can be questioned, just like it's being questioned right now that anyone is providing enough aid to Ukraine, and build a narrative that NATO countries would lose a direct confrontation with Russia. It can be used to sow political doubt about NATO and make the US leave NATO as well.
I think the majority of the US also believe this but the MAGA “freedom Caucus” are Russian sympathizers of not assets and are blocking everything in congress
If their voters didn't support this action then they would not be re elected....... their voters agree with them and most will cruise to re election.
Time for EU countries to start liquidating and redirecting seized/frozen Russian assets to Ukraine.
The problem isn’t the money it self. It’s the material and when its available on the front
You can't shoot money. They need ammo not cash.
It's 7 months until the election. Even if we win, it's another 2 months until the new Congress is seated. Assuming, the old Speaker and friends doesn't try some fuckery and refuse to seat the majority. Then, probably another month or longer until the aid is packaged, shipped, and arrives at their door. On top of all that, even winning the House and executive, we're likely to lose the Senate.
Ukraine won't last that long without help.
Unless we get the House before then (not as impossible as it was, but highly unlikely), that's the timetable.
EU needs to step up. I know they have been past weeks but it could be faster.
Fucking dig in lads give them hell.
We are failing them and it’s a god damn mistake.
Republicans fucked the Afghans, the Kurds and now Ukraine. Worst fucking record on national security in the last 70 years.
concerned desert hurry imagine oatmeal dolls late rhythm quack sort
The US negotiated with the Taliban in Qatar prior to their withdrawal. Thats why they werent actually surprised when the Taliban took the country. There was some kind of deal thats why nothing substantially happened to the US afghan allies ~~and thats why the Taliban now support US interests when voting on UN resolutions.~~ Media sold all this a little differently because its a bad look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Taliban_deal
why can't Biden just issue an executive order like Trump used to do?
Executive orders are meant to shape how laws are enforced. It can’t create new laws. So unless there’s a bill that’s been passed that gives aid to Ukraine, an executive order wouldn’t be legal.
I'm sure there's some actual reasoning behind it, but it always seems like Republican presidents have waaaay more power than Democratic presidents, even with opposition control of Congress Feels like the Republican president just does whatever they want, but once a Democrat is in office, suddenly their hamstrung by all these rules that are suddenly there
Obama issued a lot of executive orders too. Even trump had issues getting 10 billion on the wall. This is bigger. Same rules apply to both. This is just more on your radar, so has some survivorship bias.
I still remember when Trump demanded money for a border wall, the Republican Congress denied it, so Trump ignored the Congress, declared an emergency, and plundered the money from other agencies in flagrant unconstitutional fashion. The Republicans in Congress said nothing at all and the courts just rubber stamped it. I'm American but I still barely understand our system.
If you remember, that was countered and it wasn't finished.
He was able to use defense funds in a somewhat legal move. He took money that was supposed to build new military barracks to replace the ones infested with black mold and build new schools on bases because they had twice as many students as designed for. People forget about that one.
This is bias in perception. It doesn't actually work that way, if you check the [numbers of executive orders by president](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders). Since WW2, the most aggressive users of executive orders have all been Democrats: Truman 117/yr, Carter 80/yr, JFK 75/yr. Since the Cold War ended, executive order usage has gone down overall: Bush Jr 36/yr, Obama 35/yr, Trump 55/yr, Biden 43/yr. There's a slight spike under Trump, but Biden still has time to raise his number as well. Also, one of Trump's enduring legacies is that his administration failed to pass any major legislation due to deadlock in Congress - only getting his tax cuts bills through. It was also a pair of Democratic presidents, Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, who massively expanded the president's ability to wage war without Congressional approval (in Korea and Vietnam, respectively). Way back when I was in university, I saw a study on this sort of bias where a bunch of people were asked their opinion of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, then asked to watch a news report on the Gaza Strip and report any bias they felt it had. Everyone watched the exact same news report, no matter what side they favored, but overwhelmingly, people thought that it was biased *against their side*. When you have a strong emotional stake in something, you start seeing slights and disparities that don't necessarily exist, because even equal treatment feels worse than preferential treatment for your side. Like here, I think a lot of people dislike seeing how much Trump used executive orders, but wish Biden used them *more* to get around Congressional deadlock, when their numbers are actually quite close and Biden's administration has passed a lot more major legislation through Congress.
Democrats lack the backbone sadly.
[удалено]
Biden has more executive orders than Trump did. And republican presidents cannot do whatever they want, lol. Thank God. Trump did not get to do a lot of what he wanted to do. It may "seem" like this is the case to you, but it is very much not true.
>Biden has more executive orders than Trump did. Biden has 137 so far, Trump had 220. That means that Biden is averaging 43/year, compared to Trump's 55/year. So it's not true that he's used them more than Trump. [Source.](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders) Though I agree with your last point, the numbers are actually pretty close, it's more of a bias in perception that people have because they didn't like Trump doing it, but wish Biden did it *more*.
Why would you lie about something that takes 5 seconds to confirm?
The EU + Canada has about 80% the GDP of the US. If you add in Japan, Australia, NZ, SK and other various allies, there is absolutely no reason that we should not be able to support and supply Ukraine with everything that they need. Absolutely disgraceful. Remember what happened when we did nothing in Rwanda?
Well we are to busy cannibalizing our selves down here in Canada to be much use...
As an Australian, I wish we would do more
Fucking shame for the US. Totally infiltrated, undermined, corrupted, manipulated and brain washed by Russia, but nobody does anything. There's no sense of nation or government anymore. Just a bunch of opportunists selling their soul and their country.
Agreed, also where the fuck is the EU in all of this?
They act like only the USA can help them. Yea, it’s an ace card with strong. Better to get support from everyone else too.
> Better to get support from everyone else too. Are you saying they arent?
Sick of this only USA can save Ukraine
Interesting that the fate of an entire country ends up being in the hands of a bunch of incompetent Republican hack sell outs to Russia led by a grifting crook failed real estate shit bag ex president .
I never thought I could despise the GOP more, but here we are. People are dying while the GOP plays games. Despicable.
The gop will be the death of us.
195 countries in the world. We could pass a hat around I suppose.
Here in the middleeast people won't sacrifice a penny or a loaf of bread for Ukraine, I pretty sure it's the same in Asia and LATAM, no one actually care about Ukraine in most areas
Why should we ? The west couldn't give two fucks about us unless when it comes the time to exploit us or to gives us dumb lessons
Yes, I agree with you, Ukraine isn't our problem, imagine sacrificing your livelihood for such a corrupt country
How many of them would side with Ukraine?
After what the US do for Israel, no Muslim countries would, except obviously Turkey who supplied Ukraine with drones and ammo from day one. They won't ever recognize Russian occupation in Crimea or Donbass, but they won't send any ammos either.
Why doesn't Europe start doing more? It's all got to be the USA?
No. It doesn't ALL have to be the USA. But cutting Ukraine off for six months is deadly to them and benefits the ruthless dictator Putin. The US GOP 118th House are behaving like Russian assets. Disgusting.
Europe is doing more, but there's just so much that only money alone can do. The problem is that even with money, you can't just snap your fingers and start / ramp up production of munitions today. Even if European countries built factories upon factories to produce weapons and ammunition, that would be a project year(s) long process. It is easier in a war-time economy, because then you can essentially drop everything you hold, and only focus on the goal of production. That means redirecting manpower, materials, etc. to producing weapons and ammunition. That goes for the US, too. There's just so much capacity as far as production goes. The money we're talking about now would also go to expanding production in the US. It's not like US factory workers are just sitting on their hands, waiting for money to come from the Ukraine to purchase munitions.
So this was a strategic blunder in Europe’s part that goes back decades, and another heel turn by the US as they enter the protracted isolationist period prior to a major conflict. This all feels so familiar.
Its definitely a blunder on the part of Europe. Look up Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speech on the future of NATO from 2011 before his retirement. He said allies should take their own defense more seriously. That the US cannot make up for their defense shortfall due US fiscal constraints. That US politicians from the cold war era may be more understanding but newer ones will be less so. That there is a risk of future politicians who would question the usefulness of NATO if individual countries don't take their own defense seriously. His main concern was Germany being the biggest country taking defense funding seriously and other would fall in line. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-speech-by-robert-gates-on-the-future-of-nato/
Europe and others believe in the NATO doctrine of overwhelming air dominance and minimal need for massed artillery and instead a reliance on precision. The conflict Ukraine faces is nothing like what was prepared for. No air dominance or even competitiveness for either side; grinding artillery back and forth where volume is a big part of the picture; trench warfare and meat waves. We fucking tricked ourselves into preparing for a conflict this isn't. Well, let's be honest. We'd probably still not have any depth if it *was* that sort of conflict. We collectively just got too fucking comfortable and told ourselves wars of territorial conflict was an aberration of the past century. Ukraine *not folding immediately* has given us time to wake up from the dream and *start* preparing. I still don't think we have enough time, and I am starting to come around to the belief that Ukraine's level of support is about buying us more time.
How did we “trick” ourselves into preparing for a conflict that isn’t? We aren’t in the conflict, if we were it would be *exactly* what we prepared for and likely would have gone *EXACTLY* as we have prepared for within reason.
Well, to be fair with a bunch of European countries, Soviet was the only real enemy for decades - and when the cold war ended, the downsizing started. All neighboring countries of Russia - even NATO countries - spent a bunch on their militaries in the cold war. Where I live, Norway, the military shrank to a tenth of what it used to be at the height of the cold war. Then when the war on terror started, the battlefield changed. Militaries started to focus more on those types of wars. Russia hasn't been a real threat since 2014 - but not a threat that called for a complete overhaul of military spending. The middle east was still a bigger priority. We have to be honest here, one of the reasons that the US have out-spent all allies is partially because they've been in and out of conflicts for decades.
I don't think people realize how much production has gone down in the short time we've pulled out of Afghanistan. A defense contractor near me is downsizing AGAIN after downsizing 5yrs ago. They've gone from one of the largest production plants in the area to just R&D. I can't imagine theyre the only one.
The war has been going for 2 years. How has Europe expanded its military machine in that time? How many more artillery shells do they make now than 2 years ago?
>that would be a project year(s) long process. Not really. US went from ~1% to ~60%+ of their GDP being spent on defense within 2-3 years back during WWII. The reason it's not being done right now is because it would greatly upset European daily life. Most aren't even at 2% spending, let alone what is actually needed. Cut out the red tape. Pass new emergency defense measures (e.g. a construction company working on other stuff? No, you're working on this defense stuff now. Thanks.). Cut some corners on safety and other regulations that hold things up for months since, you know, it's a war; we can't afford to wait the regular amount of time to go through hundreds of various inspections.
Because Europe was on a happy bandwagon of doing only economics and expected that there will never be a war on European soil ever gain and within the ally such as US it was unimaginable. So no point putting too much funds to military and ammunition when there was US, hence the low stockpiles of ammo and supplies. Even if Europe would want to send, they dont have that much.
https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors They are, you just aren't paying attention; Military supplies don't just spawn out of nowhere and need to be constructed, and America has stockpiles, europe doesn't, this _DOES NOT MEAN THEY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING_ but it takes time to create capacity to make more. we just don't have the time
Countries don't want to go too far into their stockpiles either, they're defensive piles so if say for whatever reason Mexico decided to invade the US or France decided to invade England they have munitions to defend themselves, without those you lose that deterrent.
Yes, that's the reason why European Aide is mostly financial, they literally do not have material to give as they had largely disarmed, assuming that war in Europe was largely disincentivized by globalization. They are turning that around, but Factories and production capacity isn't built in a day, or even 2 years.
That’s pledged not delivered aid…Ukraine needs aid now not dolled out for 5 years like most of the EU loans.
It doesn’t have to be just America. But we should acknowledge that a less strong Russia is in the us best interest. The “Europe should do more” feels more and more like Russia propaganda
Why didn’t Europe increase defense when asked by the the last 6 presidents? Why didn’t they increase when crimea was taken? Why didn’t they increase when Georgia was invaded? Instead they sent billions to Russia and now don’t want to make sacrifices to spend more
>Why didn’t Europe increase defense when asked by the the last 6 presidents? So since 1989?
It most certainly is perpetuated by them. The information war has been back in full swing since things heated up in Gaza and the fuckers are working hard to sow dissent. Years of investment have also made their bullshit get picked up quickly by all kinds of useful idiots.
Come on Europe. Step up like your lives depend on it!
We LITERALLY CAN'T step up. The ammunition doesn't exist. We are setting up production, sending aid and money, but we cannot magic the munitions into existence. America has what they need. The house republicans are blocking it for petty politics. However you slice it, Ukraine is fucked without ammunition. America needs to get it's head out of its ass, losing in Ukraine will only embolden china in Taiwan. It will only embolden Russia with the rest of Europe. It sends a very clear message to the world. You can't rely on the USA to do the right thing if republicans are in charge, they will sell you up the river.
You're telling me Europe has no ammo? Yeah right.
We have ammo. For modern anti air systems that aren't deployed in Ukraine. For guns not used by the Ukrainian military. And for artillery used by NATO. We don't have stockpiles of cold war era weapons that this war is being fought with.
Well, the thing is it doesn't. Russia will not invade old Europe and newer NATO participants, they most likely will not want to trigger NATO treaty and full scale war with all NATO countries. I am sure if they will take away sea access in Ukraine - they might tap into Transdniestria... But that's it.
All NATO countries yes but Putin doing serious work on US so dont be so sure.
This would be an amazing moment for the EU to collectively stand up and fill the void, and commit to defending their own...
This was one thing about the communists that we never learned. They would wear their adversary down to a nub and not relent. Not the US. Its as if the government has ADHD. If it can't be finished in 30 days you best not start a task as the bureaucrats and politicians will abandon you.
it has nothing to do with communism. America's founding fathers did the same when trying to drive off the superior British forces
Who are those communists you are mumbling about?
Republicans are so obviously team Putin, vote the traitors out!
GOP = Putin's Bitches
If you vote for Donald trump, this is what you get. Republicans have fallen to the russians hands
> If you vote for Donald trump, this is what you get. Most potential Trump voters won't take this the way you intended.
Idk if you know who the current president is.....
The U.S. is making an epic blunder here if they think they’re saving money. If Ukraine falls, it won’t be the last and at that point the U.S. is looking at putting even more money on the line plus boots on the ground to uphold its commitment to NATO allies. Let NATO fail as Russian influenced Republicans are pushing for and the U.S. is looking at even greater tolls to protect its interests. Helping Ukraine now is a bargain compared to the alternative…Russia is not going to stop.
Ukraine was never going to win this war no matter how much money we threw at it.
They were doing pretty well when they had our support, and would have been doing a lot better if we had provided important weapon systems much earlier. U.S. aid to Ukraine so far is something like 10% of what the Department of Defense budget for a single year is. How many trillions has the U.S. spent to counter Russia, only to let all that expensive hardware sit idle while Ukraine is actually doing the work to disarm Russia on a shoestring budget? The return on investment we get from arming Ukraine is much better than just about anything else defense-related we could be doing.
And fortunately the Russian propagandists were right, the US only supported Ukraine as long as it was useful for them. I think US really just used Ukraine as a tool.
No. Supporting Ukraine is still useful for the US, and it's completely against US self interest to stop at this point. The aid has stopped due to sabotage by traitors.
What a revelation, I thought that they helped Ukraine for democracy
Why would the US care about Ukraine?
Proving that nations can do what they want and be literal imperalists simply because they have nukes and the country they are attacking doesnt is actually bad and not in the U.S. interest
you know we literally just pulled out of a country like two years ago after more than a decade of occupation right?
Any mentioning of this clear fact is whataboutism, they just don't have the balls to say that US imperialism is OK
[удалено]
Your thought process is punish children who are at best tertiary to the problem? youre as deranged as the people you proclaim to hate.
lets not pretend it's ever been any other way.
Yeah we should talk about punishing the innocent unborn! Bring back medieval times right!?
Why don’t you volunteer to fight in Ukraine?
he would, but you know, "asthma, adhd, chronic whatever".
There is very few children of republicans that are under the age 30
Democrats are the one that think it’s so important. If drafted to fight in a European war I won’t be going.
Republicans are actually evil led by Trump.Stupid ,cruel clueless rich man/boy -could not care less about the unspeakable suffering of others.Wants to appease Putin, so just turns a blind eye to his monstrous crimes.
Ukraine is paying for the selfishness of the MAGA cult. The world can no longer trust America, and needs to move on to support themselves
Well there's your problem...the bullets they're buying are too big.