OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[kcdusk]

Random thoughts from the last couple of days. Mods, please let me know if I have crossed the line with any comments or take the post down. My intention was not to even get close to anything potentially inflammatory.

I asked the question a year or two ago about economic sanctions hurting Russia, and how that may impact the war. But in recent days I'm left asking myself did the USA run out of money before Russia did?

Or did the USA simply run out of patience fighting another over seas war?

I thought Trump was "pro guns" and by extension "pro war" because of the huge economic benefit it provided to the USA (ie lot of jobs and local spend?)? But getting out of the war will mean less spend?
The difference between this war and others is that the USA didn't have boots on the ground, so I thought they'd be more likely to stay the course.

In my mind, if we relate recent events back to WWII. It would be like the Allies allowing Germany to "keep" Poland and France if it brought an early end to the war. And allowing Japan to "keep" Pupau New Guniea and Australia if it ended the war.

And if thats the case, what stops Russia next time (next year?)? I'd be nervous if I was Poland.

How bad must Ukraine feel not being allowed to Join NATO? Is like not being allowed into a "friends" group.

Russia/Putin just had to sit there for the last couple of weeks and watch NATO implode.

While I am not in favour of war. I'm not sure I'm in favour of peace at any cost. Or rewarding bad behaviour (ie Russias military exercise to invade Ukraine).

[LoneCollector1987]

To kcdusk:
War and military take money. And you need to earn money as a state (by taxing your companies and citizens) by producing things and selling them.

We of the West believed McKinsey and outsourced everything.
So, the taxes to collect got smaller and now we are dependent on other countries.

And thats why we have no money because now we have to pay for everything bought abroad.
Yes, for the Greens and climate people it is nice, because we dont pollute the enviroment. The pollution is done somewhere else and worse than if we would be producing.Because we have enviromental protection laws and Nigeria (just as example!) has not.

And Mc Kinsey also is responsible for (example): Germany has only ammo for TWO days of fighting a war but needs SIX months to produce the same amount of ammo.

We have only a few factories to produce said ammo and the blogger BigCountryExpat once listed the factories in the USA who produce ammo.
Hint: Not many.
And that equals No Arsenal of Freedom like in WWII.
And does anybody want to guess how long it will take to bring the necessary industrial power back to our countries and reviving our military infrastructure to support armies like during the height of the Cold War?

Pro Guns doesnt mean Pro war. Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.
You need weapons to fight a war but ask any soldier and while he is willing to fight he abhors war.
My dad was 14 at the end of WWII and while he didnt tell me much about it (and he was not clear on certain parts but if I use logic it must have been very dark what he experienced), it is enough to convince me that the only war I want to experience is with PC games, board games and roleplaying games.

But make no mistake: If the threat would be high enough, I would fight. But why should I fight for the rulers of Germany of the last 20 or so years?
Germany has gone down the drain, massive immigration without us citizens asked by the government, the Declaration of Human Rights was nearly shredded during COVID - so the answer is no.


But now to something that I read and it shocked me.
I found:
https://www.msn.com/de-de/nachrichte...9890ad6a&ei=13 (in German)
and
https://time.com/7207661/bidens-ukra...zelensky-loss/

It asks if Ukraine was led into a trap by Biden.
According to a Mr Green of the security Council of Biden the victory of Ukraine was never a goal of the US government.
And the White House knew that Ukraine would never regain the territory they lost to Russia.
The only goal was to weaken Russia and to strengthen the Alliance.

Quote:
Wenn etwas ruchlos ist, dann die Tatsache, dass die Biden-Administration laut Time wusste, was sie tat. Sie schickte die Ukraine in einen militärischen Kampf, den sie nicht gewinnen konnte, und verhinderte – gemeinsam mit Großbritannien unter Boris Johnson – einen frühen Friedensschluss, zu dem sowohl Selenskyj als auch Putin damals bereit waren.

Translation:
If something was infamous then it was the fact that the Biden-Administration knew what they did according to TIME magazine. They sent the Ukraine into a war they couldnt win and prevented - together with England under Boris Johnson - an early peace to which both Zelensky and Putin were ready.

The witness to this is the former ukrainian ambassador to the USA Tschalyj.

They mention a study of the RAND corporation from 2019 (here I have to translate from german "Russland überdehnen und aus dem Gleichgewicht bringen" into english so it is not the exact title): To overextend Russia and destroy its balance

So, if this is true (and msn is no conspiracy site) - I know that officers sent soldiers to die - but extending a war even they clearly knew it was over - the last time this happened was WWII.

[HaplessOperator]

Why no one really cared when this exact same thing happened in 2008 with Georgia under an identical pretense. Answer might simply be that social media feels couldn't really get attached to it, and it was simply realpolitik ruling the day, and that American politics weren't as divisive.

Cold reality of the situation is that Ukraine is facing serious manpower issues, and with the lines as stagnated and fortified as they are, the only way anyone's breaking through is Ukraine collectively decides that the next generation isn't worth it, conscripts every MAM in the country, and Zergs them over minefields a mile deep to capture territory that otherwise has no realistic chance of being recaptured without risking nuclear war over a massive Western invasion and establishment of a no-fly zone.

So Western counter-invasion and sweeping the Russkies with an actually functional combined arms military off the table... what's the play? What's the end goal?

Is it to fuel a meat grinder for the next 3 years? 6 years? Are we supposed to push on through a decade of CombatFootage videos of Ukrainian soldiers throwing beehives into Russian dugouts, Switchblades and Lancets counter sniping each others' operators, increasingly rare T-72s setting new manned spaceflight records, soldiers executing each other over survivable wounds, Ukrainian civilian housing structures being bombed into atomization?

Do we sit here and do this year after year while being chided by allies that sent four artillery barrels that our 120 weren't enough? By an ally that sent 50 MRAPS wagging their finger at us because 400 Strykers, 300 Bradleys, 200 M113s, 5000 humvees, and 1000 MRAPs wasn't our fair share? That the 100,000 ATGMs and 10,000 Javelins just doesn't stack up to three dozen AMX-10s and two dozen Milans? That we didn't do enough when our first batch of artillery shells outscaled Europe's total yearly production?

Do we do this while the minefields grow deeper, more impenetrable as they finish stacking another decade onto the fifty years' worth of mines they've already laid in belts around these captured territories, and as the demographic impact of casualties keeps on growing?

I'm all for seeing Russian troops mulched, don't get me wrong, and the suicide highlight reel still makes me chuckle darkly and shake my head, but... if we're capable of making the realization that Ukraine probably isn't going to get that territory back, or even most of it back, then what's the next outcome? Are we actually just doing this to see Russia ground to a nub? We're already watching Bukhankas and golf carts being used as personnel carriers. We're already looking at WWII hardware and some of the most ork-ass construction ever seen outside of Syria rolling around on a modern battlefield. It can't really be said that we expect them to do BETTER against some country that ISN'T Ukraine, and a multipolar war against Russia has only two realistic outcomes: Moscow burning and doing a McDonald's construction any% speedrun or nukes flying.

So... what's left? Is there some reason left to prolong the war by pouring money and war stocks into this other than to watch people die for ground that's practically never going to change hands again, only to be taken to task that no matter what we send, it's still not going to be enough, and that - at the end of it all - if we don't push even harder at nuclear annihilation by swearing blood oaths to deploy troops before we've even got a peace deal on the table, that we're unreliable demons from the pit?

None of this should be construed as support for Russia. Ukraine was brutally invaded by an aggressor Russia in an illegal war over absurd pretenses, and they do not deserve what's taking place. It's a tragedy of the highest order, and every Ivan with his skull split by 5.56 is a step closer to making it right. But I feel like it's worth asking what the end goal, after three years, currently is - while evaluating what's actually possible but not necessarily palatable.

I might be wrong, and anyone's free to disagree with me, but I'm not exactly sure that another 200 Leopards or another dozen Patriots or another ten thousand Javelins is what makes blue Robin Williams pop out of the lamp and snap his fingers back to the map as it existed in 2022.

[castlebravo92]

As Poland put it, why is the EU - a group of countries comprising 500 million people insisting that the US, a country of 330 million people, to defend them against Russia, a country with 133 million people and GDP smaller than Texas?

[Raellus]

Great analysis, Hapless.

Ukraine does not have the military power, even with generous Western aid, to retake most of its currently Russian-occupied territories. Should the Ukrainian gov't just throw in the towel, then?

Framing it as a binary choice, war or peace, oversimplifies things.

Zelensky is reasonable enough to sacrifice currently-occupied Ukrainian territory for an end to the bloodshed (but if he said so publicly, he'd have much less bargaining power at the negotiating table). However, a peace treaty that doesn't include security guarantees for Ukraine (with the USA and or NATO as guarantors), is worthless. The resulting "peace" would not be likely to last more than a couple of years, at most.

Why? Because Russia will use the respite to retool and rebuild its military forces, then try again later. Just ask Chechnya.

Putin's made it clear that he will not honor bilateral peace agreements with Ukraine. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give its nuclear weapons back to Russia in exchange for security assurances from Moscow.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee...urances-glance

Russia broke its promise twenty years later, when Russian troops invaded Crimea. Less than ten years after that, Russia invaded Ukraine (2022). Putin is a neo-imperialist. He's been very clear than he believes than many, if not all, former SSRs belong to Russia. He's also shown a willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own people to violently take them back. Let's not forget that Putin started this war by his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Framing Zelensky as the war-monger is pure Russian propaganda.

Therefore, it's not surprising that Zelensky insists that a negotiated peace settlement include robust security guarantees supported by the US/NATO. In the absence of said, Ukraine is willing to continue fighting. It's not an unreasonable or overly-sanguine position to take, given the circumstances and historical precedent.

History has shown again and again that a phony peace is no peace at all.

-

[LoneCollector1987]

To Raellus:
Then we need to produce weapons and raising armies.

And another lessen:
Dont give up your nuclear weapons. Never!

But having nuclear weapons is not enough. You also need the willpower to use them.
And frankly I dont see much willpower in Europe.
A lot of hot air but nothing more.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

As Poland put it, why is the EU - a group of countries comprising 500 million people insisting that the US, a country of 330 million people, to defend them against Russia, a country with 133 million people and GDP smaller than Texas?

That's a fair question. Europe is also providing monetary and materiel aid to Ukraine. By some metrics, Europe has provided more than the USA.

https://www.reuters.com/world/how-mu...ed-2025-03-04/

That said, I agree that Europe could be doing more.

Are you suggesting that the US abdicate its role as "Leader of the Free World"?

As a Cold War kid, it's hard for me to reconcile US Russia policy today with our foreign policy imperatives of 30 years ago. The USA has been the de facto leader of NATO since 1949, the "Indispensable Nation". For better or for worse, Western Europe has looked to the USA for leadership since 1942. For the most part, we relished that role. And now, during the worst diplomatic/military crisis to hit Europe since WW2, we leap out of the driver's seat because guaranteeing the peace and security of Europe is too expensive? Are the savings worth it?

Do we really want to return to the isolationist foreign policy that the USA adhered to immediately following WWI? Anyone who's studied history knows how that turned out. It certainly didn't lead to peace.

And what message will the USA turning its back on Ukraine send to our allies? What message does it send to Putin, to Xi, and to Kim?

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

Then we need to produce weapons and raising armies.

In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, several European countries have indeed been increasing their defense spending over the past few years.

-

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, several European countries have indeed been increasing their defense spending over the past few years.

-

The only major European country that has been serious about rebuilding their military capability is Poland.

The UK, France, Germany, Italy have all made token gestures. The UK isn't producing any new tanks, France isn't producing any new tanks, Germany alone can make, at best, 100-150 tanks PER YEAR - most of which are slated for foreign contracts, not German service. That's the entire old, non-US NATO capacity. 100-150 tanks per year. Turkey, Spain, and Greece all have as many Leopard 2's as Germany has (~350).

Poland, when it's all said and done, will have 1,000 K2 Black Panther thanks compared to ~350 Leopard 2's for Germany.

Europe has much the same problem the US has, but only so much worse. They de-industrialized, especially their military capacity, and scrapped most of the cold war material that they had. And what they didn't scrap - a lot of it has already been sent to Ukraine.

So, increasing military spending from 1.5% of GDP to 1.7% of GDP isn't going to help a whole lot when there isn't sufficient capacity to build tanks, IFVs, artillery tubes, artillery shells, drones, explosives, ammunition, etc.

The entire German army is down to 63,000 people. The UK Army 74,000. The French army 121,000. The Turkish army has close to 300,000, but you are lying to yourself if you think they are going to attack Russia to defend Ukraine.

So the entire German, French, and UK armies have 1/2 the manpower a not-fully-mobilized Russia has on the Ukraine front.

Surveys of Western European countries of how many people would fight to defend their country show numbers in the teen percentages. What do you think a European mobilization to fight in Ukraine is going to poll at? Meanwhile, the EU has thrown open it's borders and is enduring a migrant invasion. Ireland now sports a higher foreign born population percentage than the US has (and for the record, the US foreign born percentage is the highest it's ever been).

Europe has become Turkey in reverse. The sick man.

I'm not saying this to be mean or because I dislike Europe (I'm going there next week), but pointing out that Europe has lost it's capacity to fight, lost it's will to fight, and yet it's leaders are committing them to a fight they cannot win in defiance of all reality. And Europe still has not committed to the structural changes that will change any of that.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

So, increasing military spending from 1.5% of GDP to 1.7% of GDP isn't going to help a whole lot when there isn't sufficient capacity to build tanks, IFVs, artillery tubes, artillery shells, drones, explosives, ammunition, etc.

You also have problems with spending priorities. For example the UK has significantly more admirals (33) than combat vessels (19).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

You also have problems with spending priorities. For example the UK has significantly more admirals (33) than combat vessels (19).

That's nuts.

Here's an interesting piece from War Zone on lessons learned from the war in Ukraine:

https://www.twz.com/news-features/na...war-in-ukraine

-

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's nuts.

Here's an interesting piece from War Zone on lessons learned from the war in Ukraine:

https://www.twz.com/news-features/na...war-in-ukraine

-

From the article:

Lesson 5: “We are woefully under-invested in our transatlantic defense industrial base to produce the capabilities we need at pace and at scale. Russia, with an economy 5% the size of NATO, produces in three months many critical munitions that it takes 32 allies an entire year to produce. I know I’m not making friends amongst the industry at this point, but something is very wrong here, and we must fix it.”

Goffus expanded on that last lesson.

The defense industrial base has “not been this important in a long time,” he explained, adding that the U.S. has to step up its capacity to produce weapons.

Lithuania wants “to buy AMRAAMS for their NASAMS,” he stated. “Five-year wait. I talked to the Bulgarian CHOD [Chief of Defense]. They want to buy Javelins for their Strykers. Seven-year wait. I talked to some of the big allies who want to buy Patriots. 10-year wait. That needs to get fixed.”

Which reinforces my point - both the US and Europe are not in a position to wage a protracted war, regardless of how much money they allocate to it, because the defense industrial base to spend the money is nonexistent.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

the US and Europe are not in a position to wage a protracted war, regardless of how much money they allocate to it,

This reminds me of my favorite response when a CEO wanted to throw money at a problem when there was no way we could hit his time target.

"Nine women can't make a baby in a month"

[juret]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

The only major European country that has been serious about rebuilding their military capability is Poland.
Poland, when it's all said and done, will have 1,000 K2 Black Panther thanks compared to ~350 Leopard 2's for Germany.

So, increasing military spending from 1.5% of GDP to 1.7% of GDP isn't going to help a whole lot when there isn't sufficient capacity to build tanks, IFVs, artillery tubes, artillery shells, drones, explosives, ammunition, etc.

1. Poland recives most of its money from eu reallocation and socialist money redeistribution funds. Payd in eu admissions from the rich countries. So poland basicly spend money from sweden denmark france germany who they recive in cash. When these cash will go down in future Poland gotta reduce wellfare alot to pay for all exensive wep systems they bought like abrams panthers apaches and f35s, poland is not a rich country so this will affect living standards alot.

2. Most military material has gone up alot in price. Like a leaopard 2 tank had gone up 600% in price in 20 years or so and is 7-8 years waiting list for deliviery. so increasing next year from 2 to 2.5% doesnt help at all as war material increase faster in prices. An small increase in % gdp to defence useally lead to less bang and soldiers or warmashines for the buck.

[Raellus]

Germany votes to spend more on defense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...d=BingNewsSerp

-

[juret]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Germany votes to spend more on defense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...d=BingNewsSerp

-

So how will these money be spent? prices on Leopard 2 tanks will go up alot and the few production lines will be for german vehicles forcing all other countries in europe buy from other countries.Currently price on 1 leopard is 16 times higher then a modernised t72 but are pretty equal in combat support roles in ukraine. the t72 have better indirect support and HE round and leo 2 little better speed but are useless in mud in march and october.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by juret

So how will these money be spent? prices on Leopard 2 tanks will go up alot and the few production lines will be for german vehicles forcing all other countries in europe buy from other countries.Currently price on 1 leopard is 16 times higher then a modernised t72 but are pretty equal in combat support roles in ukraine. the t72 have better indirect support and HE round and leo 2 little better speed but are useless in mud in march and october.

It also looks like Germany is going to need to spend more on recruitment, salaries, and benefits.

German army struggles to get Gen Z recruits ‘ready for war’
https://www.ft.com/content/30594f17-...a-57cdf0176841

The fact that jumped out to me was

A quarter of the 18,810 men and women who signed up in 2023 left the armed forces within six months.