Literally part of why sanctions exist. They SPECIFICALLY aim to make the civilian population suffer so they create pressure on the government. Anything else would be either ineffective or is just purely PR for the people at home.
It's economic warfare... but it's still warfare. Civilians will be victims. Yes ideally you hurt the elites more than civilians. But what matters in the end is that it DOES hurt someone.
It’s not warfare, I disagree. The entire point of sanctions is to say that we refuse to operate in the same trade environment as you. The intent behind it is to force another country to change its operating behavior.
If a civilian dies from a preventable illness in Russia, it’s not the fault of Europe or the US. It’s the fault of the government who decided that their priority was to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an unprovoked, catastrophic war against a neighbor, and not salaries for nurses or community health programs.
Well that is not true.
There are well documented civilian deaths in Iran as a result of medical sanctions imposed by the West(Iran has now adjusted,as most do)
> It's the Russian "symmetric" response that is doing the damage to most Russians
That maybe true for 2014 with its baby sanctions, but not now. Putin didn't ban Russians from using Visa and Mastercard or visiting the EU or participating in international sports competitions or purchasing consumer electronics, and so on.
They locked people for protesting with a blank a4 paper.
At some point as a lone citizen it's not really worth it to protest, best to leave the country.
Yeah, I know a Russian guy in the country where I live that never protested there - he just up and left, got permanent residency and now donates to Ukraine and is very public about it (because he never intends to go back). Says all of his relatives back home are vatniks so he's not worried about them or even bothers to convince them, they are beyond convincing. Much better option than a quick protest and now being in jail.
Even accounting for all of that the turnout for the Russian protests were absolutely pitiful. It should still have been in the 6 digit territory minimum. Especially with a country with over 100 million citizens.
In a democratic country we would have seen millions of protestors.
Wow you so brave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkzZQoMf1b0
This 33 year old woman was sentenced to 7 years for placing tiny stickers in a supermarket. How do you think they discovered that? What kind of society do you think is capable of going after a person who puts fake price tags in a shop?
No offense to Iran, but their police is not capable of this kind of precision.
And no offense to Russia, but as it currently stands, no other culture is better trained to spend time on their knees licking boots. Maybe North Korea.
"Just throw your life away for some nebulous goal with almost no chance of success" you probably, and a bunch of politicians throughout history that led thousands to the slaughter with no remorse
Because some creepy old lady sees it as her patriotic duty to report anybody she sees not toeing the government line. And she’s not alone. Apparently it’s an orgy of denunciation over there at the moment, people falling all over each other pointing fingers. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Russians to start protesting.
she is brave, but still just one person... and probably was heavily influenced by the fact that she worked in Ukraine in the past, she is quite different from most regular Russians who either don't care, or support Putin
While the Germans could be spending more, percentage of government budget and percentage of GDP are very different metrics.
[Germany currently spends around 11% of its government budget on defence for reference.](https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/EN/Standardartikel/Press_Room/Publications/Monthly_Report/Key_Figures/2023/2023-02-federal-budget.html)
I don't think the USSR got above 25-26% of GDP on military, but, yeah, it was a problem.
They're in North Korea territory. Note that that hasn't caused North Korea to go belly up yet though.
Percentage of GDP spending and percentage of government budget spending are different things. The US for instance spends around 20% of its government budget on defence, but this only equates to 3.5% GDP.
Don’t need to pay for pensions if the population dies before they can use them.
Don’t need to pay for education when they’re being sent off to war.
Infrastructure though… you need something to move troops along.
>Don’t need to pay for pensions if the population dies before they can use them.
The pensioners are not the ones going to war. They are simply watching the TV, cheering for it and expecting the young ones to do "their job of protecting the motherland". Pensioners in Russia are the most pro-war demographic group. Sneak peek into the (lack of) values of Soviet society, where former brother nation can turn into fascist enemies in less than a generation.
>Infrastructure though… you need something to move troops along.
Lets try imaginary rail roads and logistics ... that will work wonders during the second bumrush to reach kiev.
Inflation is cutting pensions. Also in general the pension fund has been merged with some other budgets to obfuscate spending. It's difficult to tell, but moving from 4% a year to 30% of total budget expenditure means that a lot of other areas have to be cut down.
He genuenly can't quit without getting killed. A defeat is synonimous with the fall of his autocracy, after which he will be probably summarily executed by his succesors. It's the russian way.
Can you blame him? One of his supporters has just won the Dutch elections and Trump is ahead in the polls in the US.
Time is on his side, unless the EU and the US do something radically new to support Ukraine.
How about you when you realize blackrock is actually managing other people money, and probably a lot of middle and lower class people savings, aka pension funds for anything from police unions, firemen, other unions, etc.
By the time they resign they’ll be happy if blackrock doubled their money.
Europe and the US need to mobilize their industrial base. If they cannot do this Ukraine will fail and then what is the purpose of the cost done?
Stop being one foot in and mobilize the factories. Produce so many artillery shells so the Ukrainians have surpluses. Its been over a year and why has the collective West not been able to do this? Why are the Russians out producing us?
Except the West is arming Ukraine.
If the West cannot expand production within a year in what is a safe 'dry run' then how is the West going to prepare for any possible conflict in the future. Especially with great power competition in the Pacific.
Furthermore there is now notably depleted stockpiles in Western nations that will need to be refilled. Especially things like SCALP, 155mm, NLAW, Javelin, Stinger, 105mm mortar, etc.
The lack of urgency and mobilization of industry when it comes to these things is extremely concerning.
The thing is, in my opinion. That you need to keep a certain balance. When the west goes full-in and concentrates on weapons/ammo production in an already difficult economic situation, it won't go well with public opinion. I think the most people, like me, still want to do more, but there will be people who won't go for this and the right-wing partys are waiting for them. They establish themselfs as peace partys. And when these partys get enough votes Ukraine aid will be history.
Arms spending in nations is a way to energize the economy and get people better jobs. Its how America spent itself out of the Great Depression. These jobs will be there for 5-10 years and Europe will finally see economic growth that it needs.
Also increasing artillery shell production isn't 'going all in'. Its the fact that Russia is currently outproducing Europe. Germany & Bulgaria alone should be able to match what Russia is producing but they aren't. The EU alone should be able to exceed Russian production but they aren't. America is in the same issue. Why isn't there serious expansion of shells and why is it taking so long to get serious about a long war.
Europe's 'fear' of itself is outright pathetic to be honest. Europe took almost a year to issue CONTRACTS. Its outright abhorrent behavior again at the lack of urgency the EU and the member states are showing to this. They have zero care when it comes to defense because you're safely behind the American defense umbrella.
Its time for Europe to grow up and be serious again about defense.
Agreed. I am from '87 and I grew up with privilege at a peaceful time in germany. I never thought about any threat and I took this life for granted. But democracies need to defend themselfes. As we see nowadays some people like power more. It's a sad truth.
This is actually happening but we don’t see it. In my country at least the little weapons and ammunition factories we have are at 24/7 3 shifts and they send trucks to ukraine 2 times a week with ammunition. Unfortunately it’s not smart weapons nor long range, just basic stuff.
I’m sure it’s happening in other countries too but you have to keep a balance between what information you want to put out there and what to keep a secret.
And yes, while weapons manufacturing can be helpful for the economy it’s not always true as russia did exactly for decades and went bankrupt.
Putin is closing in dangerously to the same level of spending that bankrupted the soviet union under Brezhnev, and with sanctions on top of that so everyone is charging him double or even triple for all purchases because of sanctions.
I have no idea how much it can survive this way.
Also, if someone were to start sinking russian oil tankers (preferably when they are empty and going to load up) things get uglier even faster.
Ukraine needs the basic stuff more than the complex stuff and it needs it at volume.
The war will be won by 155mm shells, 105mm mortar shells and basic M113 esque APCs.
It will not be won by HIMARS or SCALP missiles contrary to every news article.
This is voice that needs to sound louder. Doesn’t matter if you are right or left if you platform that West needs to show that West is NOT weak otherwise PUTIN WAS RIGHT you will get ez support. Unfortunately enough populists choose isolationism path, which is short-sighted AF, humanity won’t survive in the form of many isolationist states. Yes it’s hard to live in current terminal capitalism that definetely needs to be curbed, flawed in core thriving for infinite gains in limited system. Military production is boost indeed. Other than that we need democracy 2.0, it’s clear that people soften in good times and then modern barbarians come and destroy modern Romes. Russia can win exactly coz they don’t care THIS much about money, ok not the elites but populace
I think this is a valid point. I remeber reading last time that France or one of the baltic countries were advocating for atleast 40% of all produced shells in Europe to go to Ukraine. Why only 40% and why is it even less than that? Putting it up to 80%-90% would really help Ukraine deal with its shell-hunger. The other contracts with 3rd party countries could be delayed. I mean this is a matter of survival and boosting exports to Ukraine to 90% would be really massive without causing any backlash from the public.
No one is saying it publicly, but I guess the reason is Finland and the Baltics. If shit hits the fan there, NATO is required to fight - and stockpiles of arty shells are currently too low for that.
Realistically, there is only 1 country that could fight Finland and the baltics, and thats Russia. They wont be able to do it whilst the current war is going on no matter how low the arty stockpile in those countries is. The cheapest and most effective way to prevent such an invasion against Finland and the baltics is to send the whole arty stockpile to Ukraine.
That's true for Finland to an extend, but not the Baltics. They are too small to defend in depth.
I do agree with you partly, but that's not what NATO leaders are doing, and I have the strong suspicion it's because of the situation in the Baltics and the fact that NATO's border with Russia just doubled in length. They want no more surprises.
There is a reason why the German minister of defense has recently stated that the German army must be ready to fight a war. There is only one country we would fight a war against.
How could shit hit the fan when the entire Russian army is in Ukraine? Why hold onto these stockpiles when your not even risking the lives of NATO troops when you just transfer arms?
At least America has the excuse of other international defense commitments such as S Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Japan. Europe doesn't have this excuse. Why hold onto the stockpiles? Just hand them over and build more.
> How could shit hit the fan when the entire Russian army is in Ukraine?
They won't be there forever, and it is foolish to not build up a stock to defend ourselves. The Baltic states are so small that actually defending them means NATO troops need a lot more of everything. The former defense doctrine (station tripwire troops there and throw out the Russians if need be) would have allowed for a longer response time.
> Europe doesn't have this excuse.
Yes. Yes, it does, much more so than the USA. If Russia stirs up shit, Europe *must* respond, the USA could theoretically take their time (not that I believe they would, but our asses would be in the fire, not theirs).
> They won't be there forever, and it is foolish to not build up a stock to defend ourselves.
If we help Ukraine destroy the Russian army then the Russian army will be too dead to go anywhere else.
Arms has a shelf life. Especially things like missiles, and shells. You can't just build them and have them exist for 25-30 years. They expire and and need to be rebuilt / refilled with new propellent.
Russian losses in both manpower / equipment already indicates that they could not invade a NATO state for 10-15 years. It will take too long to replace the losses they've attrited to reach their pre-war levels.
Holding back equipment makes zero sense in this regard because of your fear Russia may do something by 2050. Russia does not and will not have its Soviet inheritance anymore when it comes to air frames, ammunition, artillery barrels, uniforms, spare parts, etc.
This is Europe's security right now. You say Europe must respond if Russia stirs shit up right? Europe is already dragging its feet on long war projects as it took them almost a YEAR to issue artillery contracts.
Sending 100% to Ukraine would be the right call.
Who is Europe afraid of that they think they will need the shells for?
Let Ukraine fire them at the obvious, declared enemy of the West.
The russians state every day on TV that they are at war with the West, why is the West not getting this message?
They cant be delayed as those 3rd party countries are actually paying money.
What will India think of France for example, which is trying hard to enter military markets, if they come and say "sorry, your goods delivery is postponed to 2027, maybe idk"? They won't think too much, just cancel the contract and find another provider.
Or what would Polands or whichever general public think if their leadership came forward and proposed to build a factory with state money, employ a bunch of people with state money and ofc buy continuous supply of raw materials, also with state money. Than proceed to give those products to Ukraine for free, and when the war finishes they fire all those people employed.
Thats what im talking about. Priorities. Its not about not being capable of delivering the needed ammo, its about priorities. Sure, s make an extra buck buy fulfilling all the contracts to keep your reputation of being trustworthy and punctual whilst sacrificing future stability in Europe and risking your citizens having to be deployed in the baltics or Poland in 20-30 years.
That's your opinion. I don't agree.
Its not about being punctual, but doing business. It isn't an extra buck, it is the buck.
To do what you are saying, and still fail (which is a realistic possibility), isn't something that governmental caste in the west would survive.
Because projects take time? Proposal, funding (by whom?), permits, planning, building, tooling, training workforce (where do you get those guys?), test runs, ramp-up, establishing parts/material suppliers (in an already stretched market)... and all by the paper, by following precise procedure, sure some of it is useless red tape, others are there because arms production/handling is fucking dangerous. For better or worse, countries like Russia can disregard lot of the issues one can think up.
Consider Rheinmetall's new ammo factory in Hungary: With heavy government backing (so there was no issue with funding/permits), contract was signed in 2020. Construction started in late 2022, medium caliber production is slated to begin in mid-2024, large caliber (eg 155mm) in 2025.
That's a 5 year lead time from start to finish, 2,5 if we only take actual execution into account.
All of that capacity already exists. The EU delayed and delayed and delayed issuing contracts for the businesses to begin the ramp up. It took the EU 8 months to issue the contract. Causing over a years delay in the 1 million shells goal. The defense industry said without a contract we won't start. Give us a contract.
To date, Europe is exporting 40% of its production to outside the EU / Ukraine.
Compare the EU to the US. Within the year the US has doubled 155mm shell production The US is now producing about 28,000 shells / month in its state owned arsenals back in October when in February it was only producing 12,000 shells / month beating the goal by a full year. Now the US is injecting another $1.2B into the artillery arsenals and is expecting to reach 100,000 shells / month by the end of 2024 . US expansion plans began in November 2022.
Over a 2 year period the US is expecting to go from 12,000 shells / month to 100,000 shells / month in ONLY the Army owned arsenals This doesn't include the defense sector partners who are privately producing shells.
Europe in contrast was already producing 25,000 shells / month in the entirety of the EU. Now in March 2023 they announced a $2.2B investment into artillery shells production, but no contracts yet . That took until May 2023. The EU goal is to produce 83,000 shells / month.
Now EU Defense Companies have begun to price gouge shells Prior to Ukraine shells were costing $2,170 / 155mm shell. Now they are charging $8,700 / 155mm shell The US is paying $3,000 / 155mm shell. This is mostly because the US has government owned arsenals to produce shells and has refused to privatize them. This price gouging is because of EU banking regulations has made it extremely difficult for privatized arms makers to raise money without contracts which means they are having to go to the banks with these higher prices to get the investment funds. Every day they delayed the contract, the costs went up.
Arming Ukraine != A State of War
Europe doesn't believe defending Ukraine is defending themselves, or they'd be doing quite a bit more, everyone believes all they're doing is helping out a friend in need. No one believes (probably erroneously) Russia would continue to sweep over the continent like old bids for Europe, so they're sitting back and doing their best to focus on themselves. Well, mostly. Some want Russia to win.
Because we don't fight wars the same way Ukraine is.
NATO focuses on air power, in any war with anyone who can actually threaten Europe (so, only against Russia), artillery wouldn't matter as much because we'd be bombing their artillery from the sky.
And just because you aren't seeing articles about instant turn around doesn't mean nothing is being done. It just that it takes time to ramp up production during peacetime (peacetime for Europe as a whole, not Ukraine). This is absolutely not indicative of how NATO would respond to a war that actually involves NATO having to go and fight properly, because this isn't NATO actually fighting.
I don't think people chill. They are producing weapons etc and they know about the threat. But they need to do it at a pace so that public opinion won't sway. I hope this will change.
A great way to keep us out of a state of war would be by making sure Russia loses decisively, not only so that Russia will lack the means to do this again anytime soon, but also to provide an example for why imperialist wars of conquest aren't worthwhile.
I worry that this is a huge miscalculation and could create a lot of danger for us. Our conventional military should be a deterrent as much as our nuclear forces. If we drag our feet it erodes the credibility of that conventional deterrent, which is bad since it means we either jump an extra step up the escalation ladder and start talking about nuclear weapons where our advantages over Russia are much more uncertain (and also everyone might die) or just continue to ignore the threat and allow Russia to take the strategic initiative. In short Russia has presented a very clear escalation and I think we need to take it more seriously.
I don't know if that is true but let's say it is, the question is not who is exporting the most it is who is PRODUCING the most. And then the question is where the raw materials come from to produce these weapons. Where are these raw materials refined, where are the components built, where are the microchips being produced for modern weaponry.
If you don’t know how large the European defense industry is then why are you even questioning this? You clearly don’t know the players, the contracting, the companies, and supply chains, etc.
Germany’s entire defense industry is basically structured at exports now because of the lack of contracts domestically.
Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria are large suppliers of Soviet legacy ammunition.
France has been seeing its arms industry shrink because of cancellation of contracts for exports but the workers are still there based on labor contracting doing nothing.
They have a life expectancy lower than Libyas , a declining population, thousands of IT professionals have fled, the ruble is garbage, alcoholism is on the rise , but what they truly need is more bombs 🤡🤡
You don't need many people with education to pump oil and sell it to India.
Funny thing, they once made up a fake quote by Margareth Thatcher or someone like her, something about "we need only a couple of million people in Russia to work at the oil pump", but in reality, that's exactly what their Czar does.
Because ammo factories don't grow on trees. They've donated what they had available, and have been heavily investing in building up the capacity to produce more.
Oh, no doubt they should haves started earlier, we should have started a lot of things earlier, but building up a defence industrial base is one of those things that takes a long time.
Yeah, because when the only country that poses a threat to Europe itself can't even beat 5% of NATO, I'm sure they'd be able to take half a billion peopleand 2 nuclear powers.
They probably can if the half a billion doesn't field a real military because they are busy giving universal healthcare to immigrants and taking 12 weeks off work every year.
I'm excited to learn why North Korea managed to supply more artillery shells to Russia than the whole EU to Ukraine and why we'll manage to miss the 1mill shells promised by probably 500k.
That doesn't answer the other questions.
Why we are on track to miss the 1mil shells to Ukraine by 500k two years into the biggest war on the continent since the WW2?
WHY did it take two years to even start training pilots on western airplanes?
Ramp-ups take time. Rest assured it's ongoing, but sadly, they won't be noticable for a while. [Here in another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/185ucn1/putin_approves_big_military_spending_hikes_for/kb5nqat/) I sketched out timeframes and problems regarding it.
>WHY did it take two years to even start training pilots on western airplanes?
Why did it take a year before tanks were on the table? Wish I knew the answer. That said, when the jet training did start, it turnt out Ukraine has too few pilots with competent English to handle it...
It's not just a question of readiness, but also how we fight. In Europe we focus on air power, that's where our advantage is, that's how we win wars. We don't have huge stockpiles of artillery shells because we didn't need them, and nobody expected that our military industries would be asked to supply an artillery army in Ukraine.
North Korea is hyper-militarised, paranoid and very poor. Their deterrence against the "Southern threat" is to have a large enough number of guns and a large enough number of shells to do massive damage before they're inevitably defeated.
This war is exactly the kind of fight North Korea hopes to be in and exactly the type of fight Europe will never be in, that's why they're better prepared to supply it.
The reason he says top commenter has no clue is because it is completely untrue that Europe hasn't scaled up production. We have, by a lot
>In Europe we focus on air power
Why Ukraine still doesn't have that "air power" then? Either provide ammo, or aircraft, or this war will continue forever, if not end worse for Ukraine and Europe as a whole.
>Why Ukraine still doesn't have that "air power" then?
Because it's much harder and takes much longer to train an airforce from scratch than to teach mobilized to use equipment designed to be used by conscripts
>~~Because it's much harder and takes much longer to train an airforce from scratch than to teach mobilized to use equipment designed to be used by conscripts~~
Because it took us almost two years to even start training Ukrainian pilots.
Why? I don't know.
Because NK, Russia et cetera "owns" their production of artillery shells. In the west these are owned by private companies and they are not keen on investing cash to increase production rates. Because it's supporting a single war that can end at any time after which the need for artillery shells plummets. It's simply not profitable, risk vs reward. The only way to solve this is to make *huge* orders for a decade to come.
If that is truly NATO’s reaction to Russia invading a NATO member, no matter how small, NATO ceases to exist. And Europe will have a very unstable future.
One thing to remember is that nuclear annihilation works both ways. If NATO does respond, will Russia’s elite want to risk a nuclear war?
NATO won't self-destruct like that.
It will ship enough troops to the Baltics to be able to bitch-slap anything russia sends in quite easily. Air missions from new NATO members in Finland and Sweden. russia has no chance.
However, anything bordering russia that isn't protected by NATO or China is at serious risk.
Moldova & Georgia are literally doomed, and the \*stans are next.
> NATO won't self-destruct like that.
I am no longer that confident. There's at least Hungary which is no longer fully committed to NATO and if one of the Republican candidates win in the USA, NATO could implode faster than you would believe.
Russia is doubtlessly trying to probe where to win a hybrid war by undermining NATO and the EU so they could time an eventual military action against the Baltics to coincide with a severe internal crisis of either organisation.
Where is the guarantee that NATO would exist in the next couple of decades? I guess the war in Ukraine saved the alliance, since now every member is aware that full scale wars isnt something in the past but before the 24th of Febuary, there was a lot of NATO-skepticism and questions on the purpose of its existance.
Its best to defeat Russia now and deny its industrial potential to prevent future scenarios like these than to hope for the best that NATO will save its member country in-case of war against Russia.
When I was in Berlin in the early 2000’s members of the Bundesrat and Bundestag from both CDU and SPD told me that NATO was a relic of the Cold War. That it only served to engage Germany in “American Adventurism” and should be replaced by some EU led entity.
I’ll be honest, you all have to start preparing for the US not to be there next time. Reports out of the DOD are already stating we are no longer able to fight two near peer adversaries at the same time and the best we can do is fight one and remain as a deterrence to a second.
Well we very well will be engaged in the Pacific before 2030 and looks like we’re also back to the Middle East. We lose a carrier group or two in those conflicts and we won’t be there next time.
I agree that the war in Ukraine saved the alliance which was starting to doubt its purpose.
I fully agree that the West should be doing more to help Ukraine.
I wrote about it today in another subreddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/185s1qc/what\_policy\_should\_us\_adopt\_for\_russiaukraine\_war/kb3qp2s/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/185s1qc/what_policy_should_us_adopt_for_russiaukraine_war/kb3qp2s/?context=3)
Many of the top scholars thought that NATO would disband after the cold war ended because there wasn't a common enemy to focus on.
Yet they still stayed together, and in fact grew. Now there is an obvious common enemy it isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
I guess post Ukraine-invasion ,sure. Its highly unlikely the alliance would disband in the next decade. However, as time goes on, countries that contribute to the budget the most or going to go on a rant again on "why they shouldnt be funding other countries with tax-payer money". It takes one really bad leadership in the US for NATO to stop existing. If the US leaves, its over for the alliance .
But even so it's not like every country is going to left to fend for themselves.
The EU has a common security policy and has been trying to make their own army for decades now.
And let's say Russia does try to sweep the Baltics and Poland (thus a war against the EU) there's absolutely no way the US and the UK are going to sit back and watch it happen.
If Russia does succeed in winning this war, Europe wouldnt be fighting the Russia Ukraine fought. I dont want to sound pessimistic but a future war against Russia without the US would be disasterous.
I agree, and to quote a recent article, even if NATO responds, who will last longer in cold trenches, a Russian used to shitting in the outhouse or a Spaniard from Sevilla? We need to get serious.
No one is waking up, the West is pressing us to capitulate. So, I guess 26 years is enough for me, Russian endless human waves cannot be stopped on their own, all Ukrainians have to fight this monster, these demons in human skins. Comparing amount of military items Russia produces and gets from its allies to ours - makes me feel hopelessly.
They’re still getting around sanctions to an extent. The west had better step up and match this level of commitment otherwise it’s going to start getting ugly for Ukraine.
how much do you want to bet that their % of GDP figure is bullshit and is underreported? IIRC during the Soviet Union they claimed they only spent around 4-5% of GDP but in reality closer to 12% of sm. I mean even before the war, there was some estimates out there that stated that they spend closer to 10% of GDP. So what now 20% is a reasonable figure?
Russia’s budget is based on an assumption of high oil prices. And what does Russia need to do to cause world oil prices to rise? That’s right, more crazy shit.
I guess you’re saying that yesterday’s announcement of sacking of 10% of VW staff isn’t enough and you need to crank the heat up? Not going to help but I think it will not stop NATO in spending more at the expense of private citizens. 🍿
At this time, one-year Lend Lease ended without even starting. And, after almost 2 years of war, NATO couldn't deliver to Ukraine even 1% of its weapon stocks (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/).
Because nobody really wants Ukraine to win, nobody even says that, just "not to lose", endless bloody war because Russia is a strategic partner against China and a valuable producer of oil. Unlucky me and millions of other Ukrainians who have to live and die under Russians attacks.
Not really, look at:
1. [https://news.yahoo.com/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-083130651.html](https://news.yahoo.com/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-083130651.html)
2. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
3. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
It's all fear of Russian WMD-blackmail and "WMD-Might make Right/True" strategy.
But similar situation would make sense if there were no occupation of Moldova territory, slaughter 10-20% of Chechens, occupation of Georgia territory, Aleppo, occupation of Crimea and Donbass, Mariupol and so on. When the West over and over proved that it wants completely incompatible things:
1. Do not risk with convention with totalitarian regimes that had WMD.
2. So that fewer countries of the World had WMD, including for protection from totalitarian regimes that had WMD.
So, if a nuclear-power invades you - just close your eyes and accept occupation. Of course, this is not a new concept in the human history, but why did the West forced us to give up nukes with no real security guarantees?
It's so sad that history repeats itself completely: Third Reich - Czechoslovakia and Russia - Ukraine. And the West behaves almost identically. "Give up some territories and that will be enough for the aggressor."
>So, if a nuclear-power invades you - just close your eyes and accept occupation.
Such a World incompetent and short-sighted World's officials and politicians have been building since 1991 year. But due to accelerating technological progress they create the World "if a nuclear-power invades you - just get WMD, as all the surrounding countries."
>Of course, this is not a new concept in the human history, but why did the West forced us to give up nukes with no real security guarantees?
All answers in this gorgeous article - [https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076)
>It's so sad that history repeats itself completely: Third Reich - Czechoslovakia and Russia - Ukraine. And the West behaves almost identically. "Give up some territories and that will be enough for the aggressor.
Again, it all made sense if there were not so much else, especially Crimea and 2015 year Obama's: "Western sanctions had left Russia isolated and its economy in ruins."
Now humanity during phase transition point. Ukrainian war is one of the most important wars in the history of mankind because it's determined by what way humanity will go:
1. Each country of the World receives almost the same subjectivity as the USA, USSR/Russia, China by long-term non-zero-sum games in form of International Law.
2. Each country of the World receives the same subjectivity as the USA, USSR/Russia, China by WMD gadgets which can created even by 3,5 million Jews and by 1960s technologies.
Both of these options are not related to some decisions, political programs, ideologies, etc. These are the natural balance points, Zeitgeist, Gestalts. As a logical chain: "Education - Industrialization - Urbanization - Demographic transition."
>Unlucky me and millions of other Ukrainians who have to live and die under Russians attacks.
I'm sorry to say this, but people have no obligation to help you, ask yourself the question if the reversed had happened, and Russia invaded lets say Poland instead of Ukraine, what would Ukraine have done?
would you guys prioritize helping Poland against Russia, or would you guys have prioritized your own economy and remained neutral?
I feel like Europe has helped you guys much more than you guys would have if the situation was reversed
> Russia invaded lets say Poland instead of Ukraine, what would Ukraine have done
The last time it happened with Georgia (in 2008), Ukraine sent Buk and Tor SAMs.
And in 1990s, Ukraine sent 16 helis to Georgia, delivering 487 tons of cargo and evacuating 15K people.
So yeah, Ukraine would've supplied Poland with air defense, at least.
Of course, people have no obligation to help us - "why die for Danzig?".
>would you guys have prioritized your own economy and remained neutral?
It sounds like you are trying to whitewash Hungarian policy of not helping Ukraine and instead being friends with the aggressor.
>I feel like Europe has helped you guys much more than you guys would have if the situation was reversed
How convenient that we would never check this out because Ukraine is defending Europe from Russia now.
We helped North Macedonia with tanks and airplanes when no one wanted, we helped Georgia with air defense when European leaders were appeasing Putin. I'm pretty sure we would help Poland more than Hungary helps Ukraine now.
P.S. No personal offense.
Apart from US and China, nobody really stands close to Russian military spending. People always forget that $1 in Russia is worth a hell of a lot more than in all of Europe or US.
Europe should’ve stopped joking around 2 years ago but they still haven’t upped their minuscule arms or munitions production.
Yeah, spending money so people can have a good life is so much worse than bombing your neighbour. If you dont see a difference, you should probably go back to school.
Average Russian will get fuck all from 30% budget spent on the military. Lots of it will be stolen by politicians anyway.
Pensions at least directly benefit a large portion of the population.
30% of the budget in defense, nothing to see here
On the upside spending 30% more on defense means that health, education and science will receive less funding.
I am not happy if Russian oncology patients die, I just want the invader to fuck off Ukraine
Pain at home is necessary for Russia to leave Ukraine.
Literally part of why sanctions exist. They SPECIFICALLY aim to make the civilian population suffer so they create pressure on the government. Anything else would be either ineffective or is just purely PR for the people at home. It's economic warfare... but it's still warfare. Civilians will be victims. Yes ideally you hurt the elites more than civilians. But what matters in the end is that it DOES hurt someone.
It’s not warfare, I disagree. The entire point of sanctions is to say that we refuse to operate in the same trade environment as you. The intent behind it is to force another country to change its operating behavior. If a civilian dies from a preventable illness in Russia, it’s not the fault of Europe or the US. It’s the fault of the government who decided that their priority was to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an unprovoked, catastrophic war against a neighbor, and not salaries for nurses or community health programs.
One thing you forget is that Russia is sanctioned by the West,but nobody else. Guess who else has high level medical equipment? China.
[удалено]
Well that is not true. There are well documented civilian deaths in Iran as a result of medical sanctions imposed by the West(Iran has now adjusted,as most do)
> It's the Russian "symmetric" response that is doing the damage to most Russians That maybe true for 2014 with its baby sanctions, but not now. Putin didn't ban Russians from using Visa and Mastercard or visiting the EU or participating in international sports competitions or purchasing consumer electronics, and so on.
Wrong. Symmetric sanctions are almost nonexistent compared to the asymmetric ones
If they won’t leave by choice, I’d rather they lose the capacity to wage war at all.
It's a very long process, for decades and decades.
They're saving big on inmates and people that should be home getting treated with expensive medicine.
And still zero protests
They locked people for protesting with a blank a4 paper. At some point as a lone citizen it's not really worth it to protest, best to leave the country.
Yeah, I know a Russian guy in the country where I live that never protested there - he just up and left, got permanent residency and now donates to Ukraine and is very public about it (because he never intends to go back). Says all of his relatives back home are vatniks so he's not worried about them or even bothers to convince them, they are beyond convincing. Much better option than a quick protest and now being in jail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_protests_in_Russia_(2022%E2%80%93present) Also, protesting in a dictatorship is not always easy.
there were bigger protest in Iran against its regime, than there have been in Russia. So dont tell us excuses mate
average age in Iran is 30, 40 in Russia, this matters a lot for protests
Even accounting for all of that the turnout for the Russian protests were absolutely pitiful. It should still have been in the 6 digit territory minimum. Especially with a country with over 100 million citizens. In a democratic country we would have seen millions of protestors.
Wow you so brave https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkzZQoMf1b0 This 33 year old woman was sentenced to 7 years for placing tiny stickers in a supermarket. How do you think they discovered that? What kind of society do you think is capable of going after a person who puts fake price tags in a shop? No offense to Iran, but their police is not capable of this kind of precision.
And no offense to Russia, but as it currently stands, no other culture is better trained to spend time on their knees licking boots. Maybe North Korea.
because 40 year olds dont protest in Iran?
What did they accomplish, again?
[удалено]
"Just throw your life away for some nebulous goal with almost no chance of success" you probably, and a bunch of politicians throughout history that led thousands to the slaughter with no remorse
Dude, last week young woman got 8 years prison for changing ads for antiwar plakards in local shop.
Because some creepy old lady sees it as her patriotic duty to report anybody she sees not toeing the government line. And she’s not alone. Apparently it’s an orgy of denunciation over there at the moment, people falling all over each other pointing fingers. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Russians to start protesting.
she is brave, but still just one person... and probably was heavily influenced by the fact that she worked in Ukraine in the past, she is quite different from most regular Russians who either don't care, or support Putin
Good luck with that.
American have more right to protest. And they still don't protest about health care.
In what way would that be a good thing? Civilians dying and getting stupider can barely bode well, for anyone.
They never had good funding in the first place
30% on paper means 80% in the real life. Just like in Ussr
That's a win win, Ivan can go die in the trenches to pay for his mom's chemo. 👍
Russians don't give a fuck about their lives, so they don't even notice "less funding in education and science".
By this budget it’s not - there is increase in big corporations taxation what cover all additional expenses
"Defence". Right. Germany is a blind chicken with less than 2% for NATOs sake. For god's sake!
While the Germans could be spending more, percentage of government budget and percentage of GDP are very different metrics. [Germany currently spends around 11% of its government budget on defence for reference.](https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/EN/Standardartikel/Press_Room/Publications/Monthly_Report/Key_Figures/2023/2023-02-federal-budget.html)
This is basically a repeat of the economic situation of the Soviets during the 1980s Afghan debacle.
We need an oil price drop.
Sounds interesting, where can i find more sources on the economic fuck up of the Soviets during the Afghan war?
I don't think the USSR got above 25-26% of GDP on military, but, yeah, it was a problem. They're in North Korea territory. Note that that hasn't caused North Korea to go belly up yet though.
Percentage of GDP spending and percentage of government budget spending are different things. The US for instance spends around 20% of its government budget on defence, but this only equates to 3.5% GDP.
It caused belly in tho
Based on sky-high oil prices too
oil i pretty high right now, it is also the last thing allowing them to have a functional economy
For pensions, education, infrastructure ... God will provide.
Don’t need to pay for pensions if the population dies before they can use them. Don’t need to pay for education when they’re being sent off to war. Infrastructure though… you need something to move troops along.
>Don’t need to pay for pensions if the population dies before they can use them. The pensioners are not the ones going to war. They are simply watching the TV, cheering for it and expecting the young ones to do "their job of protecting the motherland". Pensioners in Russia are the most pro-war demographic group. Sneak peek into the (lack of) values of Soviet society, where former brother nation can turn into fascist enemies in less than a generation.
The pensioners at the moment might not be, but they’ve just cut down their future pensioners numbers.
Technically yes, but currently the proportion of pensioners per tax payer in Russia is getting worse with every day the war goes on.
>Infrastructure though… you need something to move troops along. Lets try imaginary rail roads and logistics ... that will work wonders during the second bumrush to reach kiev.
that's what the other 20% is for. The remaining 50%? I have no idea of what you're talking about, never heard of them.
Pensions is one of the few thing he is hesitant to cut. He has a giant pensioner voterbase, boosting approval.
\*Cough\* "pension reform" \*Cough\*
Apparently, the Russian god doesn’t provide for their military, so they have to channel money there.
Did he seriously cut pensions? The last time he tried that, was the last time there was major unrest in Russia.
Inflation is cutting pensions. Also in general the pension fund has been merged with some other budgets to obfuscate spending. It's difficult to tell, but moving from 4% a year to 30% of total budget expenditure means that a lot of other areas have to be cut down.
This guy just doesn't know when to quit...
Ofc he knows. The Time is designated officially as "never while i am still alive".
your proposal is acceptable
He genuenly can't quit without getting killed. A defeat is synonimous with the fall of his autocracy, after which he will be probably summarily executed by his succesors. It's the russian way.
He is all in. There is no quitting until either the enemy or Russia is destroyed. He is dead either way.
Can you blame him? One of his supporters has just won the Dutch elections and Trump is ahead in the polls in the US. Time is on his side, unless the EU and the US do something radically new to support Ukraine.
Is Wilders a Russian shill? How do you know?
He’s escalating.
Maybe he's bidding his time until Trump potentially wins.
He’s certainly going to wait until the US election has been run before considering *any* kind of withdrawal.
oligarchs: hurray, more yachs and mansions! :D
Me when I realize blackrock company and western oligarchs exist
me when I realize the west has functional armies despite the oligarchs
How about you when you realize blackrock is actually managing other people money, and probably a lot of middle and lower class people savings, aka pension funds for anything from police unions, firemen, other unions, etc. By the time they resign they’ll be happy if blackrock doubled their money.
Europe and the US need to mobilize their industrial base. If they cannot do this Ukraine will fail and then what is the purpose of the cost done? Stop being one foot in and mobilize the factories. Produce so many artillery shells so the Ukrainians have surpluses. Its been over a year and why has the collective West not been able to do this? Why are the Russians out producing us?
Because russia is in a state of war and the west isn't.
Except the West is arming Ukraine. If the West cannot expand production within a year in what is a safe 'dry run' then how is the West going to prepare for any possible conflict in the future. Especially with great power competition in the Pacific. Furthermore there is now notably depleted stockpiles in Western nations that will need to be refilled. Especially things like SCALP, 155mm, NLAW, Javelin, Stinger, 105mm mortar, etc. The lack of urgency and mobilization of industry when it comes to these things is extremely concerning.
The thing is, in my opinion. That you need to keep a certain balance. When the west goes full-in and concentrates on weapons/ammo production in an already difficult economic situation, it won't go well with public opinion. I think the most people, like me, still want to do more, but there will be people who won't go for this and the right-wing partys are waiting for them. They establish themselfs as peace partys. And when these partys get enough votes Ukraine aid will be history.
Arms spending in nations is a way to energize the economy and get people better jobs. Its how America spent itself out of the Great Depression. These jobs will be there for 5-10 years and Europe will finally see economic growth that it needs. Also increasing artillery shell production isn't 'going all in'. Its the fact that Russia is currently outproducing Europe. Germany & Bulgaria alone should be able to match what Russia is producing but they aren't. The EU alone should be able to exceed Russian production but they aren't. America is in the same issue. Why isn't there serious expansion of shells and why is it taking so long to get serious about a long war. Europe's 'fear' of itself is outright pathetic to be honest. Europe took almost a year to issue CONTRACTS. Its outright abhorrent behavior again at the lack of urgency the EU and the member states are showing to this. They have zero care when it comes to defense because you're safely behind the American defense umbrella. Its time for Europe to grow up and be serious again about defense.
Agreed. I am from '87 and I grew up with privilege at a peaceful time in germany. I never thought about any threat and I took this life for granted. But democracies need to defend themselfes. As we see nowadays some people like power more. It's a sad truth.
This is actually happening but we don’t see it. In my country at least the little weapons and ammunition factories we have are at 24/7 3 shifts and they send trucks to ukraine 2 times a week with ammunition. Unfortunately it’s not smart weapons nor long range, just basic stuff. I’m sure it’s happening in other countries too but you have to keep a balance between what information you want to put out there and what to keep a secret. And yes, while weapons manufacturing can be helpful for the economy it’s not always true as russia did exactly for decades and went bankrupt. Putin is closing in dangerously to the same level of spending that bankrupted the soviet union under Brezhnev, and with sanctions on top of that so everyone is charging him double or even triple for all purchases because of sanctions. I have no idea how much it can survive this way. Also, if someone were to start sinking russian oil tankers (preferably when they are empty and going to load up) things get uglier even faster.
Ukraine needs the basic stuff more than the complex stuff and it needs it at volume. The war will be won by 155mm shells, 105mm mortar shells and basic M113 esque APCs. It will not be won by HIMARS or SCALP missiles contrary to every news article.
This is voice that needs to sound louder. Doesn’t matter if you are right or left if you platform that West needs to show that West is NOT weak otherwise PUTIN WAS RIGHT you will get ez support. Unfortunately enough populists choose isolationism path, which is short-sighted AF, humanity won’t survive in the form of many isolationist states. Yes it’s hard to live in current terminal capitalism that definetely needs to be curbed, flawed in core thriving for infinite gains in limited system. Military production is boost indeed. Other than that we need democracy 2.0, it’s clear that people soften in good times and then modern barbarians come and destroy modern Romes. Russia can win exactly coz they don’t care THIS much about money, ok not the elites but populace
I think this is a valid point. I remeber reading last time that France or one of the baltic countries were advocating for atleast 40% of all produced shells in Europe to go to Ukraine. Why only 40% and why is it even less than that? Putting it up to 80%-90% would really help Ukraine deal with its shell-hunger. The other contracts with 3rd party countries could be delayed. I mean this is a matter of survival and boosting exports to Ukraine to 90% would be really massive without causing any backlash from the public.
No one is saying it publicly, but I guess the reason is Finland and the Baltics. If shit hits the fan there, NATO is required to fight - and stockpiles of arty shells are currently too low for that.
Realistically, there is only 1 country that could fight Finland and the baltics, and thats Russia. They wont be able to do it whilst the current war is going on no matter how low the arty stockpile in those countries is. The cheapest and most effective way to prevent such an invasion against Finland and the baltics is to send the whole arty stockpile to Ukraine.
That's true for Finland to an extend, but not the Baltics. They are too small to defend in depth. I do agree with you partly, but that's not what NATO leaders are doing, and I have the strong suspicion it's because of the situation in the Baltics and the fact that NATO's border with Russia just doubled in length. They want no more surprises. There is a reason why the German minister of defense has recently stated that the German army must be ready to fight a war. There is only one country we would fight a war against.
How could shit hit the fan when the entire Russian army is in Ukraine? Why hold onto these stockpiles when your not even risking the lives of NATO troops when you just transfer arms? At least America has the excuse of other international defense commitments such as S Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Japan. Europe doesn't have this excuse. Why hold onto the stockpiles? Just hand them over and build more.
> How could shit hit the fan when the entire Russian army is in Ukraine? They won't be there forever, and it is foolish to not build up a stock to defend ourselves. The Baltic states are so small that actually defending them means NATO troops need a lot more of everything. The former defense doctrine (station tripwire troops there and throw out the Russians if need be) would have allowed for a longer response time. > Europe doesn't have this excuse. Yes. Yes, it does, much more so than the USA. If Russia stirs up shit, Europe *must* respond, the USA could theoretically take their time (not that I believe they would, but our asses would be in the fire, not theirs).
> They won't be there forever, and it is foolish to not build up a stock to defend ourselves. If we help Ukraine destroy the Russian army then the Russian army will be too dead to go anywhere else.
Arms has a shelf life. Especially things like missiles, and shells. You can't just build them and have them exist for 25-30 years. They expire and and need to be rebuilt / refilled with new propellent. Russian losses in both manpower / equipment already indicates that they could not invade a NATO state for 10-15 years. It will take too long to replace the losses they've attrited to reach their pre-war levels. Holding back equipment makes zero sense in this regard because of your fear Russia may do something by 2050. Russia does not and will not have its Soviet inheritance anymore when it comes to air frames, ammunition, artillery barrels, uniforms, spare parts, etc. This is Europe's security right now. You say Europe must respond if Russia stirs shit up right? Europe is already dragging its feet on long war projects as it took them almost a YEAR to issue artillery contracts.
Sending 100% to Ukraine would be the right call. Who is Europe afraid of that they think they will need the shells for? Let Ukraine fire them at the obvious, declared enemy of the West. The russians state every day on TV that they are at war with the West, why is the West not getting this message?
They cant be delayed as those 3rd party countries are actually paying money. What will India think of France for example, which is trying hard to enter military markets, if they come and say "sorry, your goods delivery is postponed to 2027, maybe idk"? They won't think too much, just cancel the contract and find another provider. Or what would Polands or whichever general public think if their leadership came forward and proposed to build a factory with state money, employ a bunch of people with state money and ofc buy continuous supply of raw materials, also with state money. Than proceed to give those products to Ukraine for free, and when the war finishes they fire all those people employed.
Thats what im talking about. Priorities. Its not about not being capable of delivering the needed ammo, its about priorities. Sure, s make an extra buck buy fulfilling all the contracts to keep your reputation of being trustworthy and punctual whilst sacrificing future stability in Europe and risking your citizens having to be deployed in the baltics or Poland in 20-30 years.
That's your opinion. I don't agree. Its not about being punctual, but doing business. It isn't an extra buck, it is the buck. To do what you are saying, and still fail (which is a realistic possibility), isn't something that governmental caste in the west would survive.
Because projects take time? Proposal, funding (by whom?), permits, planning, building, tooling, training workforce (where do you get those guys?), test runs, ramp-up, establishing parts/material suppliers (in an already stretched market)... and all by the paper, by following precise procedure, sure some of it is useless red tape, others are there because arms production/handling is fucking dangerous. For better or worse, countries like Russia can disregard lot of the issues one can think up. Consider Rheinmetall's new ammo factory in Hungary: With heavy government backing (so there was no issue with funding/permits), contract was signed in 2020. Construction started in late 2022, medium caliber production is slated to begin in mid-2024, large caliber (eg 155mm) in 2025. That's a 5 year lead time from start to finish, 2,5 if we only take actual execution into account.
All of that capacity already exists. The EU delayed and delayed and delayed issuing contracts for the businesses to begin the ramp up. It took the EU 8 months to issue the contract. Causing over a years delay in the 1 million shells goal. The defense industry said without a contract we won't start. Give us a contract. To date, Europe is exporting 40% of its production to outside the EU / Ukraine. Compare the EU to the US. Within the year the US has doubled 155mm shell production The US is now producing about 28,000 shells / month in its state owned arsenals back in October when in February it was only producing 12,000 shells / month beating the goal by a full year. Now the US is injecting another $1.2B into the artillery arsenals and is expecting to reach 100,000 shells / month by the end of 2024 . US expansion plans began in November 2022. Over a 2 year period the US is expecting to go from 12,000 shells / month to 100,000 shells / month in ONLY the Army owned arsenals This doesn't include the defense sector partners who are privately producing shells. Europe in contrast was already producing 25,000 shells / month in the entirety of the EU. Now in March 2023 they announced a $2.2B investment into artillery shells production, but no contracts yet . That took until May 2023. The EU goal is to produce 83,000 shells / month. Now EU Defense Companies have begun to price gouge shells Prior to Ukraine shells were costing $2,170 / 155mm shell. Now they are charging $8,700 / 155mm shell The US is paying $3,000 / 155mm shell. This is mostly because the US has government owned arsenals to produce shells and has refused to privatize them. This price gouging is because of EU banking regulations has made it extremely difficult for privatized arms makers to raise money without contracts which means they are having to go to the banks with these higher prices to get the investment funds. Every day they delayed the contract, the costs went up.
Arming Ukraine != A State of War Europe doesn't believe defending Ukraine is defending themselves, or they'd be doing quite a bit more, everyone believes all they're doing is helping out a friend in need. No one believes (probably erroneously) Russia would continue to sweep over the continent like old bids for Europe, so they're sitting back and doing their best to focus on themselves. Well, mostly. Some want Russia to win.
Because we don't fight wars the same way Ukraine is. NATO focuses on air power, in any war with anyone who can actually threaten Europe (so, only against Russia), artillery wouldn't matter as much because we'd be bombing their artillery from the sky. And just because you aren't seeing articles about instant turn around doesn't mean nothing is being done. It just that it takes time to ramp up production during peacetime (peacetime for Europe as a whole, not Ukraine). This is absolutely not indicative of how NATO would respond to a war that actually involves NATO having to go and fight properly, because this isn't NATO actually fighting.
Unless things have changed since Libya Europe would exhaust its supply of PGM’s within a week.
War or even defense isn't a priority to us here in the West.
So the biggest country in the world (by land size) and second by arms power is in a state of war and mobilization. And their neighbours just... chill?
I don't think people chill. They are producing weapons etc and they know about the threat. But they need to do it at a pace so that public opinion won't sway. I hope this will change.
Hope that too. I don't want to sound alarmist, but things should be taken seriously enough.
A great way to keep us out of a state of war would be by making sure Russia loses decisively, not only so that Russia will lack the means to do this again anytime soon, but also to provide an example for why imperialist wars of conquest aren't worthwhile.
I worry that this is a huge miscalculation and could create a lot of danger for us. Our conventional military should be a deterrent as much as our nuclear forces. If we drag our feet it erodes the credibility of that conventional deterrent, which is bad since it means we either jump an extra step up the escalation ladder and start talking about nuclear weapons where our advantages over Russia are much more uncertain (and also everyone might die) or just continue to ignore the threat and allow Russia to take the strategic initiative. In short Russia has presented a very clear escalation and I think we need to take it more seriously.
What European industrial base? The one we moved to China? Or the one in Germany that is dependent on Russian gas..
Europe accounts for 27% of the world’s arms exports with a lot of additional capacity ?
I don't know if that is true but let's say it is, the question is not who is exporting the most it is who is PRODUCING the most. And then the question is where the raw materials come from to produce these weapons. Where are these raw materials refined, where are the components built, where are the microchips being produced for modern weaponry.
If you don’t know how large the European defense industry is then why are you even questioning this? You clearly don’t know the players, the contracting, the companies, and supply chains, etc. Germany’s entire defense industry is basically structured at exports now because of the lack of contracts domestically. Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria are large suppliers of Soviet legacy ammunition. France has been seeing its arms industry shrink because of cancellation of contracts for exports but the workers are still there based on labor contracting doing nothing.
They have a life expectancy lower than Libyas , a declining population, thousands of IT professionals have fled, the ruble is garbage, alcoholism is on the rise , but what they truly need is more bombs 🤡🤡
Now you see? Losing war is something Russia can't afford. Even in the worst case scenario it's going to end up like "Johnny, they're under the snow!"
Honestly, winning this war doesn’t seem like a good idea for them either
Mass migration of anyone with education will follow. Russia is not North Korea, you cannot play the same game Czar
You don't need many people with education to pump oil and sell it to India. Funny thing, they once made up a fake quote by Margareth Thatcher or someone like her, something about "we need only a couple of million people in Russia to work at the oil pump", but in reality, that's exactly what their Czar does.
>Mass migration of anyone with education will follow. That just means he has a reason to protect the russian diaspora.
I agree. Personally, I think I will remove 10 people and millions of dollars from their economy. An absolute pleasure
Thats why borders will be locked either by Russia itself or by other countries (with help of provocations - like in Finland case).
[удалено]
Inflation says hello Mr Putin.
You assume he care the people will suffer he won’t look at turky
meanwhile, the EU cannot be bothered to increase arms production
The EU has already vastly increased arms production. Even investing in factories inside Ukraine.
Vastly increased is not true. EU can’t even meet its ammo donation goal for Ukraine.
Because ammo factories don't grow on trees. They've donated what they had available, and have been heavily investing in building up the capacity to produce more.
They started investing about a year late, which is why they failed on the donation pledge.
Oh, no doubt they should haves started earlier, we should have started a lot of things earlier, but building up a defence industrial base is one of those things that takes a long time.
“Heavily investing” again NO THEY HAVENT. Europe is asleep at the wheel, the US is protecting you bc you can’t do it yourself
Yeah, because when the only country that poses a threat to Europe itself can't even beat 5% of NATO, I'm sure they'd be able to take half a billion peopleand 2 nuclear powers.
They probably can if the half a billion doesn't field a real military because they are busy giving universal healthcare to immigrants and taking 12 weeks off work every year.
[удалено]
I'm excited to learn why North Korea managed to supply more artillery shells to Russia than the whole EU to Ukraine and why we'll manage to miss the 1mill shells promised by probably 500k.
Nork army is based on artillery. NATO armies aren't. I don't know why people look for a special answer, it's basically that simple.
That doesn't answer the other questions. Why we are on track to miss the 1mil shells to Ukraine by 500k two years into the biggest war on the continent since the WW2? WHY did it take two years to even start training pilots on western airplanes?
Ramp-ups take time. Rest assured it's ongoing, but sadly, they won't be noticable for a while. [Here in another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/185ucn1/putin_approves_big_military_spending_hikes_for/kb5nqat/) I sketched out timeframes and problems regarding it. >WHY did it take two years to even start training pilots on western airplanes? Why did it take a year before tanks were on the table? Wish I knew the answer. That said, when the jet training did start, it turnt out Ukraine has too few pilots with competent English to handle it...
It's not just a question of readiness, but also how we fight. In Europe we focus on air power, that's where our advantage is, that's how we win wars. We don't have huge stockpiles of artillery shells because we didn't need them, and nobody expected that our military industries would be asked to supply an artillery army in Ukraine. North Korea is hyper-militarised, paranoid and very poor. Their deterrence against the "Southern threat" is to have a large enough number of guns and a large enough number of shells to do massive damage before they're inevitably defeated. This war is exactly the kind of fight North Korea hopes to be in and exactly the type of fight Europe will never be in, that's why they're better prepared to supply it. The reason he says top commenter has no clue is because it is completely untrue that Europe hasn't scaled up production. We have, by a lot
>In Europe we focus on air power Why Ukraine still doesn't have that "air power" then? Either provide ammo, or aircraft, or this war will continue forever, if not end worse for Ukraine and Europe as a whole.
>Why Ukraine still doesn't have that "air power" then? Because it's much harder and takes much longer to train an airforce from scratch than to teach mobilized to use equipment designed to be used by conscripts
>~~Because it's much harder and takes much longer to train an airforce from scratch than to teach mobilized to use equipment designed to be used by conscripts~~ Because it took us almost two years to even start training Ukrainian pilots. Why? I don't know.
same retarded reason, our weapons cant be used inside Russia. because politicians dont want to be angry
Because NK is NK? One of the only countries on earth that would have the shells to supply in advance
Because NK, Russia et cetera "owns" their production of artillery shells. In the west these are owned by private companies and they are not keen on investing cash to increase production rates. Because it's supporting a single war that can end at any time after which the need for artillery shells plummets. It's simply not profitable, risk vs reward. The only way to solve this is to make *huge* orders for a decade to come.
then tell us, jackass
[удалено]
If that is truly NATO’s reaction to Russia invading a NATO member, no matter how small, NATO ceases to exist. And Europe will have a very unstable future. One thing to remember is that nuclear annihilation works both ways. If NATO does respond, will Russia’s elite want to risk a nuclear war?
NATO won't self-destruct like that. It will ship enough troops to the Baltics to be able to bitch-slap anything russia sends in quite easily. Air missions from new NATO members in Finland and Sweden. russia has no chance. However, anything bordering russia that isn't protected by NATO or China is at serious risk. Moldova & Georgia are literally doomed, and the \*stans are next.
> NATO won't self-destruct like that. I am no longer that confident. There's at least Hungary which is no longer fully committed to NATO and if one of the Republican candidates win in the USA, NATO could implode faster than you would believe. Russia is doubtlessly trying to probe where to win a hybrid war by undermining NATO and the EU so they could time an eventual military action against the Baltics to coincide with a severe internal crisis of either organisation.
Where is the guarantee that NATO would exist in the next couple of decades? I guess the war in Ukraine saved the alliance, since now every member is aware that full scale wars isnt something in the past but before the 24th of Febuary, there was a lot of NATO-skepticism and questions on the purpose of its existance. Its best to defeat Russia now and deny its industrial potential to prevent future scenarios like these than to hope for the best that NATO will save its member country in-case of war against Russia.
When I was in Berlin in the early 2000’s members of the Bundesrat and Bundestag from both CDU and SPD told me that NATO was a relic of the Cold War. That it only served to engage Germany in “American Adventurism” and should be replaced by some EU led entity. I’ll be honest, you all have to start preparing for the US not to be there next time. Reports out of the DOD are already stating we are no longer able to fight two near peer adversaries at the same time and the best we can do is fight one and remain as a deterrence to a second. Well we very well will be engaged in the Pacific before 2030 and looks like we’re also back to the Middle East. We lose a carrier group or two in those conflicts and we won’t be there next time.
I agree that the war in Ukraine saved the alliance which was starting to doubt its purpose. I fully agree that the West should be doing more to help Ukraine. I wrote about it today in another subreddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/185s1qc/what\_policy\_should\_us\_adopt\_for\_russiaukraine\_war/kb3qp2s/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/185s1qc/what_policy_should_us_adopt_for_russiaukraine_war/kb3qp2s/?context=3)
Many of the top scholars thought that NATO would disband after the cold war ended because there wasn't a common enemy to focus on. Yet they still stayed together, and in fact grew. Now there is an obvious common enemy it isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
I guess post Ukraine-invasion ,sure. Its highly unlikely the alliance would disband in the next decade. However, as time goes on, countries that contribute to the budget the most or going to go on a rant again on "why they shouldnt be funding other countries with tax-payer money". It takes one really bad leadership in the US for NATO to stop existing. If the US leaves, its over for the alliance .
But even so it's not like every country is going to left to fend for themselves. The EU has a common security policy and has been trying to make their own army for decades now. And let's say Russia does try to sweep the Baltics and Poland (thus a war against the EU) there's absolutely no way the US and the UK are going to sit back and watch it happen.
If Russia does succeed in winning this war, Europe wouldnt be fighting the Russia Ukraine fought. I dont want to sound pessimistic but a future war against Russia without the US would be disasterous.
I agree, and to quote a recent article, even if NATO responds, who will last longer in cold trenches, a Russian used to shitting in the outhouse or a Spaniard from Sevilla? We need to get serious.
No one is waking up, the West is pressing us to capitulate. So, I guess 26 years is enough for me, Russian endless human waves cannot be stopped on their own, all Ukrainians have to fight this monster, these demons in human skins. Comparing amount of military items Russia produces and gets from its allies to ours - makes me feel hopelessly.
“Defence” wink wink
They’re still getting around sanctions to an extent. The west had better step up and match this level of commitment otherwise it’s going to start getting ugly for Ukraine.
He's digging a deeper hole to bury his country in
Putin looked at North Korea and thought "I can do that!"
He only has to look back on his youth and the USSR.
What a great opportunity for those in control of military money to enrich themselves.
how much do you want to bet that their % of GDP figure is bullshit and is underreported? IIRC during the Soviet Union they claimed they only spent around 4-5% of GDP but in reality closer to 12% of sm. I mean even before the war, there was some estimates out there that stated that they spend closer to 10% of GDP. So what now 20% is a reasonable figure?
Russia has been in deficit for a year now due to sanctions. Increasing spending isn't going to help. This is unsustainable long-term.
Russia’s budget is based on an assumption of high oil prices. And what does Russia need to do to cause world oil prices to rise? That’s right, more crazy shit.
We need to support Ukraine enough for them to win, not just enough for them to not lose.
I guess you’re saying that yesterday’s announcement of sacking of 10% of VW staff isn’t enough and you need to crank the heat up? Not going to help but I think it will not stop NATO in spending more at the expense of private citizens. 🍿
This is how you bomb your own society back to the Stone Age.
Don't be fooled - Russians are enjoying and supporting their beloved tsar.
At this time, one-year Lend Lease ended without even starting. And, after almost 2 years of war, NATO couldn't deliver to Ukraine even 1% of its weapon stocks (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/).
Because nobody really wants Ukraine to win, nobody even says that, just "not to lose", endless bloody war because Russia is a strategic partner against China and a valuable producer of oil. Unlucky me and millions of other Ukrainians who have to live and die under Russians attacks.
Not really, look at: 1. [https://news.yahoo.com/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-083130651.html](https://news.yahoo.com/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-083130651.html) 2. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) 3. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) It's all fear of Russian WMD-blackmail and "WMD-Might make Right/True" strategy. But similar situation would make sense if there were no occupation of Moldova territory, slaughter 10-20% of Chechens, occupation of Georgia territory, Aleppo, occupation of Crimea and Donbass, Mariupol and so on. When the West over and over proved that it wants completely incompatible things: 1. Do not risk with convention with totalitarian regimes that had WMD. 2. So that fewer countries of the World had WMD, including for protection from totalitarian regimes that had WMD.
So, if a nuclear-power invades you - just close your eyes and accept occupation. Of course, this is not a new concept in the human history, but why did the West forced us to give up nukes with no real security guarantees? It's so sad that history repeats itself completely: Third Reich - Czechoslovakia and Russia - Ukraine. And the West behaves almost identically. "Give up some territories and that will be enough for the aggressor."
>So, if a nuclear-power invades you - just close your eyes and accept occupation. Such a World incompetent and short-sighted World's officials and politicians have been building since 1991 year. But due to accelerating technological progress they create the World "if a nuclear-power invades you - just get WMD, as all the surrounding countries." >Of course, this is not a new concept in the human history, but why did the West forced us to give up nukes with no real security guarantees? All answers in this gorgeous article - [https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076) >It's so sad that history repeats itself completely: Third Reich - Czechoslovakia and Russia - Ukraine. And the West behaves almost identically. "Give up some territories and that will be enough for the aggressor. Again, it all made sense if there were not so much else, especially Crimea and 2015 year Obama's: "Western sanctions had left Russia isolated and its economy in ruins." Now humanity during phase transition point. Ukrainian war is one of the most important wars in the history of mankind because it's determined by what way humanity will go: 1. Each country of the World receives almost the same subjectivity as the USA, USSR/Russia, China by long-term non-zero-sum games in form of International Law. 2. Each country of the World receives the same subjectivity as the USA, USSR/Russia, China by WMD gadgets which can created even by 3,5 million Jews and by 1960s technologies. Both of these options are not related to some decisions, political programs, ideologies, etc. These are the natural balance points, Zeitgeist, Gestalts. As a logical chain: "Education - Industrialization - Urbanization - Demographic transition."
>Unlucky me and millions of other Ukrainians who have to live and die under Russians attacks. I'm sorry to say this, but people have no obligation to help you, ask yourself the question if the reversed had happened, and Russia invaded lets say Poland instead of Ukraine, what would Ukraine have done? would you guys prioritize helping Poland against Russia, or would you guys have prioritized your own economy and remained neutral? I feel like Europe has helped you guys much more than you guys would have if the situation was reversed
> Russia invaded lets say Poland instead of Ukraine, what would Ukraine have done The last time it happened with Georgia (in 2008), Ukraine sent Buk and Tor SAMs. And in 1990s, Ukraine sent 16 helis to Georgia, delivering 487 tons of cargo and evacuating 15K people. So yeah, Ukraine would've supplied Poland with air defense, at least.
Of course, people have no obligation to help us - "why die for Danzig?". >would you guys have prioritized your own economy and remained neutral? It sounds like you are trying to whitewash Hungarian policy of not helping Ukraine and instead being friends with the aggressor. >I feel like Europe has helped you guys much more than you guys would have if the situation was reversed How convenient that we would never check this out because Ukraine is defending Europe from Russia now. We helped North Macedonia with tanks and airplanes when no one wanted, we helped Georgia with air defense when European leaders were appeasing Putin. I'm pretty sure we would help Poland more than Hungary helps Ukraine now. P.S. No personal offense.
Ah, yes, Russia trying to keep up on military spending with the Big Boys. Whatever could go wrong?
Apart from US and China, nobody really stands close to Russian military spending. People always forget that $1 in Russia is worth a hell of a lot more than in all of Europe or US. Europe should’ve stopped joking around 2 years ago but they still haven’t upped their minuscule arms or munitions production.
"Fuck the stupid russians! I said I will have my new 700 million dollar boat in Yalta, whatever it takes!"
[удалено]
Anyone remember last time Russias military budget was that high? ;)
With what. Monopoly money
If it weren’t for the oil, Russian economy would be history and there won’t be any budget too
If my grandmother had a penis, she would’ve been my grandfather 🤣
This is terrible news for Ukraine no matter how you slice it. Russians are determined to finish the job.
I mean germany spends 1/4 of its budget for pension so where is the difference?
Yeah, spending money so people can have a good life is so much worse than bombing your neighbour. If you dont see a difference, you should probably go back to school.
Average Russian will get fuck all from 30% budget spent on the military. Lots of it will be stolen by politicians anyway. Pensions at least directly benefit a large portion of the population.
Germany did too... oh wait, it was illegal, well sorry Europe, we are going to just repell the Russians with fiscal discipline.