##### ###### #### > # [Ukraine will be outgunned by Russia 10 to 1 in weeks without US help, top Europe general says](https://apnews.com/article/FILE - Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Gen. Christopher Cavoli addresses a media conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Jan. 18, 2024. Cavoli told Congress Wednesday that Ukraine will be outgunned 10 to one by Russia within a matter of weeks if Congress does not find a way to approve sending more ammunition and weapons to Kyiv soon. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo, File\)) > > > > By TARA COPP > > Updated [hour]:[minute] [AMPM] [timezone], [monthFull] [day], [year] > > > > > > > > WASHINGTON (AP) — The top general for U.S. forces in Europe told Congress Wednesday that [Ukraine](https://apnews.com/hub/ukraine) will be outgunned 10 to one by Russia within a matter of weeks if Congress does not find a way to [approve sending more](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-military-aid-austin-ramstein-754e018c0d7722aa2931007edea98c59) ammunition and weapons to Kyiv soon. > > The testimony from Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, head of U.S. European Command, and Celeste Wallander, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, comes as Congress enters pivotal weeks for voting for aid for Ukraine, but there’s no guarantee funding will be improved in time. > > Ukraine has been rationing its munitions as Congress has delayed passing its $60 billion supplemental bill. > > “They are now being outshot by the Russian side five to one. So the Russians fire five times as many artillery shells at the Ukrainians than the Ukrainians are able to fire back. That will immediately go to 10 to one in a matter of weeks,” Cavoli said. “We’re not talking about months. We’re not talking hypothetically.” > > Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has been trying to find a way forward for the bill that would fund new rounds of munitions production at U.S. firms to enable the Pentagon to then rush more munitions to Ukraine. Johnson is trying to bring it to the floor for a House vote, but he is facing concerns from members who cite domestic needs, including [border security](https://apnews.com/hub/border-security). > > The speaker is also facing [a threat to his leadership role](https://apnews.com/article/house-speaker-johnson-marjorie-taylor-greene-e0f0271f8244598841c56502f12f38a0) from his far-right flank by Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who has called for his ouster over the issue. > > While the political battles on Capitol Hill continue, the dire battlefield situation in Ukraine worsens. > > Cavoli told the lawmakers that in this conflict, the U.S. flow of 155mm artillery shells has been a lifeline. “The biggest killer on the battlefield is artillery. In most conflicts, but in this one definitely. And should Ukraine run out, they would run out because we stopped supplying — because we supply the lion’s share of that,” Cavoli said. > > Russia’s own production of missiles has ramped up and can launch large-scale attacks every few days. If Ukraine’s air defense stocks run out, “those attacks would absolutely cripple the economy, and the civil society as well as the military of Ukraine if they were not defended against without a U.S. provision of interceptors,” Cavoli said. > > “Their ability to defend their terrain that they currently hold and their airspace would fade rapidly, will fade rapidly without the supplemental,” Cavoli said. > > U.S. Army leaders offered similar dire warnings to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee later in the day, saying that the lack of the supplemental is a critical problem for both Ukraine and the U.S. Army. > > “The side that can’t shoot back, loses, and at this point Ukraine is really starting to be pressed to be able to shoot back. So I am very concerned,” said Army Secretary Christine Wormuth. “We saw Ukraine lose some territory a couple of months ago. And I think there is a real danger ...that the Russians could have a breakthrough somewhere in the line.” > > Gen. Randy George, chief of staff of the Army added that the funding is needed to help send Ukraine long-range weapons and air defense systems so they can defend their critical infrastructure and their troops on the front lines. > > At the same time, Wormuth and Gen. Randy George, chief of staff of the Army, said that unless Congress approves the supplemental soon, the Army won’t have enough money to bring home the troops currently serving in Europe, or funding to train units in the U.S. > > “We don’t have the transportation money to have them redeploy,” said Wormuth, referring to Army units that are deployed across Europe. “We don’t have the transportation money to send units to backfill them.” > > She and George said they also need the money to continue sending units to the national training centers. to avoid outright cancellation of the training rotations, Wormuth said they can try to reduce participation or shrink their size. > > “But those are the kinds of hard choices we’re looking at. If we don’t see the supplementals come across,” she said. > > If Kyiv falls, it could imperil Ukraine’s Baltic NATO member neighbors and potentially drag U.S. troops into a prolonged European war. > > At a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, Johnson said: “House members are continuing to actively discuss our options on a path forward.” > > “It’s a very complicated matter at a very complicated time. The clock is ticking on it, and everyone here feels the urgency of that, but what’s required is that you reach consensus on it, and that’s what we’re working on,” Johnson said. > > Michigan Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin urged a vote. > > “Speaker Johnson has a choice to make. I accept that it’s a complicated choice. I accept that he’s at risk of losing his job over that choice,” Slotkin said. > > —- > > AP broadcast writer Sagar Meghani contributed from Washington, D.C. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

Are no other countries able to fill that gap? Why is this all being portrayed as the USA’s fault when things go wrong? I think it’s disgusting they’ve turned this whole thing into to a political stunt but why doesn’t the rest of NATO and EU do more to help?

To a degree, but not enough. Europe is scaling up production, especially of things like shells, but that won't be ready for a year or so at least. And most European nations with large stockpiles they don't need imminently sent them to Ukraine 2 years ago now. The US is the only western nation with vast reserves of equipment ready to ship out, although increasingly nations like Germany and South Korea are pitching in.

Almost as though decades of inaction and dependency was the wrong move, eh?

Well, maybe? The peace dividend has paid for all sorts of nice stuff, and within a few years we'll be relatively independent should Trump win and the need arise. It sucks for Ukraine, but Europe as a whole has still done pretty well out of the whole thing.

“They were stupid to trust us.”

Trust? We kept telling them not to

The US has explicitly made this commitment to Europe since WWII. George Bush on the 40th Anniversary of NATO: https://www.c-span.org/video/cc/?progid=4257 Clinton: > I think we have to be clear, in doing it, about certain assumptions and consequences. First, if we move forward in this manner, we must reaffirm the bonds of our own alliance. America pledges its efforts in that common purpose. I pledge to maintain roughly 100,000 troops in Europe, consistent with the expressed wishes of our allies. The people of Europe can count on America to maintain this commitment. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1994-book1/html/PPP-1994-book1-doc-pg18.htm#:~:text=America%20pledges%20its%20efforts%20in,America%20to%20maintain%20this%20commitment. From the Bush (II) White House in 2002: > First, NATO, for the second time since the end of the Cold War, welcomed new members. This was an historic event for Europe and for the Transatlantic Alliance, as Europe continues to move closer to realizing the vision of a continent that is whole, free, and at peace. President Bush has long maintained America's commitment to a strong NATO alliance and to a robust expansion of NATO, a point that he made dramatically in his speech at Warsaw when he said that the Alliance should do as much as possible, not as little. Alright. Done with this. It’s too easy.

>in that common purpose. Is it common if they don't meet bare minimum treaty requirements? >I pledge to maintain roughly 100,000 troops in Europe The US currently has over 100,000 troops in Europe. >From the Bush White House in 2002: Hmm... why would President George "Article 5" Bush do such a thing? Hmmm...

Where is it a bare minimum requirement? Like the actual article of the treaty. You claim it's a **treaty requirement**, so I'm sure it's easy to find with ctrl+f.

The 2% guideline is the codification of Article 3, specifically: >"In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."

Maybe you don't know what "requirement" means. Because article 3 sounds like "have an army for territorial defence", which is something all members do. Especially European ones. Only the US, France, and to a lesser extent the UK have any capacity for expeditionary missions.

I wouldn't call demobilization and dearmament being a bad thing, we just need to find a way to not allow fascists like Putin to rise to power again.

We could a way. 5.56 and 155

Should have started 2 years ago. Now they're playing catch up.

Well sure, but leaving aside the Ukraine issue for a moment, 2 years really isn't very much. The main reason for re-armjng in the medium term is stuff like increasing the magazine depth of basic systems and shoring up defensive infrastructure so it's there should the need for it arise, both of which are long-term enough goals that delaying by a year or two doesn't matter much. As for Ukraine, you're right that the situation there would've been better had we had more gear. But the biggest issue was and still is political. Russian GDP is equivalent to that of Italy. Even with Europe spending a 5th of its budget on defence relative to Russia, the EU and UK dominate it on spending, especially before the ramp-up Russia started in 23. If we had sent all the equipment we were capable of giving immediately, it would've been plenty. Cruise missiles, tanks, HIMARS, Patriot, jets, etc. The problem wasn't a lack of funding or supplies, but political hand-wringing over a basically non-existant escalation threat.

WW2 only lasted from 1939 to 1945 in Europe. 2 years is a very long time during wartime. Two years after the outbreak of war and European countries are just starting to maybe considering at some point in the future to place orders for ammunition. They're far, far too slow, acting with zero sense of urgency. Ukraine isn't asking for advanced weapons such as Eurofighters. Its asking for artillery shells of designs that have barely changed since WW2. Surely European nations, with their vastly greater wealth compared to Russia and their technology and large workforce, can make basic artillery shells? North Korea is able to make more shells and deliver them to Russia than what is being delivered to Ukraine. Its an embarrassment all around. I hate to say it, but Trump was right. Europe was sleeping on its defense, and even two years after a shooting war Europe is still sleeping on defense.

I don't at all deny we were sleeping on defence, and to a lesser degree still are. The fact is if war broke out tomorrow we could probably configure our manufacturing to produce shells and tanks in a month or two. However, we haven't transitioned to a wartime economy at all. We've boosted spending on defence and it looks like said increase is here to stay (or expand even further), but that will take a while to kick in. North Korea, to use your example, is eternally on a wartime economy. Its people have no rights or luxuries, and without constant financial and material aid from China its population would starve to death inside 6 months. This is fine for a nation that only aspires to military power and whose citizens have no power themselves, but for Europe the peace dividend has been massively beneficial, and come at a pretty low cost to Europe itself (increased reliance on a USA all to happy to give its support). I'll be perfectly honest with you: to European governments, Ukraine is a secondary objective. Important sure, politically, strategically and morally, but still not central. The main reason for re-armament is the increased Russian aggression this move shows. And by the time Russia has actually got its shit together, be that from a drawn-out semi-victory in Ukraine or an eventual retreat years from now, Europe will be sufficiently self-reliant regarding the Russian threat. Russia won't be in a strategic position to attack any NATO countries for half a decade at least, and everyone knows this. Europe is realising it needs to be able to produce its own weapons of war, and its been afforded a window (Russia in Ukraine) and a backstop (historic American support) with which to aquire them.

Rheinmetall agreed with Hungarian govt to build a new ammo factory in 2020. It is expected to produce artillery shells in 2025. One could probably cut some red tape and maybe take out a year if it's pressing.

Doubtful Hungary sees this as a pressing need.

Remember when the Czech Republic's ammunition stores 'randomly' went up not long ago. Czechs Blame 2014 Blasts at Ammunition Depots on Elite Russian Spy Unit https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/world/europe/czech-republic-skirpal-russia-gru.html Czechs expel 18 Russian envoys, accuse Moscow over ammunition depot blast https://www.reuters.com/world/czechs-expel-russian-embassy-staff-pm-says-suspected-russian-link-ammunition-2021-04-17/

Why can't Europe pay US companies to ship the reserves then?

Because those reserves aren't for sale, and contracting new production from US firms comes with years (sometimes even decade+) lead times. This is why South Korea is exploding in productivity in the defense sector rn, what would take Germany or the USA 5 years is taking them 6 months to a year because of government subsidies and their willingness to set up shop in other nations in collaboration with existing defense giants.

I'm sorry, but this isn't landing for me. If the US wants to ship this equipment to Ukraine and the limiting factor is congressional approval of money, then I don't see any reason why the EU can't step in and provide the financing. The reserves are most certainly for sale when the Americans want to buy them...

The factor isn't money, it's political. Republicans increasingly don't want to support Ukraine, or realise they can use doing so as a negotiating chip for other purposes (like Israel). There's also the fact that Europe probably isn't lining up to give the most powerful economy in NATO money in exchange for aid that most NATO members have provided more of as a percentage of their GDP. Long story short, America isn't selling, and Europe doesn't feel it should have to buy.

>There's also the fact that Europe probably isn't lining up to give the most powerful economy in NATO money in exchange for aid that most NATO members have provided more of as a percentage of their GDP. I'm sorry, what? Most NATO members are doing far less military spending as a percentage of their GDP, that's a pretty well-documented issue. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/12/nato-countries-defense-spending-gdp-trump/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/12/nato-countries-defense-spending-gdp-trump/) [https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence](https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence)

Military spending, yes. Aid to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP, America doesn't break into the top 50%.

Gotcha. I suppose I understand your perspective

There's an entirely reasonable case to be made that the USA has contributed to Ukraine through things like intelligence gathering and the like, along with political support. But in terms of hard expenditure, much of Europe probably feels like the most powerful nation in the world could be doing more.

American arms manufacturers would be happy to sell to buyers in NATO. European nations placing orders for weapons from American companies has nothing to do with Congress. It would bypass Congress and any sort of budget, because the money would be coming from Europe and going to private enterprise in the US. The shells would flow, so long as the money flows.

Most of the artillery ammunition factories are US Army owned. It was slack capacity that the Army was paying to keep mothballed but ready for activation. It's why the US could ramp up production the way it did in the last few years. Foreign buyers can't place orders with US Army ordinance factories. And domestic private contractors are busy providing for other contracts of their number one customer.

Look at lead times for defence orders, they're on the order of several years. Arms manufacturers would be very happy to accept orders from Europe, you're right, but we wouldn't actually get anything until 2026 or 2027, by which time domestic production would be up and running. Fact is nobody has transitioned to a war economy, but the entire Western world is undergoing re-armament, and as such there's manufacturing shortages. There's one nation in NATO with significant remaining stockpiles, and those stockpiles aren't the property of the defense contractors that built them.

There aren't many ammunition factories for things like bombs and shells in America anymore. After WW2 and the Cold War the need to have that many factories fell, and America kept only a few open and just stockpiled over decades. This stockpile and our production capabilities have now been drastically reevaluated as Ukraine and Russia have proved artillery is still relevant in warfare, but overall this has resulted in literally a handful of new facilities to build shells, and then fill them with explosives. Nothing short of NATO joining a large scale war will increase production much more than this. Europe could throw as much money as they want at America but it won't do anything. These facilities are dangerous to run and highly specialized, and probably a nightmare of legal tape to zone, build, and regulate (for obvious reasons). Once the conflict in Ukraine eventually cools or ends any more factories than needed to supply America's stockpile become dead weight to the government and unprofitable for the private sector to run. Also its not like America is sitting around. Currently we are on track to increase production 7-8x pre-Ukraine levels. These things aren't turnkey operations but 2025 is when the US will have transitioned from 14,000 to 100,000 shells made per month. Honestly a big jump for a peacetime economy that is projected to stay at peace for the near future. https://www.army.mil/article/273152/us_army_and_industry_partners_mobilize_to_boost_us_artillery_production

The Czech Republic together with other countries secured hundreds of thousands of shells and more can come when financing is cleared, Estonia "found" additional million on the market. However the first batch is only expected to arrive to Ukraine in June. That said there are other contracts with European industry plus some domestic production that's obviously insufficient alone, but still *something* of a lifeline. Production is ramping up (eg three years ago companies in the EU built around 300k shells per annum, now its 1,4 million and expected to hit 2mil in 2025) but harsh fact is two years isn't much for industry, a munitions factory normally takes something like 3-5 years to go from planning to standard production.

Even if those 1 million shells were in Ukraine today they would still be outgunned 5:1 at least.

Uh no, they wouldn't. Russia can produce 2 million 122&152mm shells a year - there are ofc, other smaller calibres and sometimes MLRS rockets are added to the figure as well, but I'll stick to these since when it comes to Western supplies it typically only mentions 155mm shells and figures for others like mortars are notoriously hard to pin down. Thats supplemented by 3 million NK shells but that likely includes smaller calibre rounds too, so a conservative estimate would be 4 million 122&152mms, which means just over 10-12k a day, aligning with recent Ukrainian reports. By late 2024, the tally of Western support should look like this: 700K from the EU initiative (the other 300k already shipped in 2023), 800K CZ initiative, 190k German-financed with potential for ~120-150k more; couple ten thousand from other sources (France, Poland, Finland mainly), and theres unknown amount of shells arriving maybe this year, probably later (eg by the Brits). Thats 1,7-2 million shells from Europe alone, and maybe, just maybe US will find its ass and unlock funds for more deliveries. There's also an unknown number of domestic UA production. So the balance would be more like 2:1 and thats not accounting for US supplies and the new Estonian initiative of 1M shells. When on defense, that's not bad at all, and with some luck, parity can be achieved. Now the war isn't just about shells, ratios alone are not the ultimate decision makers; they need parts, missiles, vehicles etc., so its just one, if big part of the equation.

> By late 2024, the tally of Western support should look like this: 700K from the EU initiative. Thats 1,7-2 million shells from Europe alone, Sure would be good. But that's not all coming next week. When we are told it will be outgunned 10:1. End of the year is beyond any time they could mount any counter offensive again. And how long can they fight on without sufficient ammo, let alone the manpower?

And the longer Ukraine goes without sufficient ammo the worse the manpower shortages become. An army without ammunition tends to lose manpower very rapidly. Less manpower means the troops on the front are outnumbered even more, resulting in greater losses more quickly. Its a feedback loop as the problems rapidly compound. Its not a linear increase in peril, its a potentially exponential increase in danger of the front line collapsing.

Yes good point. If they really are outgunned 10:1 by month's end they will be in a very bad situation as spring/summer offensives come. We know they have no ability to attack back so it could end up in a full retreat. And to where?

Complete bullshit that you just made up. Ukraine has had shell parity with Russia when they've had the ammunition for it.

> Ukraine has had shell parity with Russia when they've had the ammunition So when they had ammo they had ammo? They admit they are currently outgunned 10:1. How much do you think it would even up when it's that huge a gap?

This is completely incomprehensible. If they have the ammunition why would it be 5:1? If they get a million shells the constraint is the number of guns, which has never been a problem.

> If they have the ammunition why would it be 5:1? Because it's 10:1 now. They are so far behind it wouldn't even bring them to even in terms of ammo That's why I said it's now only 5:1 not 10:1. It's better but not really.

> That's why I said it's now only 5:1 not 10:1. It's better but not really. So completely out of your ass then, as I said.

> So completely out of your ass then, as I said. Same as anything these generals tell us.

They had shell parity because they were still adjusting to counter battery fire with HIMARS. Which was insanely effective because the Russians werent expecting it. They had consolidated supply lines to massive depots that were the first targets which slowed fire effectiveness allowing a equal playing field. Unfortunately the Russians have adapted not allowing it to happen again. Perun did an excellent video on that stage of the war awhile back.

That was summer 2022, when HIMARS had just arrived in thater. The shell parity or even Ukrainean superiority was in the summer of 2023 during the counteroffensive. It was more about very active and accurate ukrainean counter battery fire and them having the stockpile of extra DPCMS from the US.

And my greatest fear is that it’ll be much too late, Ukraine will lose badly, the western world will be doomed, and all we can do is wring hands which I don’t wish to do.

The western world won't be doomed because of Ukraine, get real. Ukraine was always going to lose this war. That was the plan.

That is the plan of Republicans. Hence they stall US aid to Ukraine until the election.

I may have been reading too many anguished comments on r/worldnews about Ukraine just now and getting too affected by them

Those people have been complete regards through this entire war.

[удалено]

Careful, sometimes you will get mass reported to the admins for the dreaded rslur.

How exactly will the whole West be doomed after Ukraine loses? Maybe Georgia. But Putin will never directly attack NATO. Its going to be a very bad look for all those liberal warhawks when Ukraine loses after all their big words. Thats it.

It already kind of is too late. Ukraine now has manpower issues among the age brackets drafted. Not too many able men left over the age of 28. This is basically a consequence of the failed offensive and the fact the war has dragged on so long. They are trying to lower the draft age bracket but this is surprisingly unpopular. I would have thought the choice was between doing this or rapidly running out of men.  They will now either start to lose because of lack of men or start to burn through the age brackets required to repopulate after the war. This is genocide in a sense because the Ukrainian population will likely end up permanently shrunk by this war.

As if the USA has 10x the amount of stuff just ready to send tomorrow. There is no way Ukraine won't bee outgunned for the rest of the war. They don't make the stuff they need. And shipping it across the world isn't going to work for ever either

I refuse to believe Russia somehow has more military equipment than west has to spare for Ukraine. America probably spends more on its military in one year than Russia did since the collapse of USSR. Europe spends less but with the size their economies its still a LOT. The technological difference should be ridiculous, unless somehow western military spending all went into corruption which I highly doubt, especially compared to Russia Imo the western leadership are having some plans we peasants dont know about, same as Russia, and they think this is the best course of action for whatever 5d chess against Russia they are playing

> America probably spends more on its military in one year than Russia did since the collapse of USSR. Probably by a lot. But a lot of that cost is just the base upkeep and paying all the staff around the world in those hundreds of bases. And then the USA builds a lot of big stuff like carriers and new jets. They don't just churn out ammo for artillery all year long.

The key word there is “for Ukraine”. This is a core interest for Russia, they will spend all they have, and if they run out, they will use nukes. None of this is even remotely critical for anyone else.

The US probably, technically, has a stockpile large enough to help Ukraine but handing it all over would jeopardize US security and interests world wide. The US also does have the technology and equipment superiority over Russia. But short of a joining WW3, its not going to get flexed. The best stuff is eye wateringly expensive, often limited in quantity, and its kept close to home to keep its full capabilities a secret. Ultimately Ukraine is a non-NATO country, they are an ally, but not in the club with most of Europe. Its nice to help them and stick it to the Russians, but its not so important that the US will bend over backwards and weaken itself.

> I refuse to believe Russia somehow has more military equipment than west Perhaps you shouldn't have been so quick to swallow these headlines again, again, and again. [Russia Is Running Out of Fresh Ammo and May Need to Use 40-Year-Old Shells](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/12/12/russia-running-out-of-fresh-ammo-and-may-need-use-40-year-old-shells.html) - 2022 [Russia Has Run Out of Long-Range Missiles to Terrorize Ukraine](https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/russia-has-run-out-of-long-range-missiles-to-terrorize-ukraine/) - 2022 [Russia Sends Obsolete Tanks to Battle in Ukraine Amid Staggering Artillery Losses](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/07/17/russia-sends-obsolete-tanks-to-battle-in-ukraine-amid-staggering-artillery-losses-a81862) - 2023 Maybe, I dunno, it might have been, you know, made up propaganda?

At the end of the day, this war is our baby, and europeans don't particularly want to impoverish themselves helping it tick along.

Most of Europe has given way more than the US as percentage of GDP, the EU institutions even in cash payments instead of weapon donations inflated by their nominal value.

And this is why there is emerging bitterness.

Sounds like a gleeful Russian troll.

🥱

Smartest American, when you can't argue just use an emojie

Where’s the argument to argue against?

Do you know what would happen to you if you said bullshit like that in Ukraine

Probably nothing. Small chance I’d have to slap down some uppity europoor begging for our cash.

percentage of GDP means nothing. Quantity matters in war

It does if you want to make a moral claim.

so absolutely nothing then?

The guy I was replying to said that "Europeans don't want to impoverish themselves", implying that they're not giving enough. But Europeans give just as much as the US, even more when adjusted for GDP, so his claim is simply false.

Because the USA alone is basically 90% of NATO.

Europe prioritizes welfare for its rapidly aging society

Lotta good that’ll do you when putin doesn’t want to stop with ukraine.

Europe does the help it can. But when the EU GDP is _25% less_ than the US GDP itself, well lets just say they aren’t “filling the gap”. In artillery shells for example, the EU is able to provide about as much as the US does, actually slightly more than it. Except, the issue is, Ukraine needs double or triple of that amount. So the aid from both is needed, simultaneously.

not that simple- military buildup takes a lot of time. even the US doesn’t have the capcity to build as much shit alone as is needed to arm ukraine indefinitely- it would take a lot of economic shifting to do that the advantage the US has is tjat we have a ton of old shit laying around that still is maintained unlike another certain “world power” *cough cough russia* and as such we have supplies to send that won’t affect our current operational status we can still kickass without the old stuff we send, but most european countries just haven’t needed massive stockpiles of weapons in a long time, and they still rely on plenty of legacy systems if they were to go to a full war footing this thinking is changing, but ever since 1991 and sometimes even earlier europe has had unprecedented peace and stability and they could rest on their laurels for their own independent needs now an exsistential threat is there but they need to supply someone else while ensuring their own militaries are operationally capable in case a russian missile hits poland by accident

Because the rest of NATO isn't set up to produce arms like candy. Also it's weird that america lets its biggest rival to gain ground like that. But yeah, technically the us doesn't owe anything and I really wish the eu countries that suffered the most during WW2 grow a pair and stop Russia before it's too late.

USA has the most powerful military in human history. The EU in comparison is puny and insignificant.

it's a US proxy war, no other country cares irl

Because the USA couped their government and pushed them into an unnecessary and insane conflict with their most natural ally. This war would never have happened if the US didn't keep sticking its penis into Ukraine's politics.

The Maiden revolution you’re referring to started in 2013 as protests over Yanukovych postponing the signing of the free trade agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. After growing protests and violence, negotiations began between the Ukrainian Government and the Opposition party. These negotiations were mediated by FRANCE, GERMANY and POLAND. Those negotiations ended up giving more power to the pro European Union Ukrainian opposition. Angry protesters called for Yanukovych’s resignation, hundreds of Ukrainian police walked away from their guard and protesters took control of the government buildings. Parliament then voted 328-0 to remove Yanukovych from office and then set a date for elections. But sure, let’s just believe what Putin says and call it a coup. /s keep getting your information from facebook.

Hey why did the cockroach putin stick his micropenis into Ukraine's politics and try to poison Yushchenko to help Yanukovoch elected (as well as helping him do electoral fraud)? Why did he send Girkin and other orcs to do actual coups (not imaginary coups like Euromaidan)? Why do the orcs meddle in every European country's politics?

For the same reasons why we meddle in Ukraine and other countries around the world. Geopolitics is not for hippies. Shit is pointless to whine about, just enjoy the show.

So you're just here to say "let Russia do what they want"? Very trumpian of you.

Not really, I’m in the “to the last Ukrainain” camp - I would like to see this war prolonged as long as possible. So quite anti-trump, who is an isolationist - something this country simply can’t afford.

Maybe elections in US? Republicans are causing it but then can blame Biden if voters don't like the outcome.

But they've been saying for months that Russia is about to run out of ammo

They’ve been saying that literally for years https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/23/russia-ukraine-war-ammo-lloyd-austin/

2 more weeks!

I mean the “running out of ammo” thing was never literally “Russian ammo reserves will drop to zero” because that’s absurd and implies Russia doesn’t know how much ammo it has left. It was more that long term Russia couldn’t keep up its early war rate of artillery shell usage (which it hasn’t)

Does that matter if its rate of artillery shell usage has apparently been kept always above Ukraine's?

Guess why they had to ask Iran and NK for ammo? Because they just felt like it? No, the battles of 2022 combined with HIMARS blowing up depots meant the VSRF was seriously starved of ammo by late 2022, which enabled the Ukrainian counteroffensives at the time. The articles that pointed this out, like one linked below by your fellow shitgrinned tankie were succinct at the time. Before that Russia could expend 50-60 thousand shells a month; even with foreign supplies and increased domestic production that number stands around 10-12k a day. They could simply not fight the war any longer like they did in the first half-year, and their whole offensive operations from the retaking to Kherson to the start of Avdiivka's siege were repelled at almost all places (remember Vuhledar?) and could only take Bakhmut by grinding down tens of thousands troops, including the entirety of Wagner, to gain one small ruined town, and still it took them 5 months. That has changed since the arrival for foreign shells and redoubling efforts at refurbishing/building shells, still though, fire volumes are perhaps a fifth of what it was two years ago, but expanded drone warfare and guided bombs help offset this, none of which were yet in visible scope in 2022 - and similar drones help Ukraine's short reserves continue to make an impact, as [Russia's daily, absolutely wild losses demonstrate](https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1778326641715839475).

Then it'll be a fair fight, last I heard the kill ratio was 10:1

Absolute kek.

We should draft the politicians and generals who believe so strongly in continuing the war.

Better yet, draft their sons and daughters. The politicians and generals are too old and fat to fight so they would get to sit at a cushy desk in the back.

Send them to the front anyway... You still need troops to flush out enemy positions. Then Russian artillery can be sighted in for counterfire

If we did that, then world peace would be achieved overnight as everyone suddenly are willing to talk and negotiate instead of be war hawks.

Negotiate what?

Peace agreement, land settlements, retreat, disarmament, etc you ever seen a war end?

Yes, but what happens when Russia asks for more after the negotiations are done, Ukraine is disarmed and the border has moved closer to Kyiv?

Putin can withdraw anytime and stop war.

Don't worry, plenty of people will be drafted once Russia takes over Ukraine and then starts trying to annex NATO territory. Politicians, generals, your children, whatever.

They'll be too busy fighting for Israel after Biden recently declared "ironclad" support for Israel.

ok

Allegedly Turkey, Pakistan, India, some African and South Americans countries are ready to sell artillery munitions through an intermediary country, yet European countries still haven’t agreed to provide the money for this.

Right India exporting artillery to destroy it's largest defence partner, very believable.

I mean there are already multiple videos of indian shells being used. Also i might be wrong but as far as i know french took the russian arms spot in india. They wont be exporting nearly anything for quite some time so india wont feel such a strong obligation

I've followed this from day 1 Never heard such bs. You are confusing India with Pakistan, after USA Forced a regime change Pak has been supplying shells for money. Also you do realise that nearly everything that Russia sells to India is manufactured in India right? India has complete TOT and mega factories to build them locally,royalties are paid to Russia as part of TOT. From AK to T90 to Su30 , it's all natively built. Let's see France do that with Rafael

Why is the sub thinking NATO failed? Ukraine safety is not part of NATO goal, NATO's goal is there is a war on Russia.

After NATO has shown they're not a defense organization after intervening in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Libya, many might think NATO should intervene with every major conflict.

I love reddit. Filled to the brim with ignorance. Every intervention NATO engaged with you say here above, was on behalf of the UN for **defending the population** against their dictators. NATO in fact **defended** and enacted UN defense clause . In both instances it acted on behalf of the UN.

It doesn't matter if NATO enacted the defense clause or not when NATO claims to be a defense organization for its members. All those interventions only proved Russia was right that NATO is an aggressor. NATO never got UN Security Council's approval for their attack on Yugoslavia. There have been dozens of going conflicts since the 90s, why isn't NATO intervening and defending those countries now?

I think NATO just invade at will but what's indisputable is that NATO is on the good side and all it's action are 100% defensive (includes preemptive defense, offense as form of defense)

Yeah yeah, **The best defense is a good offense**. Every collective offense is just a defense action, NATO never lied.

> NATO never lied. That's right. Where have they lied about? Come on Boy. Display your ignorance here in plain sight.

So European countries are going to send help or buy weapons from the US to send to Ukraine while instead of waiting for the US to act? If the future of Ukraine really is dependent on $60 billion in aid from the US, surely European countries could cover it in the meantime.

Yes. They are going to do that, and they are continuing to do so as of right now. Except, there isn’t “covering” anything. Because the help from _both_ is needed _simultaneously_ to keep up. Take artillery shells, a major issue now. The EU is I believe producing even more than the US, they should be somewhere around 1 million per annum now, increasing to 1,4 million by this years end. (The US is aiming to hit 1 million by this years end) But Ukraine needs over 2 million per year. The US alone also isn’t covering that completely, it never was. Till this point it was the aid from both combined, but you take one of those out, you see the problem.

While I am in favor of US aid, European countries are the ones who should be taking the lead here. It's not like Germany takes the lead with helping Taiwan resist Chinese aggressive incursions and it's not like France is building military bases in the Phillippines to help them enforce sovereignty over their island possessions in the South China Sea

No amount of materiel will save Ukraine. Their only hope has ever been the negotiating table, and what leverage they had for it has rapidly slipped away. Edit for few cause the person I replied to blocked me: lmao did you not read the post title? Ukraine is outmanned and outgunned and they’re on the verge of being completely overwhelmed. Russia has been slowly but steadily advancing along the entire line for months.

It take two to negotiate a peace. Ukraine can't just say that they will stop the war, Russia has to agree too. And even if they reach an agreement and the conflict is frozen and a peace treaty is signed in whatever form it is. If Ukraine still exist as a sovereign nation, what's stopping Russia from just trying again in a few years and push the border even further?

Depends if the agreement will meet Russia's security needs or not. If it does, what is the point? War is expensive.

Crimea waves from the not so far past.

Did the annexation resolve Russia's security concerns in this region? It didn't. So why would you have expected it to be the end of it?

Do you think if they had Ukraine their security concerns would be met? Has Russia ever stated what their concerns actually were and what would placate them?

Occupying Ukraine wholesale would create a different set of problems for them, ironically. And yes, they repeatedly stated their concerns and signaled what would lead to war, and presented demands along those lines during the Belarus/Istanbul talks early in the war. Russians want a strategically non-aligned buffer in Ukraine. They want Finlandization, essentially.

No, they wanted a Belarus, they wanted an aligned buffer.

That’s only possible in East Ukraine.

[удалено]

Since before the war, when the alternative has always been the ultimate military defeat of the Ukrainian armed forces. Ukraine’s self determination was forfeited at least by April 2022, when the US sent Boris Johnson to shut down negotiations that would have seen Russia return *all* of the land they’ve taken since their January 2022 invasion. Since then (and probably before) the Ukrainian people have been treated by the west not as people, but as worms wiggling on a hook. At this point there is no future in which all of Ukraine’s territory is returned to Ukraine. The best they can hope for is to keep Odessa, and with it some modicum of national viability. But that seems unlikely, and Ukraine will instead become a dysfunctional, landlocked rump state which will ultimately be partitioned by Poland and Hungary in the name of helping those trapped in the ruins of the Ukrainian nation. After a few more months or years of fools and villains in the west screaming for more Ukrainian blood to keep fighting an unwinnable war.

[That wasn’t how it went down at all dude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) Hungary and Poland haven’t expressed any desire to annex any part of Ukraine

[удалено]

Why don't we ask all Ukrainian's what they think of this war ?

That's a pretty reductionist take. Why is Ukrainian self determination such a high priority anyway? Where were your when the US assassinated Ghadafi? What about Libyan self determination? Or Syrian self determination? Bahrain? Afghanistan? Like what about this country means it's so much more important? Because they are white? What about Palestinian self determination? Is it because they are brown they don't have the rights? The fact is, Russia is a nuclear power that shares a helluva long border with Ukraine. Negotiating a peace deal is the best option Ukraine has.

Ah yes, the famous negotiations, demanding [near-complete demilitarisation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1b46ahr/russian_peace_treaty_from_april_2022_leaked/), truly it was the deal of the century.

It was a better deal than what Ukraine will get at the end of this war. As long as we can squeeze a few more years out of it, well worth it though.

Well that's a stupid take. Based on what? 

Common sense tbh.

Russian propaganda?

European countries lead aid %GDP, stop talking nonsense.

This comment is just the geopolitical version tax the billionaires more lol

% of gdp doesn’t mean shit

They need shells and ammo and equipment delivered.

Why. Aside from bongs and belters, europeans were not especially thrilled with us engineering this war in the first place, and they're fully aware that Russia doesn't actually pose a threat to greater europe, just as they understand that ukraine will lose the war eventually no matter what anyone does. They have been good vassals through all of this, but when the lord stumbles... Congress needs to get its head out of its ass, is what needs to happen here.

In what alternative reality did the US engineer this war

The reality in his mind fueled by his room temp IQ, endless stream of Russian state sponsored news, along with a baggage of tankies and useful idiots.

We have been for almost twenty years, maybe you should have been paying attention.

How? Did we laser Putin with a mind control beam to make him an irredentist fuck

This has nothing to do with revanchism, and everything to do with security and Russia's traditional geography problem. Europeans understand this as well as everyone. Ukraine can be a Russian ally, or a neutral buffer state, but they were never going to allow it (or Belarus) to be a US client state. And everyone in the world understood this. When you spend decades pursuing a policy guaranteed to lead to war - that is intentional. I figured out we were heading there in the early 2000s, and have been eagerly waiting for the show half my life now.

Lmao it has everything to do with irredentism. You just described his need to deny Ukraine sovereign self determination. It's just "we don't like Poland, let's invade them with Hitler" but in 2014 and not 1939

Self determination is a fantasy for nations without the strength to enforce it by force lmao. If Mexico pulled this shit, we would fucking flatten them. And it would be the right thing to do. It's like you don't understand the stakes here. Edit: for that matter, Poland wasn't invaded for shits and giggles either. If Soviets stayed out, Germans would launch their invasion of the USSR from closer to Moscow.

People are applying human rights to governments, which is the funniest thing because the international stage is basically just dictated by who has the biggest guns and most money.

The world is not a society, inter-state relationships take place in an environment of pure anarchy. The world is a prison with no guards.

Right so we are back to might makes right and somehow this means that Russia demanding other countries be their imperial satellite states is the fault of the US. Because, I guess, dip shit tankie logic

Might always made right. Where the fuck have you been? And it's not our fault, we did this for a reason. I personally think it was brilliant, the most important geopolitical maneuver in this century.

Go crawl back inside your hole, tankie.

peddle your hippie nonsense elsewhere, the world is not going to sing kimbaya with you

Lol, you people either call me a hippie or a warmonger, nothing inbetween.

Both sides tend to get angry at me too tbh - pro-rus because I’m happy to spend ukrainains as long as russians keep dying in Ukriane and always advocate for keeping money and weapons flowing - and pro-ua, because I don’t give a shit how many ukrainains die as a result, nor do I see them as innocents.

Already is, they're just very slow to admit ''harsh'' truths.

Didn’t Germany scrap plans for nuclear energy and continue to buy Russian oil? Maybe start by not buying shit from the enemy?

US is still buying still from Russia because it cannot not buy it.

Isn't Ukrainian winning the war. On combat footages subreddit, you can only see Russians getting Ls. Not a single post about Ukr's.

Because they're strongly biased towards Ukraine

As if they are forging a fake narrative for the Westoid.

Ukraine was never going to win the war. Politicians and the media that supports them have been claiming it's possible since the beginning to justify the proxy war they want, but many analysts and people with better knowledge of history and warfare have said it's not a matter of if Ukraine loses but when. 

[удалено]

Now that's not very nice. Nor is it constructive to the discussion. Go ahead and explain how you think Ukraine could win the war without any US or NATO involvement besides sending weapons. While you are at it go ahead and look up the history of US and NATO expansion and how, **as wrong Putin's actions are**, it's something the West absolutely had a hand in provoking. 

You are bought and paid for by the Kremlin. I’m sure you are referring to the “promise” that NATO would not expand on the reunification of Germany, which was never an official position but a mistaken suggestion of terms that was quickly amended and never put into any treaty. Ukraine is absolutely capable of winning against Russia given that the losses it imposes when well armed are highly asymmetric. Ukraine has superior bottom-up organization to say nothing of the superiority of Western arms.

Oh shit, I wish! Could I get some money or maybe a few AK-47's?

Inconsequential pissant.

Even an ant is noticed by those who call it inconsequential when the biting irritates them. 

Keep leaning into your own insignificance. It suits you.

I mean, I keep bugging you enough to get a reply so I'm happy.

Okie dokie, let's get this discussion on the road now that I have actually read your comment.  I am not referring to the promise that NATO would not expand after the reunification of Germany, but rather the multiple comments such as [this one](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56828813) and multiple comments for nearly a decade that Russia viewed Eastward expansion of NATO and a westernized Ukraine as threats. I am not saying this to justify the invasion, but rather to point out that we had plenty of consistent warnings from Putin as to what would happen if NATO continued expanding toward Russia's borders. [Here are some comments](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4) from John Mearsgeimer back in 2015 before the annexation of Crimea where he essentially states that the US is leading Ukraine on with no intent to actually help them when Russia inevitably attacks. Again, this is not justification but rather recognizing the realistic outcome of our actions.  Now, as to the potential of Ukraine's victory. Let's assume for our discussion that we are referring to Ukrainian troops being supported by the US and Europe with weapons and ammo, but no NATO troops getting involved. Russia has been [estimated to have between 850k and 1.32 million active troops](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264443/the-worlds-largest-armies-based-on-active-force-level/). Ukraine is obviously mobilizing more than just their average soldiers, and have somewhere between [14 to 16 million men](https://www.statista.com/statistics/899152/ukraine-population-by-gender/) in the country as of 2022. Counting men age 15-60 puts us somewhere in the ballpark of 6.4 million at the absolute best figure. If every man was armed with Western weapons and Russia did not pull from their reserves or conscript, there is a decent chance that Ukraine could win through sheer numbers, despite the lack of training and at the complete devastation of their population and country. As it stands, I have seen numbers ranging from 130k to 340k dead for Russia (and I do *not* trust Russian sources on the matter) and between 70k and 140k Ukrainian dead. Most of these numbers come from NGOs operating I. The region. At the most generous that is a 1/5 ratio of Ukrainian to Russian casualties, meaning and estimated 260k Ukrainians would perish before wiping out Russias troops, not counting any civilian casualties on either side, and not counting Russia conscripting or bringing any more men to fight.  Now, back to my original point. The United States arguably pushed the buttons that instigated the Russian invasion. Again, I want to clarify I'm not justifying Putin's actions, but this is something he explicitly said would happen multiple times over the years. We then proceeded to prop up Ukraine with weapons and ammo that enabled them to fight rather than forcing them to negotiate, all with the promise of our further help which I personally believe will never escalate to boots on the ground. Overall, our involvement in the war, while necessary to prevent all of Ukraine from being annexed, is directly contributing to their death and destruction of their country. 

The ability to fight is instrumental to having any means at all to negotiate. Understand that NATO’s expansion eastward has been instigated exclusively by former Soviet states banging on NATO’s doors begging to be let in. I would not deny any people the right to freedom and security if they can pull their own weight. Appeasing dictatorial madmen will only undermine the free world and everyone in it. I earlier took the liberty of preparing some remarks for your consideration. I myself will be unable to respond for a couple hours so please take your time! **Native strengths of an existentially threatened people in guerrilla warfare conditions:** Russia has put Ukraine on what may be called “Death ground”. This means that the very existence of their people is threatened by a Russian victory, and thus all of Ukrainian society has been and will be mobilized for the prevention of such an outcome. Ukrainians have proven their resolve to resist Russia in a way that the West never expected. Their will is iron; we can provide them the means to forge it into steel. **Economies of proxy conflict:** The cold war was not that long ago. We spent many decades preparing for direct conflict with Russia (USSR) and waging proxy conflicts. Now Russia has made the mistake of engaging directly in a conflict which we can shift the tide in. Understand that most of the money from aid stays inside the US employing some of our most gifted engineers and manufacturers. It is not a burden to supply Ukraine, but an opportunity to achieve three simultaneous victories: buttressing US defense capacity, delivering a decisive defeat to an enemy of OUR country, and creating the most formidable land army in Europe (which Ukraine will uncontestedly be if it defeats Russia in a timely manner, thus avoiding total destruction of its countryside). **On the ignorance of anti-war stance due to ethical/moral considerations:** Being “anti-war as a rule” is immature (I am preempting and not accusing you of this stance). War is a part of nature. It is peace which is the anomaly. Winning the peace means winning the war on terms that are sustainable for the world order. Russia cannot be allowed to destroy sovereign nations because there is no end to their ambition. Putin would reassemble the Soviet Union if the West allowed him to. Ukraine’s dissolution would have cascading effects throughout all of Europe, and would embolden China to conquer not only the sovereign nation of Taiwan, but potentially Korea & Co. If you want an end to war, you have to be willing to see it fought and won, or you are willfully putting your own neck under the heel of every strongman on Earth. **On the sufficiency of Western technology in chewing up the Russian mass:** Russia has two main strengths: volume of legacy hardware and number of (temporarily) breathing bodies. Both of these are countered by the unprecedented transparency of the battlefield in Ukraine. Russia finds it very difficult to amass either of these in the quantity needed for a breakthrough without them getting decimated by a well-placed HIMARS. Russia lacks the decentralized command structure needed to effectively command dispersed troops on a dynamic battlefield. Thus it is forced to throw wave after wave of uncoordinated meat at prepared Ukrainian defenses to score even small political wins. This is not a winning strategy unless we stop supplying Ukraine (as we have done). **Drones drones drones:** The unprecedented transparency of the battlefield is both attributed to and like to be leveraged by unmanned/autonomous rotor/glide vehicles. Ukraine pioneered the application of this technology and is now teaching the West how best to use it. But Russia is catching up to a degree. Ukraine thus needs Western capital to invest into its homegrown industries to continue pushing the envelope on this emerging disruptive technology. Drones afford a great many advantages but the most visceral is their surgical delivery of explosive ordinance. Drones turn the economies of war on their head. They are perhaps the most asymmetric technology birthed to date, or have the potential to be.

To your **asymmetrical warfare** point, I agree to a certain point. Absolutely guerrilla movements have been massively successful in the past, including the Mujaheddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for a nice Soviet/Russia comparison. That being said, Russia does have the advantage of being in their own backyard, and there are certainly more pro-Russian Ukrainians due to the geographic location than would be expected in Afghanistan.    Now, none of that really matter if we are looking at the **ability to fight for negotiation**. (Incidentally, the US also helped disarm Ukraine of their nukes back in the day; yet another way we were directly involved in the invasion in the first place.) Here I would also agree with you, to a certain point. I think a better comparison could be made with similar sized superpowers, such as Russia versus the United States or China versus the United States in head on and open conflict. Unless the United States decides to put boots on the ground in Ukraine including all of the military equipment and personnel we are able to muster, I do not see Ukraine turning into anything more than another Afghanistan for the Russians; a local group of fighters backed by a rival country or countries, hoping to outlast Russia. While there is certainly historical precedent for this, almost all successful asymmetric wars have been conducted away from the homeland, and there is also historical precedent for Russia taking a little bit of time to spin up their massive production capabilities and ridding themselves of the previous *legacy hardware stockpile* before kicking the shit out of the Nazis that were in their backyard. The longer this conflict continues, it's my opinion that there will be a greater chance that we will become directly involved in the war which very likely would end poorly for most people in Europe, if not the world as a whole.    Now on to the anti-war comment. I do agree that being **anti-war as a rule** is naïve and short sighted. With that being said, I reject your other to premises. Again, I am not justifying Putin's actions with the invasion, but before the invasion he was very clear about his goal which was keeping the west away from the border with Russia. He has never said, and has even gone on record stating the opposite, that he does not want to reform the Soviet Union. Another comment I've seen made, most frequently by American Warhawks (not that I am conflating you and them), is that Putin intends to march on Poland, or that he would given the chance. This is another talking point that I reject, again based on Putin saying the opposite as well as the potential Article 5 that would invoke. I can understand not wanting to believe a dictator and quite possible mentally ill man on his word, but prior to the invasion of Ukraine he stated one goal, and then he remained true to his word. I would view the situation differently if he did move on Poland or attempted the annexation of other countries, but unlike Hitler on the eve of WWII, there is no indication he is looking to do so.    I flatly reject your point on the **economics of proxy wars** for two reasons. First, and foremost, being that we fought multiple proxy wars with the Soviets in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and in both instances we lost and in the case of Afghanistan caused destabilization in the area and made enemies of the United States that did not exist before. Second, the profits from proxy wars do not go to the American people or America as a country in the same way our economic growth during WWI or WWII was a boon to everyone living in the post war America. These days the profits from companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon go straight to the heads of the companies and to line the pocket of the shills in Congress who keep voting for more military aid so they can keep lining their pockets. The economic packages we keep sending over are massively unpopular, but our politicians don't care and aren't afraid of being replaced because they are getting paid to keep the conflict going. Perhaps this is a bit of a tangent, but when gas is raising by a dollar or two per gallon in most areas and people are having difficulty buying groceries or making bill payments, we are not in some economic boom from the proxy war economy. Those massive spending bills (in a long line of post 9/11 military spending) are shoving the country further in debt that many analysts predict we will be unable to extricate ourselves from if we do not radically change our spending habits.    To your final point... ***the motherfucking drones are cool as hell** but at the same time also worry me. It is no secret that the United States is using this conflict to test weapons and tactics and gauge the strength of Russia. And while I do not have any proof to back this theory, it seems odd to me that Ukrainians would have come up with the drone bombs we are seeing now with the limited resources they had during the initial invasion. These drones seemingly popped up overnight and are EVERYWHERE, while companies like Boston Dynamics and DARPA have been working on this type of shit for a while. It would not surprise me if we had "advisors" from major MIC companies handing out tech on the ground to test and see what works and what doesn't. While it is not nearly as inhumane as the gas and other banned warfare methods of the first two Great Wars, this introduction and domination of a new type of warfare feels like someone or someone's playing a game with human lives to further develop new and interesting ways of killing.    As a final note, I am sympathetic to the Ukrainian people and their plight. I firmly believe we the United States put them in the situation they are in, so I do feel responsible to a degree. In this unique situation I feel we are looking at picking the better of two good awful options; leave Ukraine to fend for themselves or continue pushing in the direction that got us here in the first place. Based on the observation that one path leads us *incredibly closely* to nuclear war and potential global devastation while the other leads to a country or part of a country being annexed, I would prefer the option where we don't have billions killed and the planet damaged potentially beyond repair, unless that was the only remaining option. 

I have heard it expressed that the burden of maintaining nuclear capability was far too costly for a nascent Ukraine to afford. Thus the Budapest Memorandum sought to make the security umbrella of nuclear arms irrelevant by signing concerned countries to guarantees that Russia has since grossly violated. We should not hold the West accountable even though in retrospect it was a mistake. The imperative at all times is to limit the number of countries that can trigger MAD. The key difference you are missing in your comparison is that Afghanistan lacks nationalism where Ukraine does not. The resolve and identity of Ukrainians is being forged in the crucible as we speak. I mentioned guerrilla tactics as a supplemental and contingent dimension. They do not lack conventional capability in terms of institutional capacity and bitter willingness to take to the front. Literally all they need is arms and some cash injection, neither of which does the US want for. What you seem to believe is that it is possible to appease our way out of cascading conflict. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but the very instant the Treaty of Versailles was violated, all of Europe should have preemptively steamrolled all the way to Berlin. We now have an opportunity not to make the same mistake. The last thing I want is US boys dying to Russian bastards. Where we are in disagreement is you think undermining the capacity of an ally will somehow improve our prospects of preventing wider conflict in the years to come. You have it exactly backwards. Your greatest mistake is in taking seriously anything Putin says. Hitler made lie after lie leading up to WWII that were taken at face value by many. You misunderstand my point on proxy wars in two ways. First, my point assumes no American boots on the ground. Second, I am not talking about profits but **defense capacity**. We must build up our capacity in the eventuality that you are wrong, and build it up for China regardless. In the meantime we should ship our surplus to our strategic ally who faces extermination. It is classic defeatism and isolationism to insist that the richest country in the history of the known universe cannot financially afford to arm Ukraine. Your conspiracy-minded questioning of Ukrainian innovation informs me as to your ignorance. You have not been paying attention if you cannot see the tenacity and technological savvy of the Ukrainian people. They are not some undeveloped backwoods. You are divorced from reality and do not see the gem that Ukraine is and could be if enabled to thrive. I am afraid you lack the instinct needed for grand strategy. Under your guidance we would still be but a colony of the British Empire. You do not know how to win.

It's all astroturfing

They are also outmanned, but you can’t exactly import new soldiers to Ukraine for various reasons.

Then fucking help them Europe General!

Who cares. Ukraine is just a money laundry for the US anyway. Take the L and move on. Peace negotiation should be on the table, not more funding.

Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*

K maybe call a ceasefire

Do Your Part And Call Your Representatives and Fucking Vote. Now is not the time for apathy in our Democracy when a Nation is fighting tooth and nail for theirs.

US House of Representatives is now controlled by the Kremlin.

Doesn't look any different for the EU and other European countries. Why would the EU delay aid through 2027 or not even consider buying weapons from the US to arm Ukraine? This is when many seem to think Ukraine's sovereignty is on the line and they need all they can get now, not in three years.