There is a reluctance to send Ukraine fighter jets and longer-range missiles. Is retaking Crimea even possible without these? Manpower isn't unlimited.
Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
There is a reluctance to send Ukraine fighter jets and longer-range missiles. Is retaking Crimea even possible without these? Manpower isn't unlimited.
>Is retaking Crimea even possible without these
No and that's basically the point, the US doesn't want Ukraine to be able to take back Crimea because that would cause Putin to chimp out even further and maybe even go nookclear.
What makes the US certain that if Putin lost Crimea, his regime would remain in power for long enough to order and carry out a nuclear strike? Furthermore, how would a tactical nuclear strike on the battlefield be of any help after losing Kerch Bridge?
If what you're saying is the truth, this makes the American narrative about Ukraine all the more weaker and the Russian narrative all the more stronger. That it's not about democracy, international law, territorial integrity, sovereignty or the UN charter but that there are spheres of influences and imperialism never died out and in fact Biden's failure and Putin's victory is solid now... is that really what you're saying?
>if the west isn't actually the 2nd coming of jesus christ that means russia was right all along and killing civilians for being in the wrong village is the right course of action
come the fuck on, if the west wanted a free ukraine we'd have rolled tanks in week 1 of the invasion with F-16s and F-35s providing air support.
Well, if the West doesn't care about upholding the UN charter and it's actually all arguable when you have the nukes...
Wow, it's almost like the world isn't made of black and white stark contrasting decisions.
Like there is some kind of nuance or subtlety to the actions nations take.
So, the US rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, and it's false, and realism is king, and according to it, Ukraine is a pawn and all is fair.
Ahh yes, we're back here now
If the west isn't literally god on earth, Russia is last true bastian of freedom and your walking murder/rape horde is truly in the right.
Thank god we have russia to save the white race.
You're strawmanning. You're also preaching realism and pretending not to. Very irritating.
Here's what's even more irritating. Or perhaps, not really, because it's also kinda comical.
You're such a realist on the inside (oh but you aren't! but nobody's perfect! cut the whataboutism!), you along with the Biden administration. But what is it gonna get ya?
Putin can go on. You could, too. But Ukraine can't.
That's also realism: the realism of your failure.
>losing more than half your active military equipment to barely take ukraine after 100,000+ wounded/dead is actually a victory for russia
even if russia take kyiv TODAY, it's still a strategic loss for russia and they look MUCH weaker internationally today than they did 3 years ago.
There is no way to spin this and have russia look good at the end.
>even if russia take kyiv TODAY, it's still a strategic loss for russia
>and they look MUCH weaker internationally today than they did 3 years ago.
how does US look after abandoning the Kurds, Afghanistan and now Ukraine, all in a span of just a few years, vs. China?
i won't even mention Sino-Russian rapproachement
it's been a complete failure on US part. of its own making. America seems paralyzed, a complete lack of political will. how is it supposed to stay influential in the world?
>if I keep spinning it like the US is weak for not fighting a war that isn't even their own then that means russia wins
lmao ivan, the western public would love for ukraine to win, but they also don't give a shit enough to actually want the western nations to step in with troops or full blown top-tier support (F-35, modern tanks, etc). I think most of the US public is happy to see the US government put their money where their mouth is providing Ukraine with valuable assistance that isn't breaking the bank. We've spent less in Ukraine fucking the russian military to the brink of destruction for the low cost of ~1/800th the cost of the global war on terrorism.
Again, even if Ukraine does lose, most of the west will still see this as strategic win. It sucks for ukraine and the people there, but the west isn't going to deploy troops over it.
Also, apparently the annual cost of Ukraine has exceeded the annual cost of Afghanistan (2001-2010)
And we're getting a LOT more for our dollar.
Honestly, money well spent that i'd happily spend again 3-5x over.
Also, the US is only at ~80-100B so far, which is still less than 2011 and 2012 Afghanistan.
And again, the return on investment for each dollar spent in ukraine vs dollars spent in Afghanistan is insane.
Yup, wasting a Trillion on blowing up a few thousands illiterate religious zealots vs 100B on throwing a major wrench in the works of one of your key opponents and seeing them take +200k in losses. It'll take Russia decades to recover their military power to pre-2022 levels.
>It'll take Russia decades to recover their military power to pre-2022 levels.
Less than 5 years.
Ah yes, russian military on life support is OBVIOUSLY the last nail in the coffin for the US hegemony.
China driving away US/West's influence from the rest of the world and letting it eat its own tail will be the last nail in the coffin. It's the simple choice between undecided/polarized/paralyzed "democracies" with a lack of political will to do anything besides maintain the "status quo" (and failing at even that) VS strong, decisive, and most of all, PREDICTABLE strongmen regimes. And the rest of the world, between these 2, will gravitate to the latter.
Yeah I'm sure everyone seeing the belt and road initiative repercussions are lining up to let china fuck them.
Strong man regimes aren't predictable hence why democracies around the world fear what they might do.
is not a word I'd associate with my feelings towards Putin.. contempt and indifference more like it
Public perception of China is collapsing all around the globe. China will be going the way of Russia.
>China driving away US/West's influence from the rest of the world
Are you sure about that?
I am, for argument's sake, a smalltime dictator in a shithole in the middle of nowhere. What am I afraid of? Well, of course, it's big bad America deciding my time is up and I gotta go, humanitarian bombing campaign and moderate rebels all of a sudden.
So I turn to China and Russia, who say "sovereignty must be respected, no interfering in the internal affairs of other countries." But the problem that China and Russia now have, especially in the third world, is that Russia fucking invaded Ukraine. That's not really respecting the sovereignty of another country. And almost every shithole country in Africa and Asia has a shithole neighbour who'd love to have some land back, please and thankyou, so don't pretend that the Russia-Ukraine situation is unique.
Russia's war in Ukraine, and China's support, totally undermines their "alternative international system based on sovereignty" that they were trying to sell, and the West is absolutely making hay while the sun shines on this.
You're not paying attention at all to China. China since the early 2010s has been regressing in their influence. They have one true ally: Pakistan. They have quarreled with everyone else; including Russia at times. Their alliance with Russia is fragile (enemy of my enemy is my friend), they're border rivals, they can't develop a friendship the way the US and Australia are friends for example.
The truth about China that not many understand is... they peaked back in 08 and the global financial crisis ruined their growth trajectory. Xi has become more paranoid throughout the 2010s and his desire to control everything within China is a sign he is worried about the CCP losing political legitimacy.
i don't think so. 2008 was when China was basically saying hello to the world, with the Beijing olympics. in the early 2010s there was still the sense that Russia is above China. now it's the complete opposite, China now has immense power & leverage
How many Slava class cruisers has russia built in the last 5 years? or in the last 30 years?
How many Slava class cruisers does Russia need to take over Moldova and Kazakhstan?
Furthermore, if America doesn't care about Ukraine that much, then it should know that Macron & Scholz care even less so. This has implications for US presence in Europe. So I don't think you know what you're talking about. This war is essentially about preserving US influence. Either America is serious or it can go fuck itself and Europe goes back to trading with Russia & China and becomes protectionist against America just as America is becoming protectionist under Biden.
It's high time. Make the decision. Zeitenwende, or not?
Lol you're clearly delusional, keep trying though I guess, I'm sure some of the retards on here will buy it.
Who's delusional? You want to eat a cake and have a cake. Half-ass it and still have the world be unipolar. Doesn't work that way. When you half-ass it, you show weakness, and others see blood. And among these others is still Germany, despite losing WW2, despite the nazi regime collapsing, it was reintegrated into post-war Germany and their anti-Americanism and other ideas have never died despite appearances of "pro-Atlanticism," the fall of communism, reunification of Germany & the collapse of the Soviet Union have created the opening the German elites had waited decades for and they really don't want to let this opportunity miss them if what they see is an America half-assing everything & being generally weak, divided and pathetic. I won't even mention France & its ideas.
This post is one of those "they're lying, we know..." bs games. No matter what happens on the battlefield, there are two possibilities. Either Russia will continue to be hostile or they won't. If they continue to be hostile the west will continue to sanction them, will continue to do whatever they can to limit their access to strategic technologies they can't produce on their own like semiconductors and will continue to hamper their rearmament. In that case their economy will continue to circle the drain and they will simply not be able to rebuild, much like they weren't able to build the 2000 t-14s that monkee ordered for his military. This is, as I said, independent of their ability to subdue Ukraine. Any military success they'd archive would only reduce their access to global markets.
The other possibility is a Russia that stops being hostile to the west. Ultimately that's the goal of the west. A free and pro western Russia would be a huge asset against China (a bit like a pro western Germany was an asset during the cold war). In this case a Russian rearmament might actually be encouraged by the west, again not unlike German rearmament was encouraged by the west during the cold war. Only under those conditions would they be able to rebuild their strength within 5 years.
This would also undoubtedly be the best outcome for the Russian people. Sadly I don't share the optimism of some of the journalists who like to write about an imminent Russian political collapse. Sadly it seems more likely that Russia will continue down the north Korean path.
And Russia will continue trading with India, China & others
Just like north Korea is trading with China. Claiming that they are a replacement for the dominant western markets is retarded.
>Putin can go on. You could, too. But Ukraine can't.
Ok cool, keep winning please Russia.
After Ukraine will come Moldova and Kazakhstan. Putin is pissing on you Americans and your UN charter and you're pretending it's rain.
You think the russian army has steam for more?
lmao, they're already tuckered out on 1/3rd of ukraine.
Yeah I think the Russian army has hundreds of thousands of more steam. And then some. Ukraine doesn't.
Money well-spent would be a few strategic big investments and the war wrapped up within 1-2 years with Crimea retaken, Ukraine in NATO, a US base in Sevastopol ALONG with all the sanctions that have been introduced, and more, eventually placing Russia on the state's sponsor of terrorism list after the war's end. Ukraine's economy would also be easier to restore and that's money saved, too.
So far over $100 billion has been spent just to retake a few towns and 1 city & to prop up a dead economy. For a year.
$100B spent to make Russia the laughing stock of the world and expend the vast majority of their modern equipment and arms.
Yeah, money VERY well spent.
I'd have spent $5T for the same effect and still come out happy.
>$100B spent to make Russia the laughing stock of the world
When Ukraine falls, the only laughing stock will be you. I didn't even use "if" because I see your confidence in your path and all I can say is your path leads to defeat. And you cannot cope by saying that Russia lost people and armor in Ukraine. Firstly the lost people are irrelevant. Secondly, after Ukraine Russia will rebuild its army within a few years, with help from China. Thirdly, China's posture has become so much more strengthened vs the West and this will be almost a done-deal if the West fails in Ukraine. China will be the decisive voice and all you have achieved is I guess a feel-good moment i.e. the first year of the war, while Russia has become China's vassal. One step forward two steps back.
Brown hands typed this post
Could be a chinkoid
>lost people are irrelevant
The mind set that people are insects that don't matter is makes me want the COMPLETE collapse of their system of government.
shame its like that on both sides
> I'd have spent $5T for the same effect and still come out happy.
This pretty much, even if Ukraine fell today, I'd still be happy with the outcome so far with the money we've spent.
As an American growing up watching trillions get spent in the middle east, watching $100B go to ukraine means nothing to me. You could tell me it cost the US $2000B and I still wouldn't care.
>watching trillions get spent in the middle east
No, trillions weren't spent in the Middle East per year. In Afghanistan (2001-2010) less was spent per year than in Ukraine.
I never said it was spent per year, at the rate of attrition for russia, this war can't maintain the current pace since russia is running out of arms to throw into the fight. So I don't expect ukraine to stretch on for 10+ years like the middle east.
And even if it did, Russia is FAR more worth spending the money to defeat than fucking goat herders in the desert.
I doubt the Montreux Convention will allow the US to put a base in Sevastopol.
>What makes the US certain that if Putin lost Crimea, his regime would remain in power for long enough to order and carry out a nuclear strike? Furthermore, how would a tactical nuclear strike on the battlefield be of any help after losing Kerch Bridge?
That is exactly why he'd "ook ook nook".
that doesn't make sense. nobody is even talking about Putin launching a strategic nuclear strike. Only dropping tactical nukes on the battlefield. Hence my question: of what help are these with the Kerch bridge bombed?
If he's thrown out of power like that, it'll be because he didn't use nukes. He'll be replaced by someone who will.
>that would cause Putin to chimp out
who the fuck cares about what any of those subhumans think
NATO's job is to care.
As much as I hate that russian gay, I don't think he's insane enough to start a nuclear war over Crimea. It's strategically important to the Navy, yes but not worth losing your already nervous "friends" and risking a retaliation by NATO. My best guess is that they'd go scorched earth on Sevastopol, destroy the naval base and the city to render it useless to Ukraine. Also, the F-16 would definitely be very helpful but it wouldn't make or break an offensive towards Crimea.
Are planes for combat just a meme now? Shit can get shot down beyond visual range and russian bombers are just being used to launch cruise missiles out of the range of AA. Why not cut out the middle man and just use missiles.
>Are planes for combat just a meme now?
Not for any real military that has planes and can afford to fly them.
Plane and flight hours is reusable and cheaper then disposable rocket boosters to get to the same speed and altitude.
The issue is not whether planes are useful but rather the amount of planes you would need to send to achieve the desired effect. We are talking several hundred planes. This is ridiculously expensive and even finding enough airframes, spares and surplus missiles/bombs is a major challenge. The training effort that the move would require is immense and likely straight up unmanageable without seriously degrading national training capabilities.
Why wasn't a black project covering precisely this started in 2022, just in case? "Biden" (Obama) administration is so realistic and it didn't even do that and now because of it it's gonna lose
Where are you going to find 200-300 F16s, refitting capacity to bring them all to roughly the same standard while removing certain parts of the avionics suite, enough spares to keep them airworthy for a year, enough ordinance to drop over the course of a year, training capacity for pilots and ground crews and the money to pay for all of that. This is where it gets really expensive and complicated.
>the amount of X you would need to send to achieve the desired effect
yeah and its same with tanks, like what will 50 leopards do
You do understand that it will not just be the 63 L2s that are the first batch, right? We will likely see another two batallions untill late summer. What happens after that is subject to too much uncertainty to project. Sending ~60 tanks to high intensity warfare actually does nothing.
Backfilling attritted mechanized formations requires a lot of equipment. And building anything but brigade sized elements on the western supplied equipment is pointless. It’s not exactly rocket science, anon.
>like what will 50 leopards do
unironically what is the West's endgame in Ukraine?
ramp up weapon production in west and us? clean out old equipment?
Make Russia lose. It’s a balancing act, though. Retraining and reequipping the ukrainian army while they are engaged in high intensity war is complicated. You cannot just pull two or three divisions, train and equip them and then send them back after 6-9 months. You also cannot just stop training your own people in favor of Ukrainians. It has to happen piecemeal, which takes time. This comes with the added benefit that you can scale up your production efforts, because no western country is prepared for protracted high intensity conflict. Neither with regards to stocks nor in terms of industrial output of military goods. Eventually the machine will be running, though and it will be a very scary machine indeed. Russia is practically running at max capacity with little room to expand output. The west is at 15-20% of Cold War level output, with a lot of potential to expand production beyond that. Convincing the public that we need to shift gears and drop some serious money is the biggest challenge.
>Convincing the public that we need to shift gears and drop some serious money is the biggest challenge.
Sadly I think having the public watch as Ukraine is slowly taken by russia is the wests way of convincing normies that expanding military production is the only sane thing to do.
Russia has majorly fumbled the operation and is unlikely to even achieve the currently assessed goal of occupying the entirety of Donbas. This year will be bloody and likely not see Ukraine taking back all occupied territories. Unless one side collapses politically, the war is probably not ending this year.
The best way to convince the general public to spend sufficient money on defense is to tell them the truth of what is at stake here. But it seems like we are lacking a proper PR strategy.
The war will see multiple rounds of offensives before it’s conclusion. What makes you think that Ukraine will not be able to take Melitopol? It’s simply a question of how many brigade equivalents can be backfilled with western equipment and sufficiently trained replacements for combat losses.
Russia won't lose because Ukraine won't be able to take Melitopol. Biden doesn't even want to send Ukraine ATACMS and the GLSDB won't come until September. What the fuck is the endgame?
>reluctance sensing XYZ to Ukraine
moron there was reluctance to send fucking Stingers to Ukraine in the begining of all this. Now the Abrams is getting a green paintjob
I see all "reluctance" now for what it is- PR for the homefront and misdirection towards R*ssia in order to boil their frog.
I don't think Ukraine is supposed to actually win this war. I think the West fully wants Ukraine to die off and hurt Russia as much as possible.
The West wants Ukraine to win, barely.
at some point Ukraine is gonna run out of men
Russia already is running out of meat.
Nah ukraine winning would be fine, but we aren't going to win it for them.
If America fails at providing security to the region, then there's no reason for American forces to remain on the Continent.
me thinks that something that can operate from roads is preferable... Gripen anyone?
is F16 really that good?
here in Taiwan there are always people bitching about how US sell old useless junk to us
It’s a very economical plane to operate. As with most things in warfare, it’s not just about the tool itself but rather the other factors it is combined with. C4ISR, munitions, leadership quality, operator training, numbers, etc.
The F16 is good insofar as there is a lot of training capacity, a good number of integrated munitions and they are available in sufficient quantity. Whether the western partners are willing to send several hundred airframes to Ukraine before the end of hostilities remains to be seen. The challenge is immense and so are the costs. The airframes need to be refitted, a lot of soldiers trained and a huge supply chain be put into place. Another issue is where Ukraine would operate the planes from. All airfields in country are within range of russian stand off munitions and just protecting them effectively would be another huge resource sink. Operating the planes from other countries is not politically feasible.
Fuck f-16s, give them these bad boys.
bro nobody has air dominance sending planes there will only result on killing the hype
For the most impact, we need to transfer f16 to Ukraine while there is public sentiment for assisting by western pilots as well. So wait for the right moment to utterly btfo vatmorons while the world is reeling in the aftermath of a chemical attack that everyone knows Russia did.
Ukraine’s Air Force simply doesn’t have the training, command structure, tech nor money to use these planes correctly. NATO and friendly East Europeans can fix this but it’s not something that can be whipped into shape in a few months.
The other massive roadblock is that the existing Ukrainian command staff want to keep their careers and enjoy all the graft and "presents" they THINK they’re going to get after the war. They do NOT want to be upgraded with all sorts of Western oversight, training, advisors, etc. They want planes and ammo, money for parts, support, etc, but turning it into a world-class air force capable slapping the VKS’ shit in they don’t want unless they stay in charge.
there had been rumors that Ukies have been training on F-16s since last September. i guess these were false rumors. shame.
>Is retaking Crimea even possible without these?
Only if Ukraine does all of the following:
- retakes Melitopol
- fully destroys the Kerch Bridge
- continually successfully interdict supplies getting across the Azov Sea by boat or plane
They could choke it off like a medieval fortress without having to actually assault. The International Community might object to millions of civilians being starved out though, and cut off weapons and aid to Ukraine if they try this.
The only other method I can see is if the war goes on long enough that Russia collapses like the Kaiserreich while Ukraine continues to be propped up by Western aid. I don't think that's likely either, given that Russia has enormous raw resources and the State can force everything to keep running by decree even if it is no longer competitive in the international system.