That much is true. We have the just cause and the ability, but not the will. And this is one of those periods, as it was from 1939 to 1941, when future generations will ponder why we just sat here wringing our hands and letting it get worse.
I would offer a counter suggestion that what the war has demonstrated is that the Russians cannot sustain operations outside of 50 miles from their border. They are next to no threat to the US or Allies, other than energy of which we have more than enough to supply. You bring him to his knees by supplying energy to his current client states and we can do that without jeopardizing the life of a single US service member. that generates revenue vs expending us assets. China on the other hand is a formidable adversary that could inflict immediate and sustained damage the CONUS and US interests overseas
I agree that Russia, today, demonstrates incompetence at the tactical level of war. That is why I see an opportunity to defeat them, today, before they inevitably learn how to translate their tremendous advantages into victories in the field. Such a defeat would also serve to put China on notice. Presently, what China is learning is the U.S. will give them all the time in the world to subjugate Taiwan without serious interference.
not sure how you define defeat. Even if their conventional forces get mauled they will declare some sort of victory and move on. I also think it’s reasonable to expect putin to be replaced by someone just as bad. In the meantime we depleted a ton of ordinance and other resources, risk escalating a contained conflict into something bigger and spend a shi-load of money for negligible gains. And China strangle stranglehold gets tighter. Just my opinion
Why should I there are ample posts detailing the Russian oligarchy and their corrupt nature. Some of which we have participated in. You'll get no disagreement from me on those issues. Did you not read the link I posted earlier concerning the US and the readiness state of our armed forces? And those trillions we spent have contributed to our current situation. Here's another article you might find interesting US Military Running Low On Ammo After Arming Ukraine Pentagon officials are concerned that U.S. ammunition stocks donated to Ukraine have severely depleted U.S. stocks, weakening U.S. readiness in the event of a conflict, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. The Biden administration has drawn much of the over $13 billion in weapons systems and accompanying ammunition the U.S. has provided to Ukraine from existing arsenals, according to the WSJ. While the Department of Defense has declined to disclose the number of ammunition rounds in storage at the beginning of 2022, before the war in Ukraine began, it has taken few steps to replenish depleting stocks, sparking worries that the U.S. may not have the ammunition it needs for its own protection. The level of 155mm combat rounds, fired by the howitzer weapons system, in U.S. stockpiles has become “uncomfortably low,” a Pentagon official told the WSJ. The U.S. has sent 806,000 rounds of the 100-pound explosives to Ukraine as of Aug. 24. ....... Last week, the U.S. provided smaller 105mm ammunition to feed Ukraine’s howitzers in order to spare 155mm rounds for the U.S., according to the WSJ. The U.S. military most recently employed howitzers in a strike on Iran-backed targets in Syria on Aug. 24. If you have issues with the daily mail here's an article from CNBC. The U.S. and Europe are running out of weapons to send to Ukraine In the U.S. weapons industry, the normal production level for artillery rounds for the 155 millimeter howitzer — a long-range heavy artillery weapon currently used on the battlefields of Ukraine — is about 30,000 rounds per year in peacetime. The Ukrainian soldiers fighting invading Russian forces go through that amount in roughly two weeks. That’s according to Dave Des Roches, an associate professor and senior military fellow at the U.S. National Defense University. And he’s worried. ....... Europe is running low, too. “The military stocks of most [European NATO] member states have been, I wouldn’t say exhausted, but depleted in a high proportion, because we have been providing a lot of capacity to the Ukrainians,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said earlier this month.
I agree with the comment about G8, marriage and hopes of defeating Russia. As for Russia getting their hands on our weapons it will happen. That's the reality of war. Russia will no doubt share with and employ allies in the deconstruction and reproduction of these weapons to suit their own needs. Should Ukraine be victorious in this war I doubt they are going to listen to anything we tell them once they rebuild as they haven't listened to us in past and I suspect they will not in the future. What makes you think they will listen this time around? Are we going to toss Zelensky out and install someone else? Ukraine is by no means an example of a democratic government. It has not been in the past and I don't see it happening once this war is over. Whitewashing Ukraine’s Corruption Statements from U.S. and other Western officials, as well as pervasive accounts in the news media, have created a stunningly misleading image of Ukraine. There has been a concerted effort to portray the country not only as a victim of brutal Russian aggression, but as a plucky and noble bulwark of freedom and democracy. The conventional narrative would have us believe that Ukraine is an Eastern European version of Denmark.
And, in the end, your goal is to reach a settlement which would contain the expansion of the Russian oligarchy, whom you don't feel the need to criticize. Yeah, it isn't like that production level could be ramped relatively quickly if necessary. Oh wait, yes it is. Which is why they specified the production level during peacetime. If we need to up production of munitions, we will up production of munitions.
One note - the US and many other countries in the world - most actually - are flat footed right now on defense production. It would probably take 2-3 years to ramp up to even mid-level war time production, mostly because the products we are creating now are so expensive and require intensive training of a workforce to make the equipment, not to mention limits on manufacturing capability in country and components are now also made with more rare ingredients. There are many good pieces out there about this issue, not only for the west, but for other countries too. There are some estimates that our armed forces, in a full-out peer v peer engagement, could essentially run out of the best equipment and weapons in less than 9 months. Now - that doesn't mean the US would lose, or that peers wouldn't have similar issues, obviously we are seeing Russia struggle with this same issue right now. So yeah... it's a big problem. And so far none of our leadership has done much about it. And we've known this is a problem for several years now.
If that is what it takes to end this destructive assault on the global economy, Europe and global trade. Yes. Weakening ourselves by playing this cat and mouse game is not a good option for anyone. Then tell me why isn't it ramping up now? Could it be a matter of resources (steel, chips, etc....) People seem to think we can turn these products of war out by the thousands in a matter of days or weeks and the reality is that is not going to happen. We can't even replace what we have given to the war in an acceptable time frame should China decide to act on Taiwan. Neither can Europe. U.S., allies ramp up arms production “We have plans… to get that in increments ultimately up to 36,000 a month in about three years,” Pentagon’s arms acquisition chief Bill LaPlante said Friday. But that would take annual production to just over half of what Washington has given the Ukrainians in less than six months. The Pentagon wants allies to ramp up their own production lines to help replenish stockpiles. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced this week a meeting of senior national armaments directors from allied countries to make long-term plans for supplying Ukraine and rebuilding their own arms reserves. Here's another article for you Nato scrambles to ramp up weapons production and outlast Russia But such pledges are also hollowing out western countries’ own supplies. Recent media reports indicate that Germany’s ammunition stocks will not last longer than two days. Nato standards require that stocks last 30 days in the case of high intensity combat. Yet replenishment orders across Nato have only recently been made due to expectations earlier this year that Ukraine would be unable to resist Russia’s invasion, said Rafael Loss, co-ordinator of pan-European data projects at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Industry capacity and production is weak because it has been scaled down since the end of the Cold War. A senior executive separately told The National that he was concerned because the industry is still waiting for “demand signals” from governments to significantly increase production.
Russian billionaire behind mercenary army in Ukraine confronted Putin about botching the war, report says (msn.com) The Russian billionaire who founded the notorious Wagner Group paramilitary confronted President Vladimir Putin about the mismanagement of the war in Ukraine, two US officials familiar with the matter told The Washington Post. Yevgeniy Prigozhin met with Putin in private earlier in October to voice dissent as Russia chalked up mounting losses and failures in the face of Ukraine's counteroffensive, per The Post. The outlet reported that the exchange was considered important enough to be included in a daily intelligence briefing provided to President Joe Biden. The encounter had previously been reported, including by Insider, citing The Post's reporting, but without Prigozhin's name.
We need to. We needed to months ago. We’re still fighting this war like it might be over next month. Until the President wakes up and throws Jake Sullivan out on his [rear end], get used to amateur hour in the field of strategy.
“Every war ends with diplomacy?” Really? The Civil War ended with diplomacy? World War 2? I know what she was trying to say, but (successful) wars of conquest don’t end in diplomacy. And had Russia achieved its military objectives, this war would not have ended in diplomacy. Best just to admit you reconsidered your position after the President gave you a smack down behind the scenes rather than treat people like idiots who are going to believe you meant “diplomacy … after Ukraine wins.”
Well, I don't think signaling that countries can just take other countries without consequences is good for anyone. It will lead to much more death and destruction than a shortage of munitions in the US. Because we aren't at war and don't need to ramp up production in the short-term.
I wish both of those points were true, but neither are. We are at war. And we do need to increase production to match demand. The only question in both cases is of degree.
I think we are in a proxy war more than a true war and while we are supplying it, we are doing so at a much lower rate than if we were actually at war. And I'll definitely defer to your knowledge on specific munitions, but I tend to be of the bias that we probably keep larger than necessary stockpiles of weapons because nobody really opposes making more weapons and having the government buy them from manufacturers in their districts.
Great read - How Wars End If anyone that wrote that letter read that book, they didn't understand it. You do need to think while prosecuting the war about how to leave a stable political environment afterwards, or at least as stable as possible. But part of that is getting a position where that's possible. Not remotely there yet with the Russians. If they were looking for a true offramp, that would be one thing. But they aren't, and frankly, I don't see a possible offramp. Lots of times one appears where it didn't seem possible before. But they don't seem to have left themselves any options, both with their rhetoric and their conduct, which seems calculated to ensure blood hatred from the Ukrainians. It's a much cruder example of the corollary of what happened with Hong Kong and Taiwan. Once China did not respect their promises to Hong Kong to allow HK to be semi-autonomous, there was no chance they were going to persuade Taiwan to enter into some agreed union with limitations and semi-autonomy. The only modus vivendi that Ukraine might accept would involve a US security guarantee, and that's what Putin said he was fighting to avoid. But how could you blame the Ukrainians? How do you tell them they don't need such a guarantee when you've invaded and committed continued atrocities?
No one likes the bully on the play ground yet NATO was implemented to do just that was it not? Did not NATO signal everyone else is fair game but leave us alone? NATO was meant to be the end all be all of mess with us and you are toast. Now NATO, the US and allies want to expand on that. Be honest about all of this. If we had been in a much better position as the bully on the block (US hegemony) this war most likely would not have happened. If the articles I posted are any indication at all the shortage is already here and it has raised alarms both in the US and in Europe. I'll also agree that the longer we let this drag on the human toll is going to get much worse. I see three possibilities to stopping this madness. One Ukraine can solve this through diplomacy. Which Ukraine has made clear they have no intention of doing. Second we step into Ukraine take the nation and make it a US territory. After all that is what Russia intends to do so why not remove Ukraine from the board in total. Last but not least we continue to use Ukrainian's as cannon fodder and continue down the path of destroying Europe's industrial base, a global economy and global trade. Out of all of those options my preference at the moment would be number one which depends on Ukraine and what they are willing to do. Number one buys the US and Europe much needed time to get our own houses in order. The following options will come with consequences that the US and the globe will have to deal with.
NATO was formed in response to Russian hegemony, "the bully on the play ground" after WW2. How convenient poster omitted that? Russia then, with its' new colonies, formed the Warsaw Pact. Odd also that poster does not acknowledge a fourth possibility for ending the Ukraine war, Russian capitulation.
