this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
413 points (90.3% liked)
World News
32351 readers
491 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It has been extremely obvious to everyone who isn't an incredulous lib (ie the ledditor refugees from lemm.ee et al) that the US doesn't actually give a shit about Ukraine and is more than happen to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training time while at the same time gobbling up Ukrainian state assets? And as we saw with how Afghanistan ended, the US will inevitably pull support, most likely because of Taiwan, and the Ukrainian war effort will collapse overnight just like Afghanistan imploded as soon as the US left the country.
The US has to fight multiple fronts against its peer adversaries as well as not-quite peer adversaries. Just recently, there's a coup in Niger with crowds of Nigeriens waving Russian flags cheering the coup leaders. While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens' heartfelt desire to kick out the French and overexaggerate Russia's involvement per usual, an anti-France alliance is forming in the Sahel, and Putin has launched a charm offensive courting African leaders. This is the formation of another front between the West and Russia, and the US will funnel resources away from Ukraine and towards various jihadist and separatist groups like Boko Haram in order to destabilize West Africa.
Ukraine isn't so exceptional that the US will be willing to abandon a front and lose say Taiwan for the sake of Ukraine. And from MSM reporting about the failed counteroffensive, we're close to the "US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger" stage.
The propaganda from the west is absolutely baffling if you try to understand it through anything other than pure vibes. America claims that Putin is going to genocide every single Ukrainian and the response from the US is to send a dozen tanks in a year or so? Why not promise 200-300 tanks and promise to send them as soon they can get tankers trained on them? There's literally 2000 of them just standing there in the desert, isn't a conflict with Russia what they were built for? The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.
That's the crux of the matter right there. And they then force Ukraine to carry out attacks with this lack of equipment and training. Knowing full well that there is minimal chance of victory. Ghoul empire.
NATO doctrine relies heavily on airpower for any large military conflict. The NATO ground armies might be relatively small, but their combined air forces are qualitatively superior in every metric and at minimum three times larger than any potential opponent. 10k people can hold off 500k when they have a giant arsenal of precision guided weapons and complete control of the air.
That is verifiably not true. Vietnam and Korea made it very clear that you cannot win a war with air power alone. And precision weapons are effectively useless. The US can't sustain minor campaigns of shelling random cities in the Global South without running out of munitions. And short of nuclear weapons it has no capability to level cities with it's air force. The F-35 has, what, like four weapons pylons?
Add to that, the Russia air-defense systems have proven very effective, which changes the game. And the F-35 that is the lynchpin of NATO's air superiority strategy has a great deal of limitations, not the least of which is how expensive and stretched it's logistical requirements are.
NATO's air force is completely untested and reliant on extremely expensive, hard to maintain platforms with very limited tactical flexibility. It's entirely possible the F-35 fleet will defeat itself through attrition due to it's enormous maintenance requirements.
Proven effective against cold-war era planes maybe. There have been a few improvements in the past 50 years. Those same Russian air-defence systems proved themselves effectively useless against the F-117 in the Balkans, and the F-35 is miles above the F-117.
Vietnam and Korea proved that 1950s and 1970s era technology was not up to the task, not that it was not possible. The main issue with both was the lack of accuracy.
"Running out" in this case meaning dipping below normal stockpile levels.
Europe is wondering the exact same thing: Why are the yanks pussy-footing around? They're usually much more hawkish. The reason is that the US are shit-scared about Russia thinking the US is trying to invade by proxy or something.
Europe is sending pretty much as much as it can without compromising its own defensive abilities. Have a look at the Baltic states, sending over as large as a percentage of their GDP as the US is sending as a percentage of its military budget. It's the US which has gazillions of Abrams sitting around doing nothing but collecting dust and is not shipping them over, not Europe.
And also unlike the US, Europe is sending long-range missile systems to hit logistics etc. in the rear so that Ukraine doesn't have to gnaw through trench lines.
Homework: Go through all your geopolitical takes and get rid of the term "the west" and instead actually be precise.
Because they're using Ukrainians to grind down the Russian military, and economy, by attrition. The goal isn't to "win", the goal is to destabilize Russia. Ukrainians are just ammunition. The longer the war drags on, the more costly it is for Russia.
Russia already thinks that. That's what turned the civil war in Ukraine in to a proxy war between NATO and Russia.
Okay, so? I could match that if I flipped over my couch and counted the loose change. All of the baltics together add up to one medium-large urban area.
That would be very expensive, and I'm not even sure the US has the logistical capacity for it. Plus seeing Abrams burned out by modern ATGMs would seriously harm the US's reputation for military invincibility. And, again, they're primarily concerned that Russia loses. Ukraine winning would be a nice bonus, but it's not the chief goal.
The US is pussyfooting because this was a fight they picked, and did not expect it to be this hard.
All the surrounding nonsense is their propaganda, and the leaders don’t actually believe any of it.
They don’t feel committed because they chose this, and won’t overcommit to a losing battle. They just need to steward the fight into a slow loss that doesn’t eat up many more resources.
Their actions are inexplicable otherwise - if they were truly afraid of Russia, they’d never have joined in the first place.
The US obviously doesn't care but the aid is helping Ukraine keep it's independence and even if US pulled out Europe would continue it's support. Like Poland is amping up ammo production to the point where it alone can supply Ukraine with ammo. Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason. Also even if Ukraine got no support it's not like they would stop fighting, they would just be slaughtered and occupied by the Russians which is the worst outcome for them considering what's going on in the occupied regions. Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that's a good thing.
No, they really don't have a good reason
Sorry to break it down to you but if your safety DEPENDS from foreign weapon aids, you're anything but independent.
No it cant all of nato cant support ukraine with ammo. That is nonsense.
Yes, but mainly that's because NATOs ammo production was very limited. The factories are all designed to be scaled up massively in times of need, but pre-2022, NATO was barely producing enough to maintain stockpiles.
Is it a time of need now?