Pretty sure the US is sending old surplus stock, and I'm sure the military industrial complex is salivating at the chance to resupply. Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.
At any rate, US support for exactly this type of situation was agreed on in the Budapest memorandum as part of Ukrainian nuclear disarmament. Russia broke their end of the bargain and started a war under false pretenses. It is up to them to end it, exactly like it is up to the US to do so when doing the same thing.
If the world can not unite to stand up to countries starting such conflicts, we shall never know peace.
Currently the issue is not tanks and IFVs, but bullets and shells. The US indeed sends older surplus, but the picture is different in Europe. The German army for example had an estimated 20B€ deficit in ammo even before the war started. Production increased, but it's nowhere near replenishing.
And regarding tanks: the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr.
The production also increased much more than in the whole US. Basically Europe's goal was at least a million shells until the end of the year. And even when they might fall a bit short on that goal, the US -by it's own account- is still in the we can probably produce 20k per month from 2024 and onward stage of ramping up production.
the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr
Yeah, that's bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.
The only still existing Leopard-1s in operation are found in Greece. Then there are engineering vehicles because they were still sufficient for their job. And when they weren't anymore (because tanks they would need to tow got too heavy) that's when Wisent1 were invented. Which is a commercially developed upgrade for Leopard-1-based engineering vehicles to improve their power to a level where they can handle modern Leopard-2s again. And before the Ukraine war there was only a single buyer: the danish army.
Yeah, that’s bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.
And why do you think these tanks still exist? Nobody would buy those thinks, but if shit hits the fan, a Leopard 1 is still better than no tank at all - this is exactly what it's used for in Ukraine.
Germany also provided thousands of old Strela MANPADS, that were still NVA/East German stock. These were not stored because they are great, but as a kind of emergency-reserve.
The fact that all of this is stored in bad conditions is simply due to Germany's rather weird Bundeswehr politics.
These were not stored because they are great, but
as a kind of emergency-reservebecause proper disposal costs more than letting them rot on some shelf.
Idk nearly every video I see the Ukrainian fighters have aks and idk how much 7.62x39 ammo the US even has to give.
Isn't that… Literally miniscule? Russia is churning out more than two million 152mm ARTILLERY shells every year.
What the fuck? I'm pretty sure the state of Texas has way more than two million rounds of ammunition stashed under people's floorboards.
Not talking artillery here. Talking small arms ammo. I'm pretty sure Russia doesnt come close to producing 2m artillery rounds per year. Saw an article the other day about them running out of artillary barrels. If they couldn't manufacture enough barrels to keep up with shooting, I doubt their general manufacturing capacity.
Outside of that, that's two million non-NATO small arms rounds being donated by the private sector. Pretty sure the government would send M4s and SAWs with 5.56.
Russia is on course to produce 2.5 million artillery shell rounds this year, up from 1.7 million before the war, Watling said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/18/europe-weapons-military-industrial-base/?isMobile=1
I'm sure they say they are. I'll still doubt their capability
Watling said
Dr Jack Watling is Senior Research Fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute
But is the correct type? .22 does not really help Ukraine.
There are probably enough guns in Texas to give every Ukrainian both a primary weapon and a sidearm lol
Wow that's surprising.
Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.
Possibly, but some of the new technologies would be considered extremely provocative by Russia if we supplied them to Ukraine. We are already treading a very fine line with involvement in this conflict, and being accused of using Ukraine to fight a proxy war (though mostly by people who have a vested interest in Russia/Putin winning the war).
We have been supplying the Javelin antitank system in large quantities, to great effect. This is relatively easy because it's quick to train a soldier to use and it can just be disposed of if broken or out of ammo.
It's important that we not send them equipment that they can't operate, supply or maintain. For instance we didn't send them any modern US-built fighter jets because they don't have pilots trained to fly them, a supply chain for spare parts, or mechanics trained to fix them. Ultimately, logistics matters more than having the latest and greatest tech (logistics has been absolutely wrecking Russia's battlefield effectiveness).
What is there to "provoke"? This is an extremely clear cut case of a violation of international law. They started a war, annexed a significant portion of the country, committed countless atrocities. Why should we act like this is somehow not a reason to wipe the current leadership off the political map?
Putin won't use nuclear weapons and he can't realistically escalate the war. Every minute we let this war drag on, kills people. Not sending the most useful weapons is just inhumane at this point.
Putin won’t use nuclear weapons and he can’t realistically escalate the war.
That's a huge bet to make. The whole point of nuclear deterrence is so nuclear powers don't think to directly engage each other in any serious way. No one is anxious to call a nuclear bluff, especially since this is basically win or die for Putin.
That's the thing - you don't attack him at all, just his invasion. He himself may be suicidal, but do you think all his kronies will sacrifice literally everything for him? For what? Some Sunflower fields? There's a reason hardly anyone from the Moscow/St. Petersburg region got drafted - that's where his power base lives. As long as they are not threatened by his invasion, they will play along. But if his games cause them serious damage (which is decidedly not the case currently!), they will not play along anymore.
I'm absolutely willing to call Putins bluff. He's ultimately a coward and not that stupid. He won't do it.
I actually mostly agree and was being a bit sarcastic. Training on newer systems is prohibitive anyway as you mentioned. Sending personell is clearly provocative and should be avoided. I just find the argument that the military industrial complex ran out of the bullets to help is laughable.
Obviously, production increases with demand and lags it causing stockpiles to decrease until output increases. Hopefully the quoted assessment is talking about that dip and not a more serious problem.
Really though, Russia knows the US is obligated to help. They signed the memorandum too, after all. It's hard to argue with someone that does so in bad faith, but continuing aid is hardly a provocative act.
When was the last effective Javelin strike? I thought that people have shifted towards using FPV drones to target armoured vehicles instead.
The world didn't start in 2022 lol
Sounds like you're looking for someone to blame so that you don't have to think hard about solutions
2022? Russia and the US have been starting or supporting wars of aggression for decades. Opposing crimes against humanity, by force if necessary, should not be controversial even for a pacifist. History shows clearly what happens when such aggression is met with appeasement.
What solution am I too stupid to think of?
Providing military aid is a last resort and a terrible solution. The only worse solution is to give up and hand over a sovereign nation we promised to protect to a tyrant.
Would I prefer the world get their act together and sanction them until they can't function, obviously yes. I don't think that's very likely though, same as most other proposals for ending the conflict as fundamentally only Putin can end it.
Everyone points to appeasement failing to stop Nazi Germany, but people are missing the reasons it failed.
Prior to the start of WW2, the USSR tried desperately to build military alliances with France and Britain to encircle the Nazi threat. They were rebuffed at every turn because Germany's development was far too profitable for French and British interests. The French and British might have took on a policy of appeasement, but they also overwhelmingly failed to recognize the Nazis as a threat (instead, they were more concerned about the threat of communism and allying themselves with a communist country).
That's not a failure of appeasement, that's France and Britain perceiving themselves as far more powerful than they really were.
People clearly don't like to hear this part of the story. But I mean, yes, the capitalist powers failed the USSR and the world immensely by not allying with USSR earlier, but appeasement also failed.
Fascism is militaristic and war-driven by nature. I doubt that the war would be completely avoided if the Western countries had allied with USSR earlier and gave Hitler the Sudetenland. The Nazis may just have waited a bit longer or played it differently but no doubt they would have inevitably went to war. Appeasement doesn't stop fascists, only armed defense or prevention.
Who are we going to need to fight against right now that would require significant ammunition stocks?
Clearly Russia can't do jack shit to anyone else right now, they're far too busy even just trying to hold the small chunk of Ukraine they invaded.
Do we think China is going to take this opportunity to invade a NATO ally?
Do we think China is going to take this opportunity to invade a NATO ally?
Possibly Taiwan, especially if they think the US is overextended and unwilling to invest in another conflict.
Taiwan is not a NATO ally, only the US has said they are going to get involved. Also the US clearly isn't overextended given that they have no troops at all in Ukraine. It wouldn't be a war of bullets and artillery either, it's going to be ships and aircraft and missiles. None of which are committed to Ukraine.
Why would they do that when they're strategy of peaceful economic integration has been working so well?
People always harp about Chinese airplanes flying in (as the US has established) international airspace. Prior to American FONOPs in the region, China stayed on their "side" of the strait and Taiwan stayed on their "side," and they would request entry as expected of sovereign airspace. After American FONOPs (which make the strait international waters and thus the air above it international airspace), China no longer requests entry because there's no requirement to announce entry of international airspace. Really makes you think, doesn't it?
The status quo circa 2016 was going to lead to a peaceful balance. Not necessarily reunification, but definitely economic and cultural co-dependence. Since then, relations have deteriorated significantly.
This is intentionally provocative and aggressive. All of these actions occurred in the span of 1 year, Mar 2022-Mar 2023. This is what military aggression looks like. To deny that is disingenuous.
Three supposed incursions into territorial waters by unmanned aircraft (supposed, because judging by how they plotted it looks like they discretized movements and just linearly interpolated).
Flying in international airspace is neither provocative nor aggressive. Flying in sovereign airspace is. That's literally been the American position justifying their incursions into the SCS. Frankly, they're not wrong. If the area is international, they are entirely within their rights to sail through it or fly through it. Whether that area is international is up to debate, but under the claim that it is (which Taiwan has not challenged), these operations are entirely legal and entirely justified, just like American FONOPs through the strait are entirely legal and entirely justified and neither provocative nor aggressive.
Oh god… theyre getting ready for the PLA to swim to Taiwan… oh fuck
^^^ the seriousness which those links deserve
Ah yes, simply dismiss any sources that say things that you don't like. Brilliant strategy, not transparent at all.
And where are your sources which support your point of view?
Your sources are great, if you wanted to support the claim that western media is saber rattling around China. They do a great job of framing stuff like "China flies jets in Chinese airspace" as aggressive moves on China's part.
And where are your sources which support your point of view?
Same reason Russia did it. The allmighty leader gets older and wants to see it happen before he dies as some stupid form of legacy.
Fine, let's play this game. What does China gain from capturing Taiwan? How does China rev up their population to invade Taiwan?
Remember, Taiwan's economy is mostly derived from complex high-value-add industries, Taiwan and China share one of the largest bilateral trade relationships in the world, Taiwan and China are tightly integrated in terms of culture (the best selling artist in China is Taiwanese, for example), and bilateral migration between China and Taiwan is extremely high. Meanwhile, Taiwan is literally a fortress with a massive force of military-trained personnel.
China's key policy goals are twofold: 1. Economic integration of Taiwan into the greater Chinese economy and 2. Taiwanese neutrality (or at least, no Taiwanese alignment with the West). Essentially, Taiwan is China's Cuba (but if Cuba was populated by people who look the same, speak the same language, have similar culture, and didn't have nuclear missiles).
China wants direct control over the chip fabrication capabilities of TSMC, which produces ~90% of microchip fabrication in the 5-10nm range and ~60% of all microchip fabrication. Exerting control over the rest of the world's access to advanced microchip fabrication is the primary goal. Don't pretend China's aggressive behavior is about anything else.
Taiwan and China are tightly integrated in terms of culture (the best selling artist in China is Taiwanese, for example), and bilateral migration between China and Taiwan is extremely high.
Less than 12% of Taiwanese citizens support unification with the PRC, while 50% support Taiwanese independence and 25% support maintaining the status quo (see section 10). Additionally, 62% support Taiwan seeking international recognition as a sovereign nation (section 6).
Meanwhile, Taiwan is literally a fortress with a massive force of military-trained personnel.
Of course it is, they are being threatened by an aggressive authoritarian nation with a vastly larger military.
Nobody can control TSMC except TSMC lol. The equipment is incredibly delicate and incredibly precise. If TSMC decided to wake up one day and destroy their entire business, they could be done before lunch. Anyway, TSMC is only really relevant because government subsidies allowed it to outlast American and Korean fabs. Whereas GloFo had to pull out and Intel burned almost a decade on delays, TSMC was able to make progress. That's not a long-term objective worth invading over.
Moreover, note how I talked about integration. Recent calls for independence have mostly been driven by DPP politicking. Oddly enough, the DPP is funded rather heavily by US interests, which I'm sure is a complete coincidence.
An invasion isn't happening and pretending that one is is harmful to stability in the region.
Except China has a vibrant democracy with a 95 percent approval rating, Xi isn't that old, and Russia is a nakedly corrupt bourgeois "democracy", sure
Or literally any historical analysis as opposed to marvel movie understandings of politics
"Approval ratings" are rather nebulous. By the divisive and partisan nature of American politics, approval ratings in America are naturally going to be low because both parties exist solely to shit on each other. In China, "approval ratings" get measured from the perspective of "is my life improving?" rather than "would my life be improving more under someone else?"
Honestly? I think asking if someone's life has improved is a more fair polling question to ask, but it's one that's difficult to differentiate in the US because of how radicalized everyone is.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the US would have a higher effective approval rating in the Chinese context than it does today, because many American lives ARE improving under the American government. People just think (often incorrectly) that it would improve more if the other party had power.
In China, “approval ratings” get measured from the perspective of “is my life improving?” rather than “would my life be improving more under someone else?”
Wow, an actual useful metric for whether the government is responsive to the populations needs.
Basically, what I’m saying is that the US would have a higher effective approval rating in the Chinese context than it does today, because many American lives ARE improving under the American government.
Except for life expectancy reductions, child malnutrition, literacy rate reductions, etc
Sure, I agree. The US is basically adopting Deng Xiaoping's policies on common prosperity: to develop some regions and pray that it drives less-developed regions.
Of course, that doesn't really work in a capitalist structure.
Except China has a vibrant democracy with a 95 percent approval rating
Fucking LOL
"Guys, we're out of stock. It's been going on long enough now anyway and we earned enough selling it to you, so can we stop the war please?"
😅
