Political impacts of Ukraine war

[Brad Sallows]

Ukraine should ignore the deal.

If the US hasn't provided enough aid to swing things in Ukraine's favour across three-and-a-half years and two administrations, maybe Europe should take the hint and make a serious effort to back Ukraine sufficiently for Ukraine to win. GDP of NATO without US is roughly 5 times that of Russia.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Ukraine should ignore the deal.

If the US hasn't provided enough aid to swing things in Ukraine's favour across three-and-a-half years and two administrations, maybe Europe should take the hint and make a serious effort to back Ukraine sufficiently for Ukraine to win. GDP of NATO without US is roughly 5 times that of Russia.

What does Euro have that will allow the Ukkies to hit 500-1,500+km deep with precision?

 

[daftandbarmy]

What does Euro have that will allow the Ukkies to hit 500-1,500+km deep with precision?

A superior air force...

Just sayin'

 

[Czech_pivo]

A superior air force...

Just sayin'

They won’t give them that and neither we the US.
The Ukkies want Tomahawks so they can hit deeply and precisely Russian oil facilities. Do the Euros have something similar to provide the Ukkies in large enough numbers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They won’t give them that and neither we the US.
The Ukkies want Tomahawks so they can hit deeply and precisely Russian oil facilities. Do the Euros have something similar to provide the Ukkies in large enough numbers.

At the rate the Ukrainians are learning, innovating and adapting, they will be able to hit most of the important parts of Russia within 1-2 years.

 

[Czech_pivo]

At the rate the Ukrainians are learning, innovating and adapting, they will be able to hit most of the important parts of Russia within 1-2 years.

They don’t have that long.
They are running out of frontline soldiers.

 

[KevinB]

They won’t give them that and neither we the US.
The Ukkies want Tomahawks so they can hit deeply and precisely Russian oil facilities. Do the Euros have something similar to provide the Ukkies in large enough numbers.

Tomahawks

Seriously nothing is stopping any nation from sending their Tomahawks to Ukraine without American approval, sure America could get mad, but at the end of the day it’s not like the Tomahawk can’t be replicated by MBDA or other European nations.

It’s just been convenient to buy them from us due to economies of scale.

The same goes for any other piece of equipment. Sure there is a piece of paper saying you won’t - but then if America won’t protect Europe’s (and our own) interests, then who really gives a shit.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They don’t have that long.
They are running out of frontline soldiers.

Russia is not doing that well either and it's running out of AFV's as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Russia is not doing that well either and it's running out of AFV's as well.

Others don't seem to agree...

Is Russia Outpacing NATO In Weapons Production?​

One area where Russia likely has the upper hand is tanks.

Like artillery, much of its tank production comes from restoring and modernizing Soviet tanks from storage. This would be the bulk of the 1,500 tanks Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s previous Supreme Allied Commander Europe, expects the Russian army to receive in 2025.

However, it has ramped up production “from scratch” of its modern T-90M main battle tank, producing about 280 per year.

Most countries in Europe, on the other hand, barely produce tanks. France hasn’t made a Leclerc in more than a decade, while Britain has ordered 148 of its new Challenger 3 tanks to be delivered by 2030. Germany is the exception, making 50 Leopard 2A8s per year.

Is Russia Outpacing NATO In Weapons Production?

RFE/RL and the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), an open-source intelligence group, analyzed Russian and Western weapons production to assess whether Russia really has a twelvefold lead over the US and its allies, as outlined by NATO chief Mark Rutte.

www.rferl.org

 

[Genetk44]

Tomahawks

Seriously nothing is stopping any nation from sending their Tomahawks to Ukraine without American approval, sure America could get mad, but at the end of the day it’s not like the Tomahawk can’t be replicated by MBDA or other European nations.

It’s just been convenient to buy them from us due to economies of scale.

The same goes for any other piece of equipment. Sure there is a piece of paper saying you won’t - but then if America won’t protect Europe’s (and our own) interests, then who really gives a shit.

 

[Genetk44]

With the possible exception of Joseph Kennedy.

And Lindberg, don’t forget him.

 

[RangerRay]

And Lindberg, don’t forget him.

Kennedy was an ambassador. I think Nazi sympathizer would be too strong to describe his isolationist and Anglo-phobic views. He resigned before the end of 1940.

Lindbergh was much closer to the Nazi-sympathizer spectrum, but was more of a garden variety anti-Semite and isolationist. Maybe fascist-adjacent. But he had no role in FDR’s administration.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Kennedy was an amoral opportunist , Lindbergh had a bit more complexity going for him. Still a F'n As****e but a little more complex then Ambassador Kennedy.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Others don't seem to agree...

Is Russia Outpacing NATO In Weapons Production?​

One area where Russia likely has the upper hand is tanks.

Like artillery, much of its tank production comes from restoring and modernizing Soviet tanks from storage. This would be the bulk of the 1,500 tanks Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s previous Supreme Allied Commander Europe, expects the Russian army to receive in 2025.

However, it has ramped up production “from scratch” of its modern T-90M main battle tank, producing about 280 per year.

Most countries in Europe, on the other hand, barely produce tanks. France hasn’t made a Leclerc in more than a decade, while Britain has ordered 148 of its new Challenger 3 tanks to be delivered by 2030. Germany is the exception, making 50 Leopard 2A8s per year.

Is Russia Outpacing NATO In Weapons Production?

RFE/RL and the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), an open-source intelligence group, analyzed Russian and Western weapons production to assess whether Russia really has a twelvefold lead over the US and its allies, as outlined by NATO chief Mark Rutte.

www.rferl.org

And.... if you follow the tea leaves, Russia is clearly stockpiling armour and infantry fighting vehicles, most of which is being held back for once the UAF is sufficiently attrited.

Russian gains are getting exponentially larger and they have created a series of operational dilemmas for the UAF:

Pokrovsk, Kupyansk, Siversk, Lyman, Konstantinovka, Huliapole, Vovchansk.

The Oretchetnye breakthrough north of Avdiivka has turned in to a 100+ mile wide advance that is slowly being chipped away at everyday.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823078154879275381

https://twitter.com/x/status/1992486313518563363

 

[daftandbarmy]

Trump plan = surrender document...

Prof Michael Clarke analysis: Draft plan is a 'complete undermining' of Ukraine's sovereignty​

The US president has reportedly approved a 28-point peace proposal developed with Russia, which requires significant concessions from Ukraine.Sky's Michael Clarke says the draft 28-point plan is really "a surrender document" with clauses giving territory to Russia and reducing Ukraine's military, which would make the country even more vulnerable to future Russian attacks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Most wars have some exchange of land when it's all over. I haven’t read the plan, so no idea what else is there. Just what the news has reported

However, on the land issue, it boils down to choice. Do you give up the land and end things? Or do you let it go on and on, for years? Let it take over a million more people, mostly your next generation. Destroy your economy even further, stop farming (Europe's Breadbasket), run the chance of further nuclear contamination, ala Chernoble? Or even the possible takeover of black site virology labs? Or maybe Russia wins and you lose the whole country.

I forget where I read it, but it was early on in the war, the areas Russia went after were mostly a pro Russian population anyway. Some didn't even speak Ukrainian and missed being part of Russia. YMMV.

Nobody wins if your country has no young people to carry on, your industry has stopped except for war materials, or your country is basically a smoking hole in the ground.

If you told soldiers on both sides they no longer needed to fight if they didn't want to, most would just start walking home. Cannon fodder has no spot at the political chess table. Put the politicians in helmets and vests and toss them into the trenches. Bet things end PDQ.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Most wars have some exchange of land when it's all over. I haven’t read the plan, so no idea what else is there. Just what the news has reported

However, on the land issue, it boils down to choice. Do you give up the land and end things? Or do you let it go on and on, for years? Let it take over a million more people, mostly your next generation. Destroy your economy even further, stop farming (Europe's Breadbasket), run the chance of further nuclear contamination, ala Chernoble? Or even the possible takeover of black site virology labs? Or maybe Russia wins and you lose the whole country.

I forget where I read it, but it was early on in the war, the areas Russia went after were mostly a pro Russian population anyway. Some didn't even speak Ukrainian and missed being part of Russia. YMMV.

I guess we know where thoughts on the Sudetenland and where it should have belonged in 1938.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Most wars have some exchange of land when it's all over. I haven’t read the plan, so no idea what else is there. Just what the news has reported

Trading land for peace to get out of a long slow bleed might be worthwhile, but not if its only a temporary cessation of hostilities together with a bunch of conditions which have the practical effect of keeping Ukraine weak.

Escalate and win.
Trade land for peace and immediate NATO membership for Ukraine.
Do just enough to keep the war going.
Trade land for a delay before Russia takes the next bite.

Either the first or second is reasonable, but not the third or fourth.