International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V14

[LangfordBarrow]

Looks like we're at a tipping point where Ukraine could lose this war unless the West does more. Russia is now a wartime economy and will be able to produce more of their weapons going into next year. Unless Europe and the US really commits and help drastically more, Ukraine will not be able to win.

All the stupid ass people in the US fooled by propaganda to say "We should be spending the money here and not in Ukraine" are fucking retarded and have no idea WTF they're talking about. As @AWilder posted, the military aid we're giving them is primarily coming from our old stocks - much of which need to be recycled anyway.

The US literally has thousands of Abrams tanks in storage and we gave 30. We can help a lot more and should because it is 100% in our self interest.

We already gave a commitment to help as long as it takes and now we're waffling. What does that tell the entire world and our allies?

It'll allow Putin to say the US is not a reliable ally and that he won. He will win re-election easily and declare victory over the big bad US.

And our allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella like Japan and South Korea are much more likely to arm themselves with nukes - which they can do so pretty easily.

The US and UK gave a commitment to Ukraine that we'd not let them lose their sovereignty if they gave up their nukes. That it'll prevent this EXACT scenario. Then we're just going to waffle and let it happen? When it was in our power to stop it? That's pathetic.

What Happens if Putin Wins

‘We’ll Be at Each Others’ Throats’: Fiona Hill on What Happens If Putin Wins

The veteran Russia watcher is deeply alarmed as Washington reaches an inflection point on the war in Ukraine.

www.politico.com

The Administration isn't waffling it's the MAGA group in the House that's blocking their funding.

 

[Cole train]

I think this is a bit of focus on the trees instead of the forest. I think @Limeade is more spot on with that assessment.

Sure completely destroying the standing Russian military is going to be beneficial to anyone who might encounter them for the short term, but long term if Russia just gets away with this and gets everything they want, it's basically signaling to the entire world that imperialism by conquest is still a thing worth doing if you don't give a shit about your people's lives.

Oh yea theres quite a few reasons that have been mentioned by posters really

 

[LangfordBarrow]

No one knows what was onboard other than the Russians. In terms of impact on resupply, it's marginal. The vast majority of Russian supplies in the region are moved by rail, same as the rest of Russia. It's a nice morale & PR boost for the Ukrainians and another hit for the Russians, but in the big picture it has minimal effect on the war effort. Those missiles would've made a much bigger dent on logistics if they were fired at Russian railway terminals, but you don't get the same PR boost from blowing up one of those that you get from blowing up a landing ship.

Aren't they restricted in their choice of targets when using Western supplied weapons?

 

[shinkyoku]

 

[AWilder]

Aren't they restricted in their choice of targets when using Western supplied weapons?

There is an understanding that western arms need to be used on military targets. I highly doubt the western powers are approving/denying targets. West might help plan complex operations and provide early warning capabilities since we have awacs/surveillance drones flying the black sea nonstop.

 

[AWilder]

another day another russian war crime

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Why is it in the US best interest to help Ukraine? You're just bleeding money at this point.

It's a tiny percentage of our military budget. The US wouldn't be in the leadership position it's in if it didn't pay attention to geopolitics and honor our defense agreements. Allowing Putin to take over the former Soviet States would only decrease our national security the same was as allowing China to bully their neighbors to claim their natural resources.

 

[Barteh]

1. We're not bleeding money. We're mostly giving weapons and ammo from storage.
2. Russia has also been messing other countries like Georgia and Moldova. And has stated in the past their willingness to "protect" the Russian speaking people in the Baltic countries. Those countries are part of NATO and then we'd need to get militarily involved.
3. China will be emboldened by our tepid response and act accordingly. They're already been acting really aggressively against their neighbors in the South China Sea and Taiwan. Make no mistake, China is watching this situation closely.
4. A weak response by us will lead to an arms race around the world including nukes.
5. Because we made a commitment already to Ukraine years ago that if they gave up nukes, we'd make sure they weren't invaded.



If Russia ends up keeping the territory they have, they won. Doesn't matter how many Russians died.

It's a tiny percentage of our military budget. The US wouldn't be in the leadership position it's in if it didn't pay attention to geopolitics and honor our defense agreements. Allowing Putin to take over the former Soviet States would only decrease our national security the same was as allowing China to bully their neighbors to claim their natural resources.

I agree with the honoring military agreements part but I think the rest is quite overblown and not necessarily in the US best interest.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

There is an understanding that western arms need to be used on military targets. I highly doubt the western powers are approving/denying targets. West might help plan complex operations and provide early warning capabilities since we have awacs/surveillance drones flying the black sea nonstop.

I'm pretty sure they're restricted from using any Western supplied weapons in internationally recognized Russian territory.

 

[aerius]

Aren't they restricted in their choice of targets when using Western supplied weapons?

Yes. There's an unwritten agreement which says they're not allowed to hit factories & other infrastructure in Russia proper, the reasoning being that it would then open up factories and everything else in Europe to retaliatory Russian strikes. Which would be an unacceptable escalation. However, everything within the pre-2014 Ukrainian borders is fair game. This would include all the rail lines & terminals in southern Ukraine which are used to supply Crimea and the southern part of the front.

 

[Hog-train]

The Administration isn't waffling it's the MAGA group in the House that's blocking their funding.

Doesn't matter who is blocking what. The world's perception will be the US didn't step up.

 

[AWilder]

Lolol paper tiger Russia won't do shit.
<{cruzshake}>

 

[Hog-train]

I agree with the honoring military agreements part but I think the rest is quite overblown and not necessarily in the US best interest.

Appeasement to a military aggressor literally never works. Didn't work with the Nazis who started WW2 - and actually never worked in human history.

If Russia is allowed to get away with this, they will 100% rebuild and keep going to other countries.

 

[Barteh]

Appeasement to a military aggressor literally never works. Didn't work with the Nazis who started WW2 - and actually never worked in human history.

If Russia is allowed to get away with this, they will 100% rebuild and keep going to other countries.

Meh you think after taking on a few regional countries like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia they'll attack the NATO head on? I highly doubt it.

 

[Rational Poster]

Meh you think after taking on a few regional countries like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia they'll attack the NATO head on? I highly doubt it.

Literally yes. Russian world theory is a thing their leaders actually believe in. It may not be tomorrow, but securing these territories is phase one of a conflict they're willing to engage in for generations.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

It's a tiny percentage of our military budget. The US wouldn't be in the leadership position it's in if it didn't pay attention to geopolitics and honor our defense agreements. Allowing Putin to take over the former Soviet States would only decrease our national security the same was as allowing China to bully their neighbors to claim their natural resources.

this is such a terrible argument no offense. with the money you spent on Ukraine, you could have done SO much to help your own country. Ukraine is a money dump scam to enrich the military industrial complex while the american sheeple celebrate while being robbed. If you really cared you would send enough to change the outcome of the war. You're just prolonging the war so you can "help rebuild". billions of dollars in construction contracts and military contracts on the horizon, if Ukraine isn't wiped out.

 

[Cid]

Why is it in the US best interest to help Ukraine? You're just bleeding money at this point.

Military aid doesn't cost shit.

Weapon systems cost money to maintain, store and decommission and America has trillions of dollars of weaponry.

Procurement hasn't been under 100 billion for 3 decades.

 

[Barteh]

Military aid doesn't cost shit.

Weapon systems cost money to maintain, store and decommission and America has trillions of dollars of weaponry.

Procurement hasn't been under 100 billion for 3 decades.

So whenever they talk about a military aid package of x amount of billions being approved the number is pretty much bullshit, or is there any meaning to it at all besides old equipment cost?

 

[Hog-train]

Meh you think after taking on a few regional countries like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia they'll attack the NATO head on? I highly doubt it.

They'll probably go after the neighboring former Soviet republics like Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan first. They both have oil. Russia is also a definite threat to the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. The Baltic states have been loudly saying Russia is a threat and must be stopped for a long time now.

So whenever they talk about a military aid package of x amount of billions being approved the number is pretty much bullshit, or is there any meaning to it at all besides old equipment cost?

It's pretty much just a newspaper headline figure. The US isn't actually spending x amount of dollars.

For example, the US sent Ukraine Bradley IFV's, Strykers and Abrams tanks. Those were all in storage for a potential war with Russia anyway. Some of the stuff are over 20 years old, cost money to be maintained and stored (this cost is actually a significant amount of money) and were about to be retired. It costs money to "retire" and recycle them as well. And we literally have thousands of these armored vehicles in storage.

But the simpleton newspaper headline is: "US gives 500 million aid of armored vehicles to Ukraine." Ok are they counting the "aid" as the cost of when these armored vehicles were purchased 20+ yearss ago?

Some of the stuff like ammo will need to be replaced, but those also come from old stock.

Some of the aid are missiles, which have a shelf life. Either they must be used or recycled - it costs money to maintain and then recycle them. We're not using them, so why not help out Ukraine AND advocate for our self interest at the same time. So in this case, these missiles need to be replaced for our military, but that would have happened anyway.

 

[Cid]

So whenever they talk about a military aid package of x amount of billions being approved the number is pretty much bullshit, or is there any meaning to it at all besides old equipment cost?

Yeah the Military aid number is absolute bullshit.

They have to assign a number so there is "accountability"

But the number they assign is a replacement cost. Most of which is going to happen anyway regardless of this war.

There are a few systems where that cost is a real cost (new shit like the phoenix ghost for example) but a large chunk of the stuff they're sending is weapon systems that they were never going to use anyway.

Defense economics is incredibly complicated but I'd say this war is making money for America.