Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[VRAMdemon]

Answer the question as you would have a month ago then. I don't agree with the way he's done it but it's the one good thing that's coming out of this mess. And it's something that should have happened after his last term. You're acting like it didn't matter before but all of the sudden it does now when Trump is threating to completely leave NATO?

Maybe if they'd stepped up we wouldn't be in this mess but that blame isn't on Trump however big of one he's making right now.

Going past the idea of "is supporting Ukraine worthwhile" there are certain items the US can no longer provide and we have already dug too deep into our reserves as is. Most of their air defense is currently based around some of those systems and there are no quick replacements for them. The simple truth is that cupboard is dangerously low and it takes years to replace it. The current production rates are well below what they've been using each year in Ukraine and they're not easily able to be increased. It would put even a reasonable leader in between a rock and a hard place when deciding to continue supporting the war.

Yeah, The reality shows Ukraine is definitely not in a good position. I don't believe even Putin is in any hurry for a ceasefire. Putin is happy as a pig in shit that Trump is in power. Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukraine, and as it stands Ukraine has no visible prospects of taking any of it back. I just don't see Europe being ready to take over the stockpiles/supplies yet. If Trump cuts all aid and access to US stockpiles to Ukraine, Ukraine’s long-term advantages in a lengthy war of attrition with Russia suddenly go away. And if Trump eases sanctions on Russia, a lot of the pressure on the Russian economy goes away too. And he’s enough of a petty, narcissistic, vindictive asshole to do just that. Note this part of his rant at Zelensky:

"Trump:- "Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia. You ever hear of that deal? That was a phony, that was a phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden scam, Hillary Clinton, shifty Adam Schiff, who was a Democrat scam, and he had to go through that. And he did go through it. We didn’t end up in a war. And he went through it. He was accused of all that stuff – he had nothing to do with. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting."

Trump pretty much hates Zelinsky. In a very Trump-like fashion, he’s more concerned with his impeachment and Putin's "feelings" than the war in Ukraine. And Zelensky wouldn’t bend over and spread hi cheeks for him in 2019 to manufacture something on Hunter Biden. Trump – is exacting vengeance for what he perceives as Zelensky’s failure to succumb to extortion and help him in the runup to the 2020 election by fabricating dirt on the Biden family, and Trump’s resulting Impeachment. I think we should Take Donald’s word that his feelings were hurt by Zelensky’s attire. Trump is a special little snowflake. Getting even with Zelensky for that is more important to him than the lives of any number of Ukrainians or Russians.

 

[cmcartman]

Most of the outstanding aid is from USAI which purchases new products from US defense contractors and supplies them to Ukraine. Also part of the aid funding goes back to US companies to not only produce things but to expand production of those things (artillery shells, missiles, radars, interceptors, and MLRS)

I'm well aware of how the aid is spent and used. The fact you're bringing that up means you think I have no idea what I'm talking about and I assure you I do. I don't claim to be an expert but I've read enough from experts over the last year to be extremely concerned. The problem is the production rate of a significant number of those munitions. 155mm shells for instance that luckily aren't likely to be needed in a war with China. Do you have any idea how many are built each year even with recent productions increases compared to how many shells they are firing?

We can also easily afford to substitute items that they can use like providing way more air to ground munitions including cruise missiles that we are not short of.

Go on since you seem to be an expert on this. I'm sure that's why they're among the items we have accelerated funding for even though Ukraine hasn't been given any from US stocks.

The simple truth is that the reserves we thought we needed were no where close to what the consensus is today for a war with China and we're scrambling to make them up. It's not something that's been publicized but up until recently it's been largely ignored. If you start comparing the public figures for build rates on items like Patriot Pac-3, and AIM 120's for example and make reasonable assumptions on how many have been used in the war so far you begin to get an idea. China is building warships 3 times faster than we are today and has dozens of times our shipbuilding capability overall. The PLAAF is expanding at a smaller but increasingly faster rate as well though they're not overbuilding us by anywhere near the same margin yet.

The US Navy fired over 200 standard missiles of several variants defending against mainly Houthi drones and occasional ballistic missiles in the Red sea. That's a drop in the bucket compared to a full on war with China.

You don't know what you're talking about if you think we can continue to supply Ukraine as we have been doing for the last 3 years. Certain items yes, but unfortunately most of those aren't going to be useful if Russia has air superiority over Kiev because they haven't been resupplied. Do you really think there's no reason deliveries to Taiwan have been delayed because they were diverted to Ukraine?

Everyone has gotten so used to the US just being able to deal with it that they became complacent, even the US in this instance.

 

[Jimminy]

Trump created DOGE, a new federal administration.

Now, he needs to create DORE, The US Department of Revenge and Extortion.

This could consolidate all his efforts to attack his enemies, past, present, and future.

DORE would also have complete control of all other US agencies: Justice, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.

And there should be Laws which outlaw all political paries other than republican. This would prevent the rampant election fraud.

 

[HomerJS]

So uh, for those of us in IT...

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia

If you need me, I'm retiring to open a food truck...

Russian state media had this story over a week ago. Must have gotten it from Trump

 

[HomerJS]

you can end with the hyperbole.

Nothing with Trump is hyperbole. Who would have thought recklessly we would fire people in charge of our nuclear program and then be unable to get them back.

Who would have thought Russian state media found out we disable our cyber actions vs Russia before US media but it happened.

 

[K1052]

I'm well aware of how the aid is spent and used. The fact you're bringing that up means you think I have no idea what I'm talking about and I assure you I do. I don't claim to be an expert but I've read enough from experts over the last year to be extremely concerned. The problem is the production rate of a significant number of those munitions. 155mm shells for instance that luckily aren't likely to be used in a war with China. Do you have any idea how many are built each year even with recent productions increases compared to how many shells they are firing?

Ukraine needs to fire probably 4k rounds a day. Let's call it a million and a half a year requirement. US production has risen to about 800K 155mm shells per year. RHM probably in the same ballpark now and those are just the two largest sources and there are many smaller producers. Yes, shell supply is now adequate and able to keep pace with their needs while allied nations can begin refilling their depots.

Go on since you seem to be an expert on this. I'm sure that's why they're among the items we have accelerated funding for even though Ukraine hasn't been given any from US stocks.

Yeah so we looked at potential needs vs like China and the rate that Russia and Ukraine is torching through air launched missiles and decided we need to build a thousand JASSM/LRASMs a year. In addition to buying more NSMs from our international partners and fielding the JSM.

The simple truth is that the reserves we thought we needed were no where close to what the consensus is today for a war with China and we're scrambling to make them up. It's not something that's been publicized but up until recently it's been largely ignored. If you start comparing the public figures for build rates on items like Patriot Pac-3, and AIM 120's for example and make reasonable assumptions on how many have been used in the war so far you begin to get an idea. China is building warships 3 times faster than we are today and has dozens of times our shipbuilding capability overall. The PLAAF is expanding at a smaller but increasingly faster rate as well though they're not overbuilding us by anywhere near the same margin yet.

Did anybody see a near peer war that would last for three years coming? Nope. The Russians did not either. Raytheon has ramped AIM-120 production up from about 500 per year to 1200 a year. Basically their entire portfolio has seen significant production increases, this is backed by orders from the US to refill stock and from USAI for Ukraine. Patriot interceptor production is not as flexible though LM is going from 500 to 750 a year by 2027 here. Other countries (Germany and Japan) are also slated to begin their own licensed production in the next couple years.

The US Navy fired over 200 standard missiles of several variants defending against mainly Houthi drones and occasional ballistic missiles in the Red sea. That's a drop in the bucket compared to a full on war with China.

You don't know what you're talking about if you think we can continue to supply Ukraine as we have been doing for the last 3 years. Certain items yes, but unfortunately most of those aren't going to be useful if Russia has air superiority over Kiev because they haven't been resupplied. Do you really think there's no reason deliveries to Taiwan have been delayed because they were diverted to Ukraine?

We using a lot of ESSMs in Ukraine? There is a reason the navy is rushing to deploy directed energy weapons that can take out drones instead of firing a $2M missile. They also made use of the 5in guns pretty frequently as well.

Taiwan has been sucking hind tit on order fulfillment since well before the Ukraine war. They were always getting pushed back for our own priorities, thats not new.

 

[Brovane]

I generally agree with that. But at the same time I maintain large parts of Europe have for years relied too much on a combination of hope that nothing happens and relying on the US if it does. There have been exceptions and you are correct some have stepped up years ago. Unfortunately when the big players are the one's not doing that it's noticeable.

The timing is more to do with shifting sentiment of isolationism. And to be fair Ukraine isn't NATO, I can be unhappy about the way it's being handled but I can understand that argument. And yes I know they sent troops to Afghanistan. I also think there are legitimate reasons we are not able to continue fully supporting Ukraine, mostly related to being ready for a future possible war with China. If you think Europe is willing and able to help us there at all (even before this week) I have a bridge to sell you.

Those are both good questions.

I am also curious if Trump will even allow arm sales to support Ukraine today with his latest statements. His strategy to end the war seems to involve giving Russia everything they want. That it's easier to cutoff Ukraine than to get Russia to make concessions at the table. It also ignores the backlogs you mentioned earlier as well. And I can name several that are unfortunately very critical to Ukraine but very critical to a potential war with China and would be off the list for a long while.

The second I don't even begin to have enough information to have a clue about. I would guess as long as NATO still exists that little will change there but I have no basis to support it.

I'm wary of a short war with China that we lose. And that's the only reason I am less than onboard with continued full support to Ukraine however much that morally bothers me.

I don't see a whole lot of overlap with weapons sent to Ukraine and being ready for a future possible war with China. Very different types of warfare. For Ex, I don't see a whole lot of need for 155mm Ammo for war with China but a whole lot of need of Naval SM-3 missiles. We are not sending Ukraine SM-3 Missiles. Ukraine in a lot of ways has made the US more ready for a possible with China because it has woken up the US and Europe to having the necessary stockpiles of weapons. Also in a lot of instances we sent old weapons to Ukraine(That we would have paid to be destroyed) and then backfilled those munitions with newer stuff. Not sure why people think this is a bad thing.

Even with equipment with overlap like for Example Patriot Missiles. Are you aware that we are getting a lot of data on how the Patriot performs in a warzone from Ukraine? Why is the data so beneficial for the US? Data quality is high because it is live-tested; it is not a desk job or theoretical calculation. As an added value, other adversaries have copied or bought Russian designs, so data from Ukraine would improve the air defense against Chinese, Iranian, and other rogue state missiles and airplanes.

Even if you are concerned about China. The US is buying a degraded Russian military. Which means that it will greatly impact the ability of Russia to conduct mischief in the future. For example if China went for Taiwan while they had a secret deal for Russia to threaten the Baltic's to setup a multi-polar future conflict. Removing Russia as a possible peer to the US, greatly simplifies future conflicts. Ignoring the moral issue, helping Ukraine just makes strategic sense for the US. Not helping Ukraine from a strategic perspective is very short-sighted.

 

[cmcartman]

Ukraine needs to fire probably 4k rounds a day. Let's call it a million and a half a year requirement. US production has risen to about 800K 155mm shells per year. RHM probably in the same ballpark now and those are just the two largest sources and there are many smaller producers. Yes, shell supply is now adequate and able to keep pace with their needs while allied nations can begin refilling their depots.

They were firing over twice that many when they could afford to. Just because they get by with 4k a day doesn't mean it's ideal, or enough. And yes all NATO combined production probably keeps up with what they need finally but it will take years to backfill what was used before today.

Yeah so we looked at potential needs vs like China and the rate that Russia and Ukraine is torching through air launched missiles and decided we need to build a thousand JASSM/LRASMs a year. In addition to buying more NSMs from our international partners and fielding the JSM.

And in several years we might have what we really should have on hand today. If you want to provide them shorter range cruise missiles produced outside the US I'm onboard with that. If you're talking about longer range missiles that would be needed in the Pacific I am not.

Did anybody see a near peer war that would last for three years coming? Nope. The Russians did not either. Raytheon has ramped AIM-120 production up from about 500 per year to 1200 a year. Basically their entire portfolio has seen significant production increases, this is backed by orders from the US to refill stock and from USAI for Ukraine. Patriot interceptor production is not as flexible though LM is going from 500 to 750 a year by 2027 here. Other countries (Germany and Japan) are also slated to begin their own licensed production in the next couple years.

Patriots are the largest issue here but NASAMS using the AIM 120 is as well along with its normal pure AAM use. And yes you're telling me numbers I already know in terms of production and the increases we've made in the past couple years. Xi Jinping ordered his military to be ready to invade China by 2027. Do you really think production starting then would help? I'm not saying it's of no use but the issue is today we're well short of what we need and we're still going to be short in 2 years assuming we don't give Ukraine more. But we somehow have enough to still aid Ukraine?

We using a lot of ESSMs in Ukraine? There is a reason the navy is rushing to deploy directed energy weapons that can take out drones instead of firing a $2M missile. They also made use of the 5in guns pretty frequently as well.

I didn't say we were. It was to illustrate the point of how many will likely be needed. At least we do have reasonable reserves of them but yes in that application shooting down drones with $2-4M missiles was a great idea. Yes, directed energy weapons will solve the issue with drones but it doesn't help with the threats they will be needed for with China. How many more Type 55 Destroyers do they need to commission to start to make those reasonable reserves seem small? I know that's not directly related to Ukraine aid but is relevant if the Navy needs additional help from the Air Force.

Taiwan has been sucking hind tit on order fulfillment since well before the Ukraine war. They were always getting pushed back for our own priorities, thats not new.

The problem occurs when the priority becomes Taiwan. I guess if our priority was to supply Ukraine over all else you can make that argument. But you are right it's not new, we're just realizing that even what wasn't enough before is even less than what will be actually needed. It doesn't tell me everything is fine though and that's the point I was making.

 

[K1052]

They were firing over twice that many when they could afford to. Just because they get by with 4k a day doesn't mean it's ideal, or enough. And yes all NATO combined production probably keeps up with what they need finally but it will take years to backfill what was used before today.

When they were engaged in offensive ops yes, they need more for that. The high intensity part of this is likely to wind down this year because the Russians themselves are about out of capability to do much. They have gigantic equipment shortfalls and need a breather.

And in several years we might have what we really should have on hand today. If you want to provide them shorter range cruise missiles produced outside the US I'm onboard with that. If you're talking about longer range missiles that would be needed in the Pacific I am not.

AGM-158A's range is about 240 miles which really is not sufficient for our needs in the Pacific. These could be donated to Ukraine and we would not miss them. Same with SLAM-ER. The latter is also in production still and cost effective.

Patriots are the largest issue here but NASAMS using the AIM 120 is as well along with its normal pure AAM use. And yes you're telling me numbers I already know in terms of production and the increases we've made in the past couple years. Xi Jinping ordered his military to be ready to invade China by 2027. Do you really think production starting then would help? I'm not saying it's of no use but the issue is today we're well short of what we need and we're still going to be short in 2 years assuming we don't give Ukraine more. But we somehow have enough to still aid Ukraine?

RTX is doing 1200 AIM-120 missiles a year right now. NASAMS is also not the only short-medium range SAM system in Ukraine either. IRIS-T SLM/SLS is widely utilized and Diehl makes those missiles which do not infringe on our own supplies.

I didn't say we were. It was to illustrate the point of how many will likely be needed. At least we do have reasonable reserves of them but yes in that application shooting down drones with $2-4M missiles was a great idea. Yes, directed energy weapons will solve the issue with drones but it doesn't help with the threats they will be needed for with China. How many more Type 55 Destroyers do they need to commission to start to make those reasonable reserves seem small? I know that's not directly related to Ukraine aid but is relevant if the Navy needs additional help from the Air Force.

I mean this is why we want a ton of LRASMs in the magazine specifically and are paying to get them.

The problem occurs when the priority becomes Taiwan. I guess if our priority was to supply Ukraine over all else you can make that argument. But you are right it's not new, we're just realizing that even what wasn't enough before is even less than what will be actually needed. It doesn't tell me everything is fine though and that's the point I was making.

Taiwan, while a concern, also has their own domestic weapons program that churns out some good stuff. Should they be even better armed? Sure. Has the US long deprioritized them due to our own political and practical concerns? Yes.

 

[K1052]

Oh what a surprise said nobody.

 

[brycejones]

Oh what a surprise said nobody.

View attachment 118791

What an absolute piece of shit. Something new to annoy my nutter GOP congressman’s office staffers about.

 

[cmcartman]

I don't see a whole lot of overlap with weapons sent to Ukraine and being ready for a future possible war with China. Very different types of warfare. For Ex, I don't see a whole lot of need for 155mm Ammo for war with China but a whole lot of need of Naval SM-3 missiles. We are not sending Ukraine SM-3 Missiles. Ukraine in a lot of ways has made the US more ready for a possible with China because it has woken up the US and Europe to having the necessary stockpiles of weapons. Also in a lot of instances we sent old weapons to Ukraine(That we would have paid to be destroyed) and then backfilled those munitions with newer stuff. Not sure why people think this is a bad thing.

There's not, but in the specific systems that there are it is an issue. I said that in my prior posts. I haven't said we're sending Ukraine SM-3 missiles either and I mentioned that the 155mm ammo would likely not be used in a war there and you're bringing that up as well. We do have to keep a reserve for any eventuality though and they won't be replenished for years or more at the current rate. I'm well aware of how we've been backfilling some of the munitions and in general I'm fine with the idea. The problem is right now much of the backfilling is in the form of IOU's and not actual equipment/munitions. At some point that does catch up to you.

Even with equipment with overlap like for Example Patriot Missiles. Are you aware that we are getting a lot of data on how the Patriot performs in a warzone from Ukraine? Why is the data so beneficial for the US? Data quality is high because it is live-tested; it is not a desk job or theoretical calculation. As an added value, other adversaries have copied or bought Russian designs, so data from Ukraine would improve the air defense against Chinese, Iranian, and other rogue state missiles and airplanes.

I do agree the data has been useful. The SME I've read literally do this job day in and out. They're the one's using that data and they're extremely worried. Seeing the numbers and having a good guess at just how many missiles would be flying in the first few days of a war with China I am as well. This isn't some idea I came up with my own overnight. And you're not adding anything I (or they) haven't obviously thought of. You can't not have enough Patriot missiles and win a war with a country like China for instance. They take out a few strategic air bases and dozens to hundreds of air craft in the Pacific and the war is nearly unwinnable right off the bat.

Even if you are concerned about China. The US is buying a degraded Russian military. Which means that it will greatly impact the ability of Russia to conduct mischief in the future. For example if China went for Taiwan while they had a secret deal for Russia to threaten the Baltic's to setup a multi-polar future conflict. Removing Russia as a possible peer to the US, greatly simplifies future conflicts. Ignoring the moral issue, helping Ukraine just makes strategic sense for the US. Not helping Ukraine from a strategic perspective is very short-sighted.

If we could continue to do both I would probably agree. But the problem with your idea is without boots on the ground this war is currently unwinnable by Ukraine. They lack the manpower and it's only going to drag on for years if we continued to support them as we currently have been ignoring my China argument.

Do you think Ukraine can survive a year or more after they've lost air superiority? Do you have any idea how likely the conflict will turn from a slow losing grind to a disaster? If Russia could use it's remaining Air Force to destroy more of their power grid how do you think that would affect the war? The unfortunate truth is that Russia doesn't pose a threat to the US and they didn't prior to the war either. Their ability to project outside their own territory is very limited.

The 155mm projectiles you're agreeing that would be useless in a war with China wouldn't be so useless in that theoretical situation.


I don't agree with the way he's doing it, and I don't think it's likely to work out the way he thinks it will. But I believe that's a part of this Russian appeasement strategy Trump seems to be following. To split Russia from China in any future war we have with China.


I think you're greatly underestimating how bad a war with China could potentially go. We haven't had a real peer threat in 30 years and we're unprepared for it. Russia isn't going to measurably change the war enough to matter. If we lose to China it doesn't matter what happens in the Baltics regardless of NATO. Ukraine isn't going to finish Russia off and they're still going to be the same threat they are today.

 

[RnR_au]

 

[Franz316]

There goes the halting of military aid to Ukraine, which was the goal all along. It was all bloviating and spectacle up until this point and Putin finally got his wish.

This administration is an embarrassment.

 

[Brovane]

There's not, but in the specific systems that there are it is an issue. I said that in my prior posts. I haven't said we're sending Ukraine SM-3 missiles either and I mentioned that the 155mm ammo would likely not be used in a war there and you're bringing that up as well. We do have to keep a reserve for any eventuality though and they won't be replenished for years or more at the current rate. I'm well aware of how we've been backfilling some of the munitions and in general I'm fine with the idea. The problem is right now much of the backfilling is in the form of IOU's and not actual equipment/munitions. At some point that does catch up to you.

We are ramping up munitions production as quickly as possible. Ukrainian war has woken us up that our munitions are not sufficient. I would have had us realize the problem in 2022 rather than in the middle of war with China. Right now China is watching how the west supports Ukraine. What Trump is showing is that China can make a grab for Taiwan and the west might just walk away and let them do it. WW3 has already started, I would rather fight it in Ukraine than in the Pacific or in Poland with US troops.

I think Trump should be listening to his own Speaker in the House.

“I really do believe the intel and in the briefings that we’ve gotten,” Johnson said. “I believe Xi [Jinping] and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil,” warning that Russia could march west across Europe if not stopped now. “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys.”

I do agree the data has been useful. The SME I've read literally do this job day in and out. They're the one's using that data and they're extremely worried. Seeing the numbers and having a good guess at just how many missiles would be flying in the first few days of a war with China I am as well. This isn't some idea I came up with my own overnight. And you're not adding anything I (or they) haven't obviously thought of. You can't not have enough Patriot missiles and win a war with a country like China for instance. They take out a few strategic air bases and dozens to hundreds of air craft in the Pacific and the war is nearly unwinnable right off the bat.


If we could continue to do both I would probably agree. But the problem with your idea is without boots on the ground this war is currently unwinnable by Ukraine. They lack the manpower and it's only going to drag on for years if we continued to support them as we currently have been ignoring my China argument.

Do you think Ukraine can survive a year or more after they've lost air superiority? Do you have any idea how likely the conflict will turn from a slow losing grind to a disaster? If Russia could use it's remaining Air Force to destroy more of their power grid how do you think that would affect the war? The unfortunate truth is that Russia doesn't pose a threat to the US and they didn't prior to the war either. Their ability to project outside their own territory is very limited.

With western support I don't see why Ukraine would lose air superiority. I don't see Russia being able to continue at the current pace they are losing soldiers and the Russian economy is going to start having serious gaps as sanctions have their impact. At this point the only lasting peace you can have with the Russians is through strength because that is all they understand. What Trump is doing by kicking the chair out from Zelensky at this moment is one of the worse possible things. Every ally of the US is currently wondering if they are next including Japan and South Korea. If I was Australia I would be serious reconsidering the purchase of Virginia class attack submarines. Ukraine has no choice, they are fighting against annihilation by Russia. With the behavior that the Russians have shown in this war, the Ukrainians would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

The 155mm projectiles you're agreeing that would be useless in a war with China wouldn't be so useless in that theoretical situation.


I don't agree with the way he's doing it, and I don't think it's likely to work out the way he thinks it will. But I believe that's a part of this Russian appeasement strategy Trump seems to be following. To split Russia from China in any future war we have with China.


I think you're greatly underestimating how bad a war with China could potentially go. We haven't had a real peer threat in 30 years and we're unprepared for it. Russia isn't going to measurably change the war enough to matter. If we lose to China it doesn't matter what happens in the Baltics regardless of NATO. Ukraine isn't going to finish Russia off and they're still going to be the same threat they are today.

I think Trump is underestimating the Russian and Chinese relationship. Abandoning our allies at a critical moment is no way to run a foreign policy and reeks of appeasement.

 

[K1052]

Australians should have stuck with the French nuke sub deal.

 

[RnR_au]

Australians should have stuck with the French nuke sub deal.

Yup... although the deal along with our trade deficit with the USA means that our exports to the USA may not get hit with tariffs. Its 'under consideration' since 3 weeks ago.

 

[K1052]

Yup... although the deal along with our trade deficit with the USA means that our exports to the USA may not get hit with tariffs. Its 'under consideration' since 3 weeks ago.

Ultimately I doubt anybody escapes Mr. Tariff.

 

[trenchfoot]

Nope. Stop right there.

Embarrassment is for those that deserve actual respect.

How do you respect people like these?

View attachment 118400

View attachment 118401

View attachment 118399

View attachment 118402

View attachment 118403

If anyone thinks we can coexist with them peacefully.. I have a bridge to sell you!

All of these FOX propaganda talking points being spouted by these numbnuts are obviously derivative. These MAGAts would have absolutely nothing to say if they didn't hear it from Hannity or Rogan except for those brilliant two word comebacks dredged up from their childhoods like "Oh Yeah?" or "Sez you!"

 

[cmcartman]

We are ramping up munitions production as quickly as possible. Ukrainian war has woken us up that our munitions are not sufficient. I would have had us realize the problem in 2022 rather than in the middle of war with China. Right now China is watching how the west supports Ukraine. What Trump is showing is that China can make a grab for Taiwan and the west might just walk away and let them do it. WW3 has already started, I would rather fight it in Ukraine than in the Pacific or in Poland with US troops.

From what I've been lead to believe they did realize the problem even before then. And just like most serious issues are it was ignored, and aiding Ukraine was more important. I agree about what this is potentially showing China and it's the same point I've seen brought up there. That being said there has been somewhat of an official pivot from Russia/Ukraine towards China and I have no doubt they are aware of the issues themselves. I'm not sure I completely buy into it but there seems to be some credible info that Iran Russia and China have been working towards the same goal of weaking our ABM stockpiles specifically. I could see that being part of what the speaker is referring to below in addition to it everything else it infers.

I think Trump should be listening to his own Speaker in the House.

“I really do believe the intel and in the briefings that we’ve gotten,” Johnson said. “I believe Xi [Jinping] and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil,” warning that Russia could march west across Europe if not stopped now. “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys.”



With western support I don't see why Ukraine would lose air superiority. I don't see Russia being able to continue at the current pace they are losing soldiers and the Russian economy is going to start having serious gaps as sanctions have their impact. At this point the only lasting peace you can have with the Russians is through strength because that is all they understand. What Trump is doing by kicking the chair out from Zelensky at this moment is one of the worse possible things. Every ally of the US is currently wondering if they are next including Japan and South Korea. If I was Australia I would be serious reconsidering the purchase of Virginia class attack submarines. Ukraine has no choice, they are fighting against annihilation by Russia. With the behavior that the Russians have shown in this war, the Ukrainians would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

Russia is in a war of attrition right now just like every major war they've fought for the last 100 years, it's nothing new to them. They're not going to run out of steam because of sanctions. They don't care about casualties. It might slow them down more but Ukraine is having some serious cracks in it's manpower as well. The consensus from everyone I've seen that has a good grasp on the facts doesn't see Ukraine winning without outside intervention. I don't think they see Russia prevailing either but right now Russia is probably stronger than it has been through most of the war. Ukraine isn't in a good spot even with continued support.

I do agree that peace through strength is the only way and think the way he is going about it is wrong as well. Trump doesn't care what those other countries think, and his support is strong enough right now that his word means enough of congress will fall in line. I don't think there are any good solutions out there and like I said I'm personally fine with us continuing to support them with what we can. But at the same time I don't see it being enough to change anything in the near to medium term and I doubt it even guarantees they can continue to hold as they have been.

I think Trump is underestimating the Russian and Chinese relationship. Abandoning our allies at a critical moment is no way to run a foreign policy and reeks of appeasement.

He may be, and like I said I disagree with how he's doing it as well and I totally agree that it reeks of appeasement. That being said the relationship right now between them at this point is basically China using Russia to wear ours (and NATO's) stockpiles down while they're standing by and benefitting from it. I don't think there's an easy way out and I don't know there's even a best way out. But I do know it's a serious issue that's being overlooked by most of the armchair generals out there. It's not something I would have even considered had I not seen it thrown out by multiple people that are currently serving in positions that would have reason to know.


This video does a good job describing where both sides currently are and mirrors a lot of what I've read and heard and similar to what the US military believes. Ukraine has been on their back foot for most of the last year and Russia can continue at the pace they've been going for a while longer at the very least. Have no idea if it's been posted here before since I just popped in to see what the take was from this forum since most I frequent are a lot more conservative than here.

 

[silverspaceship]

The consensus from everyone I've seen that has a good grasp on the facts doesn't see Ukraine winning without outside intervention. I don't think they see Russia prevailing either but right now Russia is probably stronger than it has been through most of the war. Ukraine isn't in a good spot even with continued support.

I am really glad to see discussions about our victory, and I agree that given what we currently have, we cannot defeat russia on our own at this moment.

But then again, why are we talking like this now? Had we received everything we requested in 2022, I believe the war would have been over by 2023. Don't get me wrong—we are absolutely grateful for any help, but we were given just enough aid so that we neither gained a decisive advantage on the front nor suffered defeat. And now, as a result, we have given russia more than enough time to adapt.

 

[K1052]

EU eyeing 800B defense spend.

 

[K1052]

When you've lost Le Pen it really signals what the mood in Europe is towards the United States right now.

 

[Brovane]

From what I've been lead to believe they did realize the problem even before then. And just like most serious issues are it was ignored, and aiding Ukraine was more important. I agree about what this is potentially showing China and it's the same point I've seen brought up there. That being said there has been somewhat of an official pivot from Russia/Ukraine towards China and I have no doubt they are aware of the issues themselves. I'm not sure I completely buy into it but there seems to be some credible info that Iran Russia and China have been working towards the same goal of weaking our ABM stockpiles specifically. I could see that being part of what the speaker is referring to below in addition to it everything else it infers.

It has only been since the start of the Ukraine conflict that the US DOD has been provided funds to start seriously working on increasing production of munitions from 155mm shells to Patriot missiles. There has been specific numbers mentioned earlier in this thread. Increasing 155mm production is easier than Patriot missiles. However I know that a serious re-vamp of 155mm ammo production has occurred because the money was allocated as part of Ukraine aid packages and we have a lot more capacity to produce 155mm than in early 2022.

Russia is in a war of attrition right now just like every major war they've fought for the last 100 years, it's nothing new to them. They're not going to run out of steam because of sanctions. They don't care about casualties. It might slow them down more but Ukraine is having some serious cracks in it's manpower as well. The consensus from everyone I've seen that has a good grasp on the facts doesn't see Ukraine winning without outside intervention. I don't think they see Russia prevailing either but right now Russia is probably stronger than it has been through most of the war. Ukraine isn't in a good spot even with continued support.

Russia so far has only been able to keep up troop numbers because they are basically paying large bonuses to pay for volunteers to go to Ukraine. They cannot keep this up indefinitely, so yeah they do care about casualties because it has become harder and harder for them to find people willing to go and fight. Also sanctions are having a impact on Russian financial reserves which they have been doing since the start of the war. Overall the Russian economy is not in great shape and from my reading the economy should start running into serious issues by the end of 2025. Even right now Russian production of military hardware cannot keep up on expenditure, why else get crappy North Korea ammo? They have gone through most of their modern tanks and AFV's. Ukrainian drone attacks are making it so that Russian troops have to walk 30+ miles to their offensive line because of drone attacks which also make supplying challenging. If you continue giving Ukraine more modern aircraft like F-16's and French Mirages this will give them back control of the air. What Ukraine has been doing with drones if fairly insane, they are producing drones at the rate now that they are using individual cheaply produced kamikaze drones to kill individual Russian soldiers while the Ukrainian troops sit under cover.

I do agree that peace through strength is the only way and think the way he is going about it is wrong as well. Trump doesn't care what those other countries think, and his support is strong enough right now that his word means enough of congress will fall in line. I don't think there are any good solutions out there and like I said I'm personally fine with us continuing to support them with what we can. But at the same time I don't see it being enough to change anything in the near to medium term and I doubt it even guarantees they can continue to hold as they have been.

Are you aware that Ukraine is able to regularly rotate troops out of the front line and give it's troops leave to go back and see family? Is Russia doing the same thing? This tells me a lot about the overall situation on the ground and it isn't nearly as desperate for Ukraine as some people think.

He may be, and like I said I disagree with how he's doing it as well and I totally agree that it reeks of appeasement. That being said the relationship right now between them at this point is basically China using Russia to wear ours (and NATO's) stockpiles down while they're standing by and benefitting from it. I don't think there's an easy way out and I don't know there's even a best way out. But I do know it's a serious issue that's being overlooked by most of the armchair generals out there. It's not something I would have even considered had I not seen it thrown out by multiple people that are currently serving in positions that would have reason to know.


This video does a good job describing where both sides currently are and mirrors a lot of what I've read and heard and similar to what the US military believes. Ukraine has been on their back foot for most of the last year and Russia can continue at the pace they've been going for a while longer at the very least. Have no idea if it's been posted here before since I just popped in to see what the take was from this forum since most I frequent are a lot more conservative than here.

To me the best way out is to accelerate aid to Ukraine. If necessary get UK and France to deploy troops to rear areas in Ukraine. For example re-leave the troops guarding the northern flank of the border with Belarus. Give Ukraine what they need to drive the Russian's to the negotiating table.

 

[silverspaceship]

Usually, things like this don't end well..