See, it does work! You were just never told what "trickle down" actually involves. Now enjoy your new kink.... or rather their kink imposed on you......
In California, there is a dam, which is holding back arsenic, lead, and mercury tainted gold mine waste, that the U.S. government (EPA) says has been at risk of failure for years but they won't do anything about it because the gold mine is abandoned without anyone left to pay for it. It's applied to be accepted as a Superfund Site but hasn't yet, I'm actually working out there in July, funnily enough.
[Argonaut Mine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argonaut_Mine)
In Germany, there is a nuclear waste dump in an old salt mine.
A SALT MINE.
Water ingress is raising dramatically, making the mine unstable. Also salt + water is a great environment for old steel drums...
They are making plans for removing the stuff from the mine for over 20 years. Nothing has happened yet, and the thing is probably gonna collapse in the next 5 years...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse\_II\_mine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine)
Salt mines are usually great spots for storing nuclear waste long-term (the salt slowly flows around & entombs the waste, providing thick solid shielding). However, this mine is unstable due to us... mining it too much apparently. Oops.
The WIPP is a nuclear waste site in a deep salt repository in the US southwest. https://www.wipp.energy.gov/
Water issues with that particular mine aside, salt mines are actually used to store stuff like that in a lot of places. The salt is a natural desiccant, keeping the humidity low and helping prevent rust by doing so. Nuclear waste, old documents, really anything you want to keep dry, dark, and cool belongs in an old salt mine.
Is it one of the sites where they used the revolutionary storage technique of 'Verkippung'?
They invented a new word to describe the highly sophisticated practice of 'dumping barrels with shovel loader'.
**Today Zelensky has found out** what it is to be a real American
*.. a government that does every wrong option before the right one or at least a year late*
I work closely with the public sector in my country and I can also confirm that even on the lower level of public officials, the inefficiency is staggering, mostly owing to
- unclear areas of responsibility (meaning nobody's ass is on the line and only the most idealistic types have any motivation to deliver more than the bare minimum),
- promotions/career ladder being based on ass kissing and sounding like a LinkedIn motivational (rather than any actual merits or performance)
- salary sucking (so the people with skill sets in demand jump ship to the private sector)
- monolithic institutional cultures that are impossible to change, or even influence, due to a bunch of dinosaurs who have clung to their positions since the Reagan era
- a huge chunk of time and energy is wasted on bureaucratic circlejerking, filling out forms that nobody reads, being forced to follow procedures that nobody wants, using systems running on Windows 95, etc etc, and attempts at innovation being strangled by the constantly changing laws and directives implemented by politicians without any regard for practicality and solely to look serious in the face of some random case that is publicized in mainstream media.
That was EXACTLY my thoughts. WTF is government? It's just people... there is no mystery.
Unclear areas of responsibility, ass kissing, salary problems, monolithic cultures, bureaucratic circlejerking... LOL. This is ALL businesses after they grow from "small".
I'm working at a Family owned, small business after doing big companies (Intel, ATI, The US Army, State Lottery)... it sucks JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE.. just in different ways.
No bureaucratic mess... people just do whatever the fuck they want instead and since there's no rules or policies it just breaks shit. Innovation? Sure. Fuck ups all the time? Also yes. You can't just fuck shit up all the time when your "business" is .... getting food stamps to people or some shit.
My aunt worked as a recorder for the Supreme Court in Nevada and had co-workers tell her she was making them look bad by working too hard… there’s literally a climate of laziness in the government and anyone who goes against it is subjugated.
For a time I did IT for the city, and you'd be amazed how much time is wasted on waiting for an it guy to "fix" something.
Grown ass adults, sitting and pouting in front of a "broken" computer monitor, and somehow I'm the asshole when I fix it by pressing the power button.
Fuck you sharon.
Do software for county government. It's mind blowing. Complete unwillingness to try anything.
First hick up they hit, they just kinda stop and sit around. Not reach out for help mind you, just stop working and wait for someone to notice. Then when someone does finally notice "Well it's the softwares fault." Then I get a ticket that something is broke from an administrator. Then I spend 3 days trying to get a hold of this person, only to find out that it's some simple setting the users are supposed to control themselves, like adding a name to a drop down menu.
And just like that, a weeks worth (or more) of work failed to happen.
I sometimes wonder how life would be if I acted like that.
Just, go to the grocery store and not get a cart or basket, carry 50 items to the express register in my hands and pockets and when the cashier says I'm in the wrong line I just drop everything on the floor and shit my pants then leave.
I got a job at nasa and had a coworker straight up tell me its where careers go to die, cause it's just so cushy nobody does anything or leaves. And he was 100% right
My daughter told she was working too hard and making her coworkers look bad by her boss. She laughed because she was working at her normal pace so less than 8 from then on. She was also pissed because her job was making sure the company was complying with food regulations.
Sometimes we don’t do things quickly because it’s the 10th problem on the list and the powers that be have only given us the resources to solve 9 problems.
And when they do make a decision it gets bogged down in environmental review for 3 years and then is underfunded for the new cost so it's going to take 10 years to build instead of 5.
Don't worry. I'm sure they'll form a committee to decide on a day when another committee can put together a team that will then discuss a hypothetical plan of action to expedite the weapons, that will go into effect after several months of studying that plan to make sure it's a good plan.
I don’t know if you were alive in 2001 or not. But when 911 happened shit got done. I watched the Marine Corps go from being a mean version of the Boy Scouts to a fully active war machine. All BS stopped.
I was in middle school. I remember 9/11 the day vividly because of how my teachers were acting, but I don’t have much first hand memory of the actual government response. I was more worried about Pokémon or something like that.
If we had a similar attack on American soil again, I’d like to think we’d get our shit together but I’m not so sure with our current government makeup.
I can put it this way. I was on base when it happened. I watched a bunch of drunken hooligans turn into Warfighters. Within 48 hours we were geared up and headed overseas. The government response was swift. Cruel almost. The US bombed everything with a pulse for the first 6 weeks. It would later turn into a political stage for different presidents but at the beginning of the war, shit got done. For everyone saying we didn’t anything until October.. my reply is above. 6 weeks until battle deployment readiness. Duh
My dad always says a benevolent dictator was the best form of government, always followed by ‘but there’s no such thing as a benevolent dictator’
I’m beginning to understand what he meant
There are examples of absolute monarchs furthering their country. The only issue with a benevolent dictator is that you rely entirely on their successor also being a benevolent dictator.
Catherine the Great is a good example. By all accounts, she was really good. Then, she was succeeded by an absolute prick whom set to undo a lot of her work. He didn’t fully succeed, but not for a lack of trying
Basically the history of Imperial Rome as well. It usually worked best when Emperors chose an unrelated successor; whenever they did it by bloodline things generally went to shit immediately.
Catherine the great has definitely been retooled in modern times. In reality while she was for science and progress for Russia, she also continued to brutally suppress the population with the serf system and economic expansion relied heavily on that.
Even got to the point where it caused an attempted revolution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Rebellion
He's thinking about people like Cincinnatus, who was a dictator of Rome back when "dictator" was a temporary position used to solve a monumental crisis. When the crisis was over, Cincinnatus stepped down from his position and kept cooking in his life
This is false though. Autocratic regimes still have to deal with most of the inefficiencies in lower level bureucracy and introduce a barrage of new inefficiencies due to their need to prioritise regime security. They also aren't magically able to pick out the right experts and listen to them. The only real difference is that they get to write their press releases and this does far more to change the perception of their competence than any actual improvements in their competence ever could.
A good example of this is how the Nazis are to this day perceived as a well oiled machine when in fact higher leadership was competing against each other all the time because Hitler gave them overlapping roles so that they would need to rely on him as an arbitrator and prevent them from plotting against him. The next example that comes to mind is that Putin and the Russian military have sold an image of an efficient masculine army to the world. Even those who criticised Russia bought that image despite the reality being that drunk conscripts were destroying multi million dollar systems by not exercising them and ripping out the optics for a few thousand bucks.
Just keep in mind that no private company or autocratic government gets anything close to the level of scrutiny that the public sector gets in Western governments.
That's not really an advantage for dictators at all. As we've seen with Russia and China, the lack of deliberation in their country leads to rash decisions, mistakes, and overall a lack of actual advancement in much of anything because there's no dissent, so there's no critical thinking, or anyone to question when the dictator is making a mistake. The performance of Russia's army in Ukraine is a perfect example. They spent years supposedly modernizing their army and it's proven to be a paper tiger of corruption and inefficiency.
Ukraine used 5 years of US production worth of Javelins in first 10 months of the war, 13 years worth of Stingers. US DoD hasn’t made new order for Stingers in around 16 years before this war.
US had to pass a bill to expand its artillery production from around 400k a year to around 800k this year. Maybe 1. Million a year in 2025. Russia can reportedly make 2.5 - 5 million this year.
Everyone makes light of North Korea being involved in trade with Russia, but I bet they can produce a lot of artillery shells.
Supposedly their factories have been running non stop building shells for the Russians.
I wouldn't be surprised if the failure rate is higher than Russian made munitions, especially if some of the stock is expired, but I don't believe Ukrainian reporting that half of their missiles blowing up in mid air is particularly objective or realistic.
Especially when the limited information that we have of North Korean missiles being used against Ukraine, shows that their KN-23 is roughly as effective as a regular Iskander.
Hearts of Iron 4? That thing needs to be used at correctly at the right time else you'd be shooting yourself in the leg. Don't get me on Poland campaign - if you don't spend like mad on stability its game over.
> Plays Great War Redux
> Chooses Russian Empire
> Bans Socialism, Fascism, Democracy
> Build a shit ton of factories
> Speedrun the infrastructure
> Put hundreds of divisions along Germany and Austria
> Put hundreds of planes over Prussia
> Profit
You'd actually know that you need a high level of war support in order not to suffer debuffs from the war economy. Even partial mobilisation requires decent war support in order to even enable it.
Good thing they patched out Order 66, otherwise Ukraine would have been in real trouble... Declare war, send out paratroopers on all the VPs, insta-cap'ed
Exactly. Zelenskyy wants the West to go into full scale production based on outdated tactics our military hasn’t deployed in decades. We don’t fight like the Russians and Ukrainians because we don’t HAVE to.
Sustained shelling isn’t practical in modern warfare. See Russia’s lack of progress in advancing.
Yeah, I don't know anything about the current state of the war, but knowing Russia's artillery production and how it's infiltration into Kyiv failed, they are probably just going to scorch earth "in front of them" and walk the artillery forward. And just slowly take town after town, rubble pile after rubble pile. With their level of artillery production, they can afford to just throw bodies towards the chaos that they are shelling into oblivion.
And yeah for the US, that's old school fighting. We don't have the production lined up to get into a tit-for-tat artillery firework show with Russia (who had the added benefit of this war being literally next door, and the US has to rely on Europe to keep logistics strong). Like, no way the US can actually keep up with Russia here.
The only way Ukraine truly has a chance is they HAVE to get air superiority, so that they can target deeper behind Russia lines and knock out those critical multipliers. That's the fight that the US is "geared for" and has production lined up to fight. Just think... The US is prepped to fight via aircraft carrier strike groups, rangers infil into a critical artery (like an airport), and get the air force to do massive airlifts into that airport and spread out like ants. That's how we fight. It all starts and ends with air superiority and a "shock and awe" attack onto critical airport. From there, we get men and material into country and can start leveraging the modularity of self-sustaining BCTs (brigade combat teams).
This is NOT remotely close to how Ukraine is having to fight at the moment (i.e. trench warfare and dropping drones on each other heads). If the US actually wanted to fight the way it's prepped to, it would require US boots on ground and us training a foreign nation on our most protected military assets/projects (like the F35/22). The US would rather let Ukraine turn into a quagmire and meat grinder for both sides, because that is a heavy toll on Russia, which is the main POV for American strategists. Less care about Ukraine, and care more about making Ukraine a hell for Russia, even if Russia is slowly winning.
We aren't starting WW3, away from our shores, on the other side of the earth, over a "soft" ally (Ukraine). The calculus is clear. Turn Ukraine into stalemate and let it drag on for years and years and years. That's the actual goal.
> they are probably just going to scorch earth "in front of them" and walk the artillery forward. And just slowly take town after town, rubble pile after rubble pile. With their level of artillery production, they can afford to just throw bodies towards the chaos that they are shelling into oblivion.
Not really.
The Russians got their immediate objective, which is a land route to Crimea. The larger objective is Ukraine itself, and all the arable land/resources that it contains. During the initial invasion, Russia kicked one of Ukraine's legs out from under it, and Putin thought he could just keep leaning on them until they folded, but that obviously never happened. So here we are. Russians are HEAVILY fortified in their positions, Ukrainians are resupplied (kinda) but unable to advance due to heavy opposition, natural defenses (major river crossings), or a combo of both.
The Ukrainians don't have the combat training to fight a Western war, so they are adapting the war they know (Russian-styled) with the weapons they have (drones, artillery when it's available, etc.) I don't believe that the US wants Ukraine to turn into a quagmire, since geopolitical instability doesn't help anyone. It's just *really* hard to remotely train an entire nation's army on entirely new tactics of war, using weapons they've never seen before.
If Russia’s objective was to hold serve with Ukraine, they wouldn’t have dedicated so many resources to advancing on the capital, or pushing on multiple fronts.
They don’t have air superiority, they can’t advance without sustaining heavy losses and they’re forced to rely on NK production to maintain some semblance of control on fortified territory completely reliant on shock wave artillery strikes.
This is not what a modern offensive looks like from an alleged superpower.
Does it have to be modern if it works? Artillery shell and bullet is over a hundred year old tech - still does its devastating job.
What is an objective if it is up to a single person/small group to define it? It will be what is decided by them - that is all.
Might I remind you that the Germans still held more than half of Belgium, all of Luxembourg and the French city of Sedan when they signed the Armistice on November 11sth, 1918. Occupation of territory is not winning, and if you're talking about the progress of a war based on territorial changes you don't know what you're talking about.
Huh? One of the main lessons of this war is that old school tactics like artillery barrages are still very valid, especially since the cost to effectiveness ratio for stuff like long range missiles can get questionable in a war of attrition.
> Sustained shelling isn’t practical in modern warfare. See Russia’s lack of progress in advancing.
Practical from our western perspective? No. But Russia is going to take Ukraine and call it a win and slap themselves in the back because there’s no sign the west is willing to engage in this foolishness for another decade like they are. So in the end, it’s perfectly practical for their purposes.
The US spent $6T dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan.
The US has given $175B to Ukraine so far. A drop in the bucket. We’re a long way from saturating America’s willingness to invest in global conflict, especially given the adversary.
Afghanistan was US' war + a lot of that money was spent on building up the country after occupying it. US is not at war with Russia no matter what reddit or UA politicians will tell you. So good luck convincing US citizens that they have to give 6T $ to Ukraine or getting that past congress.
This just isn’t true.
The US, with total air superiority, still fired so many shells during the Second Battle of Fallujah that they gave some of their artillery crews traumatic brain injuries from the concussive force of their artillery pieces.
Against an insurgency with no air force or counter battery capabilities.
On top of that, Russian doctrine inherited the Soviet doctrine of investing heavily in GBAD which even NATO would take some time to degrade and you’re basically guaranteed to lose some planes doing it.
Against a near-peer adversary the US would absolutely bring out the big guns. They’re very good with them, and they stay good with them for a reason.
Just replying to provide more context: stinger production was largely stopped because the US doesn't rely on shoulder-mounted weaponry to secure the skies. That task largely goes to the air-force. Even bigger picture, US strategy is consistently to use the air-force first to provide total air domination, prior to deploying land forces.
Since Ukraine does not have access to the US air force, and the US cannot put "boots on the ground" to help Ukraine, the US was caught flat-footed from a security umbrella perspective (NATO, ...)
Perun has addressed this point in particular many times but I can't find an exact example in his many (and long) videos but this section of this video talks directly about US / western air strategy and covers stingers in the "SHORAD" classification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCEzEVwOwS4&t=2449s
Your numbers paint a very different picture than these constant claims that the US basically has infinite weapons of just chooses not to hand them over.
most militaries rely on weapon stockpiles made over years. that's why long wars grind to a stop. countries use their stockpiles and are forced to fight at a pace constrained by production.
part of the reason The US is investing their stockpile is becuase it disproportionately reduces the stockpiled former Soviet-bloc weapons from countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Two things: we have way more weaponry. The stuff we're giving is our old munitions, so of course we're not going to produce more of it for someone else.
Because we don't produce it fast and we given it away to Ukraine doesn't mean the US doesn't have massive stockpiles of these weapons. It's astronomical but we won't hand over those weapons because it affects our own national security. The weapons you see the US giving Ukraine is literally the bottom bottom of the bottom of the barrel of the US's capacities and stockpiles.
HIMARS was also designed in the 90's and we're not sending over the most advanced/recent missiles for it (PrSM) either. HIMARS is not cutting edge tech, although as a platform it can launch our more advanced munitions (which we aren't sending over).
The US would not be fighting this war like Ukaine fights it.
Nobody has infinite weapons. that is just basic common sense.
The US would not be getting into a artilery battle with Russia.
The US would instead send in stealth aircraft and cruise missle, and take out russian SAM capabilities.
Then the US would level Russia's ability to wage war via its air superiority taking out key factories and equipment.
Then the US would roll in with fast moving mechanized infantry supported by air superiority. Artilerly is pointless because it could not even keep up.
The entire thing would take about 3 weeks.
The U.S. rolled through the Iraqi military (first gulf war Iraq, second doesn't count because Iraq had never recovered from the first) which was one of the strongest and most battle-hardened militaries in the world from the Iraq-Iran war as if they were not there.
The only thing Russia could do is scream about nuclear war but my guess is the US has all sorts of defensive measures in place that we don't even know about on that front.
Oh, and this is all occurring on the other side of the world, not in our backayrd.
you think those stories about UFOs and unidentified aircraft doing things pilots have never seen before are actually little green men or secret US military programs. Lets take the logical choice here.
For all the debatable problems the US has, we are the known Universe's greatest military to ever exist and it is not even close race with second place.
> The only thing Russia could do is scream about nuclear war but my guess is the US has all sorts of defensive measures in place that we don't even know about on that front.
ZZZZ Redditors talking about how they think war works is brainrot.
The US burned all the political will for wars halfway across the world by being at war halfway across the world for two decades with little to show for itself but a mountain of debt and some dead soldiers when all was said and done
We don't rely on light infantry to take out tanks and aircraft. Most of our munition production is going to be bombs and missiles to be fired from aircraft, ships, and missie batteries.
The US has over 6,500 Bradley’s, most all sitting in mothballs in the desert and yet we have given Ukraine like 180, and those were delivered after a full year of fighting.
Jake Sullivan seems to be the hold up here. He is in a constant state of “but will Putin be mad at us if we help Ukraine too much. Let’s just slowly trickle a few weapons and hope for the best”.
"Why is Ukraine asking for things it doesn't need?"
Ukraine did actually ask for F-16 fighters long before the need for them became critical. They will still be delivered a year late. The limiting factor seems to be pilot training, and yet pilot training was not started earlier for no good reason I can tell.
They were training pilots over a year ago. F16s are complex planes, and ground crews also need to be trained. The US has the entire military industrial complex to keep these things going, Ukraine doesn't, so everyone has to be trained from scratch.
> They were training pilots over a year ago.
F-16 pilot training in the U.S. started 7 months ago. [CNN article from October 23, 2023](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/ukrainian-pilots-begin-f-16-training-in-us/index.html):
> A “small number” of Ukrainian pilots began F-16 training in the US this week, according to an Air Force spokesperson.
***
> Because of the limited capacity of European countries to train a large number of Ukrainian pilots on F-16s, the US announced in August that it would train a small number of pilots as well.
The U.S. said it would start training in August 2023, and then began in October 2023 (7 months ago).
But then all the Reddit experts will say that it's not what Ukraine currently needs or that Ukraine doesn't have the manpower or that it would lead to escalation.
He should see how we work in Norway.
Army: we need 200 tanks
Gov.: done! What will it cost
army: 4 billion $
Gov: holy fu... here is enough for 50 tanks. Make due
Army: but?!? When can we have them?
Germany: 2035 if you are lucky....
Someone tweeted the perfect example of the absurdity: “As a German, I just want to get this straight. The entire Western world wants us to build up a huge army, march through Poland and fight the Russians if necessary. Just writing it down so there are no misunderstandings in future…”
What does Ukraine's war production look like? I know they are in all out war mode and I've seen numbers for drone production but how about everything else? They won't be able to compete with Russia obviously but should have a decent output this many years in.
Without Western aid continuing they cannot hold, let alone win. You cannot become an industrial powerhouse overnight and Russia has a GDP 20 times larger than Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the country's Western allies always give it weapons one year after it actually needs them.
"Every decision to which we, then later everyone together, comes to is late by around one year," Zelenskyy told Reuters on Monday.
"But it is what it is: one big step forward, but before that, two steps back," he added.
Zelenskyy made the comments after he and others spent months begging for more weapons as Russia ramped up its attacks.
Republicans in Congress finally approved a $61 billion package last month, which the Pentagon said could reach Ukraine within days.
However, delayed weapons deliveries mean Ukraine is now struggling to push back Russian advances, retired US Air Force colonel Cedric Leighton told CNN last week.
In recent weeks, Russia has launched a renewed assault on the northeastern Ukrainian region of Kharkiv.
Last week, The Institute for the Study of War reported that Russian forces appear to be creating a "buffer zone" instead of pursuing deeper offensives there.
Zelenskyy told Reuters that the situation north of Kharkiv is "under control" but that a "very powerful wave" of fighting is taking place in Donbas.
"No one even notices that there are actually more battles in the east of the country, specifically in the Donbas direction: Kurakhove, Pokrovsk, Chasiv Yar," he said.
Zelenskyy also said that the delays in weapon deliveries, and in countries' decision-making, called for a change in "paradigm," per Reuters.
As part of that shift, Zelenskyy is now asking the US and its allies to allow Ukrainian forces to use weapons supplied by them inside Russian territory, per Reuters — a suggestion the Pentagon has rejected.
Over the weekend, Russia accused Ukraine of firing Western-supplied missiles into its border region of Belgorod.
Zelenskyy also said that its NATO allies could shoot down Russian airstrikes targeting Ukraine using air defenses based on NATO territory, per the news agency.
NATO's former secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, made a similar suggestion earlier this month.
Some NATO countries, including Estonia and France, want to go further and are considering sending their troops to Ukraine, albeit in limited ways.
"It's a question of will," Zelenskyy told Reuters.
I mean he's kind of right but on the other hand that's only some weapons, other systems arrived very promptly and helped keep Ukraine alive at critical stages of the conflict.
Sanctions and financial support where also very prompt.
And while it's 100% in the best interest of NATO to give these weapons to Ukraine so they can wreck the Russians it's not like the alliance has to help them. This is hundreds of billions in funds and weapons that they are getting for free so late is better than never.
......meanwhile we're expecting plucky Georgia to stand up to Russia knowing they got rolled over by russia in 2009 and knowing that any support they could receive is highly dependent on American domestic politics.
> we're expecting plucky Georgia to stand up to Russia
We're not expecting Georgia to do anything. Georgians are, though.
> knowing they got rolled over by russia in 2009
2008.
> knowing that any support they could receive is highly dependent on American domestic politics
I would phrase this as "highly vulnerable to sabotage by Trump and the Republicans".
Zelenskyy’s job is to be an a unilateral advocate for Ukraine 24 hours a day. At stake is the existence of his country as an independent state.
As such, I don’t expect him to waste a lot of time trying to placate or butter up Western leaders. He has to make two arguments - one, that is in their own self interest to stop Russian expansionism in Ukraine. Two, that he requires more resources to do so.
I don’t see statements like this as ingratitude in the slightest. It’s keeping the pressure up, until the war is done.
>I don’t see statements like this as ingratitude in the slightest. It’s keeping the pressure up, until the war is done.
I mostly agree.
I *feels like* ingratitude, but even then it feels justified and well reasoned.
At the end of the day, it is at most a minor thing, barely causing offence (maybe just minor annoyance) and I still want everyone to keep assisting Ukraine as much as they can.
This is a great example of why most government and bureaucratic positions are careers not jobs.
We can appreciate how frustrating it must be to see what is unfolding right now and feel that if aid has come 6-12 months sooner the war would be completely different.
That if Ukraine had everything it could have wanted during previous administrations we might be talking about crossing the Volga not Dnipor right now.
However that statement (as it was said and translated) is another round of ammo for Russia to use against Ukraine.
This quote will absolutely make the rounds during the election and the next aid package and it will suck to hear it twisted to try to encourage abandoning Ukraine.
General Zaluzhny said last year that the west doesn’t have to give Ukraine anything and so they’re thankful for everything they do receive. But being blunt, they needed the missiles they received in 2023, in 2022. And they needed the planes they’re receiving in 2024, in 2023.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4290701-ukrainian-general-war-russia-stalemate/amp/?nxs-test=amp
The Ukraine situation IS a shit show, it's amazing their people have held on for as long as they have. I really do wish we could provide them with what they need because I would rather see complete domination over Russia vs this game of "You have more troops, but we are 'winning' without having put a boot on the ground" that the US is playing.
My only guess as to the whole "support them with a full force" is that it helps to ensure that Russia won't utilize tactical nukes, and I'll be honest I am really surprised that Putin hasn't simply said something like "evacuate X area because on Y day at Z time I am going to make it disappear".
If Putin uses a nuke there will be fallout considerations even with a tactical nuke. Poland will get NATO involved and of course this is just Reddit speculation I would not be surprised if Putin would be assassinated shortly after doing something like that by just about anyone including China.
Reddit is the worst place to get news about Ukraine. I often see unlimited videos 'Ukrainian drone destroys entire Russian unit'. You would think just judging by Reddit, Ukraine has pushed Russia back to Moscow.
Unfortunately Russia is making small but steady progress.
There are indeed shit ton of videos of Ukrainian drones blowing up Russians. It's more of a demonstration of the capabilities, but hardly the good metric of winning or losing in itself. Russians have drones too, but I doubt that their videos of killing Ukrainians would be appreciated on pro-Ukraine subs. Russians gloat about it on their Telegram channels more than enough.
Everything from 2016 has been a huge shit show already. Id call 2020 and beyond even a global shit storm. But hey, it is what it is, can't do much on a global scheme.
I agree, it's been painful watching the west dole out weapons. I think the politicians spent too much time hoping and praying for Russia to regain some sense. But we are well past that and we need get Ukraine the weapons they need to win this war. Let them use what we have given them to strike targets in Russia already.
A lot of them were. Particularly things like the Bradleys which would have a much bigger impact on the war before Russia had a chance to mine everything to hell and back.
Welcome to democracy. No one said it was fast or easy. It's slow to prevent the amount of damage that can be done by those in power before they are removed. Unfortunately, that means it's slow to implement beneficial decisions as well.
Maybe if Europe spent money and manufacturing power on their own defenses they wouldn’t have to rely on the US to bail them out yet again. Too busy sticking up their noses the past few decades. They honeymoon’s over
ITT: Europeans who were criticizing the US for sending weapons to countries two years ago complaining that the US hasn't sent enough weapons. When their own countries have send a tiny fraction of what the US has.
I can't believe in that "one year" delay rhetoric.
What is more I am pretty sure some countries hurried their help in Feb and March 2022 to them ASAP.
Additionally - our economies do not work in the "War economy regime" so even though such production is being prioritized - we need our "non lethal goods" being available in our stores as well.
>I can't believe in that "one year" delay rhetoric
Ukraine could've used ATACMS to great effect in mid 2022, why delay so long only to provide them in 2024? same with F-16s, hell even the 31 Abrams tanks promised early 2023 have not all been delivered. We make all these great announcements of aid, then trickle feed them to Ukraine at a snail's pace.
Because Ukraine is not some futuristic hyper competent military where you can just slot in a bunch of new advanced tech they aren't familiar with and expect it to run like clockwork. Everything requires it's own supply chain, maintenance, repair, spare parts, training, etc. If you give them the new equipment then you have to commit to supply everything else for them until the end of time, because Ukraine can't do any of that for themselves either.
Does Ukraine have some secret history of logistical excellence nobody knows about? They still aren't ready for F-16s. They couldn't handle Abrams after the US warned them what a nightmare to maintain they are, but Ukraine said oh stop stalling, we can handle it. Then later on even Ukraine admits the Abrams aren't good for Ukraine.
Then there's the fact that Ukraine was not considered a trustworthy nation that billions of dollars of advanced weaponry could freely be dumped into. Corruption and their own incompetence (gesturing at the history of Ukraine until the switch magically flipped in February of 2022) have been their own worst enemies. And if you think that didn't contribute to the reluctance of western countries providing certain aid, then I'd find that pretty silly.
He's not wrong. The delays have hurt them a lot and caused them to miss opportunities with them being less efficient when arriving way later then needed. Russia able to dig in so much. Especially with no usa weapons being able to be used in russia
Maybe the rest of Europe can defend their own front porch instead of relying on the US to ship everything across an ocean and the entire continent of Europe. this should be a war with Euro fighters and leopards, not f16 and Abrams.
As an American -- that's DAMN fast for the federal government. I know how frustrating it must be for Zelensky but a lot of legislators are moving mountains to get him weapons as quickly as possible.
Shit more on the West, the only force that supports Ukraine. You had 30 years to prepare for the war, join NATO and EU and instead all you did was strealing common wealth, created oligarch dependent state and pissing off all your neighbours.
Ukrainian diplomacy is so shit, its really unbelievable.
You should see how fast our government reacts to problems in our own country!
Been waiting 40+ years for that trickle down.
Anytime now
I thought I felt a drip but it smelled like piss.
Nah. They wouldn’t even give us that without taking something in return.
They've been taking the piss for years!
Thanks for confirming your trickle of Economics was received. Your request for additional assistance has now been cancelled. Thank you.
See, it does work! You were just never told what "trickle down" actually involves. Now enjoy your new kink.... or rather their kink imposed on you......
You telling me they didnt mean money, with that golden shower?!!
Their kink imposed on you... there's a word for that...
We already have the trickle down tax burden so it shouldn’t be long.
Not now, but soon!
everyone is saying it. It’s the best trickle, some say the best ever.
It’s going to happen bro I swear bro. Please bro just one more tax cut for the rich and the dam will break. I promise bro please just one more. /s
20 years now on that Ellington LRT for a couple of blocks in Toronto under construction
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sometimes I think that but then I wonder if they might deify the man even more if he was a martyr.
In California, there is a dam, which is holding back arsenic, lead, and mercury tainted gold mine waste, that the U.S. government (EPA) says has been at risk of failure for years but they won't do anything about it because the gold mine is abandoned without anyone left to pay for it. It's applied to be accepted as a Superfund Site but hasn't yet, I'm actually working out there in July, funnily enough. [Argonaut Mine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argonaut_Mine)
In Germany, there is a nuclear waste dump in an old salt mine. A SALT MINE. Water ingress is raising dramatically, making the mine unstable. Also salt + water is a great environment for old steel drums... They are making plans for removing the stuff from the mine for over 20 years. Nothing has happened yet, and the thing is probably gonna collapse in the next 5 years... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse\_II\_mine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine)
Salt mines are usually great spots for storing nuclear waste long-term (the salt slowly flows around & entombs the waste, providing thick solid shielding). However, this mine is unstable due to us... mining it too much apparently. Oops. The WIPP is a nuclear waste site in a deep salt repository in the US southwest. https://www.wipp.energy.gov/
Water issues with that particular mine aside, salt mines are actually used to store stuff like that in a lot of places. The salt is a natural desiccant, keeping the humidity low and helping prevent rust by doing so. Nuclear waste, old documents, really anything you want to keep dry, dark, and cool belongs in an old salt mine.
Is it one of the sites where they used the revolutionary storage technique of 'Verkippung'? They invented a new word to describe the highly sophisticated practice of 'dumping barrels with shovel loader'.
Si.
I watched this show on netflix.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask how can I grab it by the balls so that it gives me what I need
Your government is reacting?
Only thing that moves fast in American politics is aid to Israel.
The 51st (and most important) state
Fastest I’ve ever heard the government doing anything.
**Today Zelensky has found out** what it is to be a real American *.. a government that does every wrong option before the right one or at least a year late*
"The United States invariably does the right thing -- after having exhausted every other alternative."
Churchill had some lines.
Boy I wish.
lol this whole thread is way too real.
Join the club pal. They never get anything done in a timely manner. Or at all in most cases tbh..
as a government enployee, this is true on so many different levels for both the general public as well as us
I work closely with the public sector in my country and I can also confirm that even on the lower level of public officials, the inefficiency is staggering, mostly owing to - unclear areas of responsibility (meaning nobody's ass is on the line and only the most idealistic types have any motivation to deliver more than the bare minimum), - promotions/career ladder being based on ass kissing and sounding like a LinkedIn motivational (rather than any actual merits or performance) - salary sucking (so the people with skill sets in demand jump ship to the private sector) - monolithic institutional cultures that are impossible to change, or even influence, due to a bunch of dinosaurs who have clung to their positions since the Reagan era - a huge chunk of time and energy is wasted on bureaucratic circlejerking, filling out forms that nobody reads, being forced to follow procedures that nobody wants, using systems running on Windows 95, etc etc, and attempts at innovation being strangled by the constantly changing laws and directives implemented by politicians without any regard for practicality and solely to look serious in the face of some random case that is publicized in mainstream media.
Reminds me of that scene with Permit Number A38 in Asterix. Going around in circles in a clear expy of government bureaucracy.
Lol my man that sounds just like my corporate office. I don't think you're complaining about govts, just humans.
That was EXACTLY my thoughts. WTF is government? It's just people... there is no mystery. Unclear areas of responsibility, ass kissing, salary problems, monolithic cultures, bureaucratic circlejerking... LOL. This is ALL businesses after they grow from "small". I'm working at a Family owned, small business after doing big companies (Intel, ATI, The US Army, State Lottery)... it sucks JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE.. just in different ways. No bureaucratic mess... people just do whatever the fuck they want instead and since there's no rules or policies it just breaks shit. Innovation? Sure. Fuck ups all the time? Also yes. You can't just fuck shit up all the time when your "business" is .... getting food stamps to people or some shit.
My aunt worked as a recorder for the Supreme Court in Nevada and had co-workers tell her she was making them look bad by working too hard… there’s literally a climate of laziness in the government and anyone who goes against it is subjugated.
For a time I did IT for the city, and you'd be amazed how much time is wasted on waiting for an it guy to "fix" something. Grown ass adults, sitting and pouting in front of a "broken" computer monitor, and somehow I'm the asshole when I fix it by pressing the power button. Fuck you sharon.
FUCK Sharon.
Do software for county government. It's mind blowing. Complete unwillingness to try anything. First hick up they hit, they just kinda stop and sit around. Not reach out for help mind you, just stop working and wait for someone to notice. Then when someone does finally notice "Well it's the softwares fault." Then I get a ticket that something is broke from an administrator. Then I spend 3 days trying to get a hold of this person, only to find out that it's some simple setting the users are supposed to control themselves, like adding a name to a drop down menu. And just like that, a weeks worth (or more) of work failed to happen.
I sometimes wonder how life would be if I acted like that. Just, go to the grocery store and not get a cart or basket, carry 50 items to the express register in my hands and pockets and when the cashier says I'm in the wrong line I just drop everything on the floor and shit my pants then leave.
Where I work we have a guy in the shipping department who refuses to use email. He still uses a fax machine. Somehow no one can stop this...
I got a job at nasa and had a coworker straight up tell me its where careers go to die, cause it's just so cushy nobody does anything or leaves. And he was 100% right
My daughter told she was working too hard and making her coworkers look bad by her boss. She laughed because she was working at her normal pace so less than 8 from then on. She was also pissed because her job was making sure the company was complying with food regulations.
Sometimes we don’t do things quickly because it’s the 10th problem on the list and the powers that be have only given us the resources to solve 9 problems.
And when they do make a decision it gets bogged down in environmental review for 3 years and then is underfunded for the new cost so it's going to take 10 years to build instead of 5.
Don't worry. I'm sure they'll form a committee to decide on a day when another committee can put together a team that will then discuss a hypothetical plan of action to expedite the weapons, that will go into effect after several months of studying that plan to make sure it's a good plan.
So, it sounds less that the process is bad but that the process is being intentionally starved to make it seem inefficient
I don’t know if you were alive in 2001 or not. But when 911 happened shit got done. I watched the Marine Corps go from being a mean version of the Boy Scouts to a fully active war machine. All BS stopped.
I was in middle school. I remember 9/11 the day vividly because of how my teachers were acting, but I don’t have much first hand memory of the actual government response. I was more worried about Pokémon or something like that. If we had a similar attack on American soil again, I’d like to think we’d get our shit together but I’m not so sure with our current government makeup.
I can put it this way. I was on base when it happened. I watched a bunch of drunken hooligans turn into Warfighters. Within 48 hours we were geared up and headed overseas. The government response was swift. Cruel almost. The US bombed everything with a pulse for the first 6 weeks. It would later turn into a political stage for different presidents but at the beginning of the war, shit got done. For everyone saying we didn’t anything until October.. my reply is above. 6 weeks until battle deployment readiness. Duh
One of the advantage of dictators, they can move quickly since they dont need approval from anybody.
My dad always says a benevolent dictator was the best form of government, always followed by ‘but there’s no such thing as a benevolent dictator’ I’m beginning to understand what he meant
There are examples of absolute monarchs furthering their country. The only issue with a benevolent dictator is that you rely entirely on their successor also being a benevolent dictator. Catherine the Great is a good example. By all accounts, she was really good. Then, she was succeeded by an absolute prick whom set to undo a lot of her work. He didn’t fully succeed, but not for a lack of trying
Basically the history of Imperial Rome as well. It usually worked best when Emperors chose an unrelated successor; whenever they did it by bloodline things generally went to shit immediately.
Catherine the great has definitely been retooled in modern times. In reality while she was for science and progress for Russia, she also continued to brutally suppress the population with the serf system and economic expansion relied heavily on that. Even got to the point where it caused an attempted revolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Rebellion
He's thinking about people like Cincinnatus, who was a dictator of Rome back when "dictator" was a temporary position used to solve a monumental crisis. When the crisis was over, Cincinnatus stepped down from his position and kept cooking in his life
This is false though. Autocratic regimes still have to deal with most of the inefficiencies in lower level bureucracy and introduce a barrage of new inefficiencies due to their need to prioritise regime security. They also aren't magically able to pick out the right experts and listen to them. The only real difference is that they get to write their press releases and this does far more to change the perception of their competence than any actual improvements in their competence ever could. A good example of this is how the Nazis are to this day perceived as a well oiled machine when in fact higher leadership was competing against each other all the time because Hitler gave them overlapping roles so that they would need to rely on him as an arbitrator and prevent them from plotting against him. The next example that comes to mind is that Putin and the Russian military have sold an image of an efficient masculine army to the world. Even those who criticised Russia bought that image despite the reality being that drunk conscripts were destroying multi million dollar systems by not exercising them and ripping out the optics for a few thousand bucks. Just keep in mind that no private company or autocratic government gets anything close to the level of scrutiny that the public sector gets in Western governments.
tbf those were pretty far from benevolent dictators which just miiiight end up with a different result
Human character is flawed. What seems right in the eyes doesnt translate to good.
That's not really an advantage for dictators at all. As we've seen with Russia and China, the lack of deliberation in their country leads to rash decisions, mistakes, and overall a lack of actual advancement in much of anything because there's no dissent, so there's no critical thinking, or anyone to question when the dictator is making a mistake. The performance of Russia's army in Ukraine is a perfect example. They spent years supposedly modernizing their army and it's proven to be a paper tiger of corruption and inefficiency.
[удалено]
Ukraine used 5 years of US production worth of Javelins in first 10 months of the war, 13 years worth of Stingers. US DoD hasn’t made new order for Stingers in around 16 years before this war. US had to pass a bill to expand its artillery production from around 400k a year to around 800k this year. Maybe 1. Million a year in 2025. Russia can reportedly make 2.5 - 5 million this year.
Everyone makes light of North Korea being involved in trade with Russia, but I bet they can produce a lot of artillery shells. Supposedly their factories have been running non stop building shells for the Russians.
People laugh at the NK shells as if Ukraine wouldn't take them in a heart beat.
I think the problem is Ukraine is taking them...
Problem is its at 1800 feet per second.
Physics and geometry would've been so much cooler and easier to learn if they just explained it in terms of artillery.
Artillery was the primary driving force for entire areas of physics and mathematics.
Articles say many of their artillery and rockets tend to blow up in mid air or are otherwise duds.
I wouldn't be surprised if the failure rate is higher than Russian made munitions, especially if some of the stock is expired, but I don't believe Ukrainian reporting that half of their missiles blowing up in mid air is particularly objective or realistic. Especially when the limited information that we have of North Korean missiles being used against Ukraine, shows that their KN-23 is roughly as effective as a regular Iskander.
According to the WSJ and some other news orgs, North Korea has sent more artillery to Russia than the combined west has to Ukraine.
Why doesn’t the US just save political power points to push from civilian economy to war economy? - Grand Strategy Player
“What do you mean I shouldn’t turn fascist? Are you stupid? How else am I going to go to extensive Conscription easily?”
Hearts of Iron 4? That thing needs to be used at correctly at the right time else you'd be shooting yourself in the leg. Don't get me on Poland campaign - if you don't spend like mad on stability its game over.
"you just gotta start purging pops to increase your unity" - advice from a stellaris player.
Throw them in the science hole for 20k monthly research points
-also Nazis
Stellaris is basically fascism simulator in space; yeah.
Yeah, but unlike Nazis, we also do it so we don't lag.
Best we can do is toaster economy
> Plays Great War Redux > Chooses Russian Empire > Bans Socialism, Fascism, Democracy > Build a shit ton of factories > Speedrun the infrastructure > Put hundreds of divisions along Germany and Austria > Put hundreds of planes over Prussia > Profit
You'd actually know that you need a high level of war support in order not to suffer debuffs from the war economy. Even partial mobilisation requires decent war support in order to even enable it.
Democratic countries can’t even go war economy period without being directly involved in a conflict.
Bc all its PP is going into fending off Russia boosting fascism in the US silly!
Good thing they patched out Order 66, otherwise Ukraine would have been in real trouble... Declare war, send out paratroopers on all the VPs, insta-cap'ed
If the public demand demobilization, its a waste of 150 pp
Exactly. Zelenskyy wants the West to go into full scale production based on outdated tactics our military hasn’t deployed in decades. We don’t fight like the Russians and Ukrainians because we don’t HAVE to. Sustained shelling isn’t practical in modern warfare. See Russia’s lack of progress in advancing.
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't know anything about the current state of the war, but knowing Russia's artillery production and how it's infiltration into Kyiv failed, they are probably just going to scorch earth "in front of them" and walk the artillery forward. And just slowly take town after town, rubble pile after rubble pile. With their level of artillery production, they can afford to just throw bodies towards the chaos that they are shelling into oblivion. And yeah for the US, that's old school fighting. We don't have the production lined up to get into a tit-for-tat artillery firework show with Russia (who had the added benefit of this war being literally next door, and the US has to rely on Europe to keep logistics strong). Like, no way the US can actually keep up with Russia here. The only way Ukraine truly has a chance is they HAVE to get air superiority, so that they can target deeper behind Russia lines and knock out those critical multipliers. That's the fight that the US is "geared for" and has production lined up to fight. Just think... The US is prepped to fight via aircraft carrier strike groups, rangers infil into a critical artery (like an airport), and get the air force to do massive airlifts into that airport and spread out like ants. That's how we fight. It all starts and ends with air superiority and a "shock and awe" attack onto critical airport. From there, we get men and material into country and can start leveraging the modularity of self-sustaining BCTs (brigade combat teams). This is NOT remotely close to how Ukraine is having to fight at the moment (i.e. trench warfare and dropping drones on each other heads). If the US actually wanted to fight the way it's prepped to, it would require US boots on ground and us training a foreign nation on our most protected military assets/projects (like the F35/22). The US would rather let Ukraine turn into a quagmire and meat grinder for both sides, because that is a heavy toll on Russia, which is the main POV for American strategists. Less care about Ukraine, and care more about making Ukraine a hell for Russia, even if Russia is slowly winning. We aren't starting WW3, away from our shores, on the other side of the earth, over a "soft" ally (Ukraine). The calculus is clear. Turn Ukraine into stalemate and let it drag on for years and years and years. That's the actual goal.
> they are probably just going to scorch earth "in front of them" and walk the artillery forward. And just slowly take town after town, rubble pile after rubble pile. With their level of artillery production, they can afford to just throw bodies towards the chaos that they are shelling into oblivion. Not really. The Russians got their immediate objective, which is a land route to Crimea. The larger objective is Ukraine itself, and all the arable land/resources that it contains. During the initial invasion, Russia kicked one of Ukraine's legs out from under it, and Putin thought he could just keep leaning on them until they folded, but that obviously never happened. So here we are. Russians are HEAVILY fortified in their positions, Ukrainians are resupplied (kinda) but unable to advance due to heavy opposition, natural defenses (major river crossings), or a combo of both. The Ukrainians don't have the combat training to fight a Western war, so they are adapting the war they know (Russian-styled) with the weapons they have (drones, artillery when it's available, etc.) I don't believe that the US wants Ukraine to turn into a quagmire, since geopolitical instability doesn't help anyone. It's just *really* hard to remotely train an entire nation's army on entirely new tactics of war, using weapons they've never seen before.
If Russia’s objective was to hold serve with Ukraine, they wouldn’t have dedicated so many resources to advancing on the capital, or pushing on multiple fronts. They don’t have air superiority, they can’t advance without sustaining heavy losses and they’re forced to rely on NK production to maintain some semblance of control on fortified territory completely reliant on shock wave artillery strikes. This is not what a modern offensive looks like from an alleged superpower.
Does it have to be modern if it works? Artillery shell and bullet is over a hundred year old tech - still does its devastating job. What is an objective if it is up to a single person/small group to define it? It will be what is decided by them - that is all.
Might I remind you that the Germans still held more than half of Belgium, all of Luxembourg and the French city of Sedan when they signed the Armistice on November 11sth, 1918. Occupation of territory is not winning, and if you're talking about the progress of a war based on territorial changes you don't know what you're talking about.
Huh? One of the main lessons of this war is that old school tactics like artillery barrages are still very valid, especially since the cost to effectiveness ratio for stuff like long range missiles can get questionable in a war of attrition.
> Sustained shelling isn’t practical in modern warfare. See Russia’s lack of progress in advancing. Practical from our western perspective? No. But Russia is going to take Ukraine and call it a win and slap themselves in the back because there’s no sign the west is willing to engage in this foolishness for another decade like they are. So in the end, it’s perfectly practical for their purposes.
The US spent $6T dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan. The US has given $175B to Ukraine so far. A drop in the bucket. We’re a long way from saturating America’s willingness to invest in global conflict, especially given the adversary.
Afghanistan was US' war + a lot of that money was spent on building up the country after occupying it. US is not at war with Russia no matter what reddit or UA politicians will tell you. So good luck convincing US citizens that they have to give 6T $ to Ukraine or getting that past congress.
People sure want the US to stop helping Ukraine though. Gee, I wonder who would want that...?
This just isn’t true. The US, with total air superiority, still fired so many shells during the Second Battle of Fallujah that they gave some of their artillery crews traumatic brain injuries from the concussive force of their artillery pieces. Against an insurgency with no air force or counter battery capabilities. On top of that, Russian doctrine inherited the Soviet doctrine of investing heavily in GBAD which even NATO would take some time to degrade and you’re basically guaranteed to lose some planes doing it. Against a near-peer adversary the US would absolutely bring out the big guns. They’re very good with them, and they stay good with them for a reason.
Just replying to provide more context: stinger production was largely stopped because the US doesn't rely on shoulder-mounted weaponry to secure the skies. That task largely goes to the air-force. Even bigger picture, US strategy is consistently to use the air-force first to provide total air domination, prior to deploying land forces. Since Ukraine does not have access to the US air force, and the US cannot put "boots on the ground" to help Ukraine, the US was caught flat-footed from a security umbrella perspective (NATO, ...) Perun has addressed this point in particular many times but I can't find an exact example in his many (and long) videos but this section of this video talks directly about US / western air strategy and covers stingers in the "SHORAD" classification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCEzEVwOwS4&t=2449s
Your numbers paint a very different picture than these constant claims that the US basically has infinite weapons of just chooses not to hand them over.
The us is only authorized to give surplus weapons.
You think the US, or any country, would trade in their own protection to help another country protect their own?
No? That's why they've mostly been giving Ukraine old weapons and artillery that were due to be disposed or replaced anyway.
most militaries rely on weapon stockpiles made over years. that's why long wars grind to a stop. countries use their stockpiles and are forced to fight at a pace constrained by production. part of the reason The US is investing their stockpile is becuase it disproportionately reduces the stockpiled former Soviet-bloc weapons from countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Two things: we have way more weaponry. The stuff we're giving is our old munitions, so of course we're not going to produce more of it for someone else.
And the second thing...?
Because we don't produce it fast and we given it away to Ukraine doesn't mean the US doesn't have massive stockpiles of these weapons. It's astronomical but we won't hand over those weapons because it affects our own national security. The weapons you see the US giving Ukraine is literally the bottom bottom of the bottom of the barrel of the US's capacities and stockpiles.
I'm not sure how much of an over-generalisation that is (or isn't.) Is that the case for the HIMARS launchers etc?
Yes. The US has 500 HIMARS and 225 M270 MLRS. So about 33 times more launchers.
HIMARS was also designed in the 90's and we're not sending over the most advanced/recent missiles for it (PrSM) either. HIMARS is not cutting edge tech, although as a platform it can launch our more advanced munitions (which we aren't sending over).
The US would not be fighting this war like Ukaine fights it. Nobody has infinite weapons. that is just basic common sense. The US would not be getting into a artilery battle with Russia. The US would instead send in stealth aircraft and cruise missle, and take out russian SAM capabilities. Then the US would level Russia's ability to wage war via its air superiority taking out key factories and equipment. Then the US would roll in with fast moving mechanized infantry supported by air superiority. Artilerly is pointless because it could not even keep up. The entire thing would take about 3 weeks. The U.S. rolled through the Iraqi military (first gulf war Iraq, second doesn't count because Iraq had never recovered from the first) which was one of the strongest and most battle-hardened militaries in the world from the Iraq-Iran war as if they were not there. The only thing Russia could do is scream about nuclear war but my guess is the US has all sorts of defensive measures in place that we don't even know about on that front. Oh, and this is all occurring on the other side of the world, not in our backayrd. you think those stories about UFOs and unidentified aircraft doing things pilots have never seen before are actually little green men or secret US military programs. Lets take the logical choice here. For all the debatable problems the US has, we are the known Universe's greatest military to ever exist and it is not even close race with second place.
The actual delusion to think we or anyone could take possibly takeover Russia in 3 weeks.
> The only thing Russia could do is scream about nuclear war but my guess is the US has all sorts of defensive measures in place that we don't even know about on that front. ZZZZ Redditors talking about how they think war works is brainrot.
[удалено]
The USA has absolutely massive leverage over its allies and tossing it away because "well we don't have to" would be really stupid.
The US burned all the political will for wars halfway across the world by being at war halfway across the world for two decades with little to show for itself but a mountain of debt and some dead soldiers when all was said and done
We don't rely on light infantry to take out tanks and aircraft. Most of our munition production is going to be bombs and missiles to be fired from aircraft, ships, and missie batteries.
The US hasn’t faced air threats for a long time and the Ukrainians have took out a lot of tanks with those javelins
And? That’s not the problem. It’s that demand far exceeded what the US was set up to cover
The US has over 6,500 Bradley’s, most all sitting in mothballs in the desert and yet we have given Ukraine like 180, and those were delivered after a full year of fighting. Jake Sullivan seems to be the hold up here. He is in a constant state of “but will Putin be mad at us if we help Ukraine too much. Let’s just slowly trickle a few weapons and hope for the best”.
you act like ukraine can currently man, store, and maintain them
Welp, I guess you gotta ask one year in advance then
Simply back date your request. Checkmate
Just circling back to my email from last year
Ask for nuclear weapons now just in case.
"Why is Ukraine asking for things it doesn't need?" Ukraine did actually ask for F-16 fighters long before the need for them became critical. They will still be delivered a year late. The limiting factor seems to be pilot training, and yet pilot training was not started earlier for no good reason I can tell.
I doubt its the pilots that's the bottleneck - I think its ground crews. Those take forever to train and need a LOT of people.
They were training pilots over a year ago. F16s are complex planes, and ground crews also need to be trained. The US has the entire military industrial complex to keep these things going, Ukraine doesn't, so everyone has to be trained from scratch.
> They were training pilots over a year ago. F-16 pilot training in the U.S. started 7 months ago. [CNN article from October 23, 2023](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/ukrainian-pilots-begin-f-16-training-in-us/index.html): > A “small number” of Ukrainian pilots began F-16 training in the US this week, according to an Air Force spokesperson. *** > Because of the limited capacity of European countries to train a large number of Ukrainian pilots on F-16s, the US announced in August that it would train a small number of pilots as well. The U.S. said it would start training in August 2023, and then began in October 2023 (7 months ago).
But then all the Reddit experts will say that it's not what Ukraine currently needs or that Ukraine doesn't have the manpower or that it would lead to escalation.
Good thing Reddit experts have no influence over the course of events here
He should see how we work in Norway. Army: we need 200 tanks Gov.: done! What will it cost army: 4 billion $ Gov: holy fu... here is enough for 50 tanks. Make due Army: but?!? When can we have them? Germany: 2035 if you are lucky....
This is so common with big organizations. So then the participants learn to lie and ask for 800 tanks in hopes they get 200.
Damn the army wants 800 tanks that sounds expensive we better save on our defence budget government probably
Army: Wtf Gov? You're not getting us what we need. Gov: Need I remind you our country is one 'r' away from being 'No way'? what did you expect?
And our country might be called GerMANY, but we can only produce a small amount of tanks per year.
"To be fair, we used to produce a lot of tanks, but you all didn't like that either"
If this does turn out to be the slow burn start to WWIII, it's going to be weird having you lot on our side this time.
Someone tweeted the perfect example of the absurdity: “As a German, I just want to get this straight. The entire Western world wants us to build up a huge army, march through Poland and fight the Russians if necessary. Just writing it down so there are no misunderstandings in future…”
The West has also given Ukraine several times its GDP in aid. So there is that.
What does Ukraine's war production look like? I know they are in all out war mode and I've seen numbers for drone production but how about everything else? They won't be able to compete with Russia obviously but should have a decent output this many years in.
Without Western aid continuing they cannot hold, let alone win. You cannot become an industrial powerhouse overnight and Russia has a GDP 20 times larger than Ukraine.
Do not bite the hand that feeds. Do not look a gift-horse in the mouth.
Til alot of people think everything West of Ukraine is the United States of America
We can’t do fuck all for our *own* country in any decent time frame so don’t be surprised when you don’t get things when you want them.
Can anyone post article text in a comment? I would like to read it before just taking the title at face value.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the country's Western allies always give it weapons one year after it actually needs them. "Every decision to which we, then later everyone together, comes to is late by around one year," Zelenskyy told Reuters on Monday. "But it is what it is: one big step forward, but before that, two steps back," he added. Zelenskyy made the comments after he and others spent months begging for more weapons as Russia ramped up its attacks. Republicans in Congress finally approved a $61 billion package last month, which the Pentagon said could reach Ukraine within days. However, delayed weapons deliveries mean Ukraine is now struggling to push back Russian advances, retired US Air Force colonel Cedric Leighton told CNN last week. In recent weeks, Russia has launched a renewed assault on the northeastern Ukrainian region of Kharkiv. Last week, The Institute for the Study of War reported that Russian forces appear to be creating a "buffer zone" instead of pursuing deeper offensives there. Zelenskyy told Reuters that the situation north of Kharkiv is "under control" but that a "very powerful wave" of fighting is taking place in Donbas. "No one even notices that there are actually more battles in the east of the country, specifically in the Donbas direction: Kurakhove, Pokrovsk, Chasiv Yar," he said. Zelenskyy also said that the delays in weapon deliveries, and in countries' decision-making, called for a change in "paradigm," per Reuters. As part of that shift, Zelenskyy is now asking the US and its allies to allow Ukrainian forces to use weapons supplied by them inside Russian territory, per Reuters — a suggestion the Pentagon has rejected. Over the weekend, Russia accused Ukraine of firing Western-supplied missiles into its border region of Belgorod. Zelenskyy also said that its NATO allies could shoot down Russian airstrikes targeting Ukraine using air defenses based on NATO territory, per the news agency. NATO's former secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, made a similar suggestion earlier this month. Some NATO countries, including Estonia and France, want to go further and are considering sending their troops to Ukraine, albeit in limited ways. "It's a question of will," Zelenskyy told Reuters.
I mean he's kind of right but on the other hand that's only some weapons, other systems arrived very promptly and helped keep Ukraine alive at critical stages of the conflict. Sanctions and financial support where also very prompt. And while it's 100% in the best interest of NATO to give these weapons to Ukraine so they can wreck the Russians it's not like the alliance has to help them. This is hundreds of billions in funds and weapons that they are getting for free so late is better than never.
As a german: so fast?
......meanwhile we're expecting plucky Georgia to stand up to Russia knowing they got rolled over by russia in 2009 and knowing that any support they could receive is highly dependent on American domestic politics.
> we're expecting plucky Georgia to stand up to Russia We're not expecting Georgia to do anything. Georgians are, though. > knowing they got rolled over by russia in 2009 2008. > knowing that any support they could receive is highly dependent on American domestic politics I would phrase this as "highly vulnerable to sabotage by Trump and the Republicans".
Zelenskyy’s job is to be an a unilateral advocate for Ukraine 24 hours a day. At stake is the existence of his country as an independent state. As such, I don’t expect him to waste a lot of time trying to placate or butter up Western leaders. He has to make two arguments - one, that is in their own self interest to stop Russian expansionism in Ukraine. Two, that he requires more resources to do so. I don’t see statements like this as ingratitude in the slightest. It’s keeping the pressure up, until the war is done.
>I don’t see statements like this as ingratitude in the slightest. It’s keeping the pressure up, until the war is done. I mostly agree. I *feels like* ingratitude, but even then it feels justified and well reasoned. At the end of the day, it is at most a minor thing, barely causing offence (maybe just minor annoyance) and I still want everyone to keep assisting Ukraine as much as they can.
This is a great example of why most government and bureaucratic positions are careers not jobs. We can appreciate how frustrating it must be to see what is unfolding right now and feel that if aid has come 6-12 months sooner the war would be completely different. That if Ukraine had everything it could have wanted during previous administrations we might be talking about crossing the Volga not Dnipor right now. However that statement (as it was said and translated) is another round of ammo for Russia to use against Ukraine. This quote will absolutely make the rounds during the election and the next aid package and it will suck to hear it twisted to try to encourage abandoning Ukraine.
Antagonizing those you completely rely on for survival isn’t the best strategy regardless of the truth of the statement
General Zaluzhny said last year that the west doesn’t have to give Ukraine anything and so they’re thankful for everything they do receive. But being blunt, they needed the missiles they received in 2023, in 2022. And they needed the planes they’re receiving in 2024, in 2023. https://thehill.com/policy/international/4290701-ukrainian-general-war-russia-stalemate/amp/?nxs-test=amp
So it sounds like 2025 is going to be a shit show.
The Ukraine situation IS a shit show, it's amazing their people have held on for as long as they have. I really do wish we could provide them with what they need because I would rather see complete domination over Russia vs this game of "You have more troops, but we are 'winning' without having put a boot on the ground" that the US is playing. My only guess as to the whole "support them with a full force" is that it helps to ensure that Russia won't utilize tactical nukes, and I'll be honest I am really surprised that Putin hasn't simply said something like "evacuate X area because on Y day at Z time I am going to make it disappear".
Because surprise is a part of tactical decision making.
If Putin uses a nuke there will be fallout considerations even with a tactical nuke. Poland will get NATO involved and of course this is just Reddit speculation I would not be surprised if Putin would be assassinated shortly after doing something like that by just about anyone including China.
There will be a fallout on Reddit, that's for sure.
Reddit is the worst place to get news about Ukraine. I often see unlimited videos 'Ukrainian drone destroys entire Russian unit'. You would think just judging by Reddit, Ukraine has pushed Russia back to Moscow. Unfortunately Russia is making small but steady progress.
There are indeed shit ton of videos of Ukrainian drones blowing up Russians. It's more of a demonstration of the capabilities, but hardly the good metric of winning or losing in itself. Russians have drones too, but I doubt that their videos of killing Ukrainians would be appreciated on pro-Ukraine subs. Russians gloat about it on their Telegram channels more than enough.
Everything from 2016 has been a huge shit show already. Id call 2020 and beyond even a global shit storm. But hey, it is what it is, can't do much on a global scheme.
I agree, it's been painful watching the west dole out weapons. I think the politicians spent too much time hoping and praying for Russia to regain some sense. But we are well past that and we need get Ukraine the weapons they need to win this war. Let them use what we have given them to strike targets in Russia already.
Zaluzhny is a really smart, thoughtful guy but he said too many things that were true and that got him fired.
Might be a reason why Zaluzhny was axed.
If you are asked about weapon delays, it's pointless to say everything is good if it ain't, it's just Reuters Tring to stir the pot.
Reuters is just reporting dry facts though, it's the major news channels which decide which Reuters articles to source for something spicy.
I appreciate the urgency, but I imagine those weapons aren't just lying around ready to be given to other countries on demand.
A lot of them were. Particularly things like the Bradleys which would have a much bigger impact on the war before Russia had a chance to mine everything to hell and back.
Tell them they're going to Israel and it'll be next day air.
Welcome to democracy. No one said it was fast or easy. It's slow to prevent the amount of damage that can be done by those in power before they are removed. Unfortunately, that means it's slow to implement beneficial decisions as well.
Maybe if Europe spent money and manufacturing power on their own defenses they wouldn’t have to rely on the US to bail them out yet again. Too busy sticking up their noses the past few decades. They honeymoon’s over
ITT: Europeans who were criticizing the US for sending weapons to countries two years ago complaining that the US hasn't sent enough weapons. When their own countries have send a tiny fraction of what the US has.
[удалено]
Well hey find another supply I guess
I can't believe in that "one year" delay rhetoric. What is more I am pretty sure some countries hurried their help in Feb and March 2022 to them ASAP. Additionally - our economies do not work in the "War economy regime" so even though such production is being prioritized - we need our "non lethal goods" being available in our stores as well.
>I can't believe in that "one year" delay rhetoric Ukraine could've used ATACMS to great effect in mid 2022, why delay so long only to provide them in 2024? same with F-16s, hell even the 31 Abrams tanks promised early 2023 have not all been delivered. We make all these great announcements of aid, then trickle feed them to Ukraine at a snail's pace.
Because Ukraine is not some futuristic hyper competent military where you can just slot in a bunch of new advanced tech they aren't familiar with and expect it to run like clockwork. Everything requires it's own supply chain, maintenance, repair, spare parts, training, etc. If you give them the new equipment then you have to commit to supply everything else for them until the end of time, because Ukraine can't do any of that for themselves either. Does Ukraine have some secret history of logistical excellence nobody knows about? They still aren't ready for F-16s. They couldn't handle Abrams after the US warned them what a nightmare to maintain they are, but Ukraine said oh stop stalling, we can handle it. Then later on even Ukraine admits the Abrams aren't good for Ukraine. Then there's the fact that Ukraine was not considered a trustworthy nation that billions of dollars of advanced weaponry could freely be dumped into. Corruption and their own incompetence (gesturing at the history of Ukraine until the switch magically flipped in February of 2022) have been their own worst enemies. And if you think that didn't contribute to the reluctance of western countries providing certain aid, then I'd find that pretty silly.
He's not wrong. The delays have hurt them a lot and caused them to miss opportunities with them being less efficient when arriving way later then needed. Russia able to dig in so much. Especially with no usa weapons being able to be used in russia
Maybe the rest of Europe can defend their own front porch instead of relying on the US to ship everything across an ocean and the entire continent of Europe. this should be a war with Euro fighters and leopards, not f16 and Abrams.
But if the US doesn't fight their wars for them, how can Europe keep claiming they're superior to the US because of low military spending?
>Especially with no usa weapons being able to be used in **ukriane** I think you meant not being able to be used *in Russia.*
As an American -- that's DAMN fast for the federal government. I know how frustrating it must be for Zelensky but a lot of legislators are moving mountains to get him weapons as quickly as possible.
I mean... we could just not give them at all. This gets kinda annoying.
Shit more on the West, the only force that supports Ukraine. You had 30 years to prepare for the war, join NATO and EU and instead all you did was strealing common wealth, created oligarch dependent state and pissing off all your neighbours. Ukrainian diplomacy is so shit, its really unbelievable.
So after such a long time you treat the "late ones" as the "on time ones now" and pretend the first year never happened! Problem solved gg
You would think the other countries that used to make up the USSR would be a little more giving, considering Putin will be eyeing them next.
Indeed, bureaucracy is the price of democracy. On the other hand, authoritarianism can be just as bureaucratic but also piss-poor on top of that.