this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
2266 points (97.6% liked)
me_irl
5217 readers
1014 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Russia is importing North Koreans to fight. You think if Ukraine gets unlimited weapons the war will last 5 more years? What day of the 3 day invasion are we on now?
The only reason the war has lasted this long is because of the drip feeding of weapons. which was probably a ploy to extend the war and make defense contractors more rich. So yeah, end it quickly by giving Ukraine what it needs to win.
So, what's your "totally realistic"TM solution?
And if youβre wrong and the war can indeed go on for 10 more years are you prepared to deal with the consequences of the destruction of Ukraine, potentially nuclear war and destabilization of Europe?
So you don't actually want to talk solutions. I asked what is your solution? I will answer no more questions until you answer mine.
Theory that more weapons wins is based on Russia being overextended and not outproducing west by itself. Your point on "endless war being perfect US policy" is the right one. Wining a war is always terrible. It means an end to war, and just look at how sad everyone around here is about that prospect. That Ukraine could suffer far more destruction, as retaliation for the special weapons it uses for terrorism inside Russia, is far more likely, as is striking western nations as punishment for "breaking the script of a slow war of attrition with eventual Russian victory".
ATCMS got Ukraine electricity sector destroyed, instead of winning. US can produce 60 per year.
Out producing the west by itself? Bwahaahhahahahaa.
3 times the artillery shells as US+Europe combined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry_of_Russia#%3A%7E%3Atext=As+of+2024%2C+Russia+produces%2Cfrom+the+US+and+Europe.
Your propaganda bubble is not there to help you.
There is what we are currently vs. what we can. We CAN produce a lot more. We have the resource advantage, the population advantage, the money advantage, the heavy industry advantage.
It's not a propaganda bubble. It's basic fucking math
Russia is now 4th in PPP GDP. They have the heavy industry and resources. Most importantly, demonic permawar for weapons and oil profits is happiest to extort the most money from idiots to oligarchs, compared to survival necessity of believe it or not a far less corrupt country.
So yes, like I said. The resource advantage. The money advantage. The population advantage. Etc... keep slicing that pizza into thinner slices though. "Look, Russia has this 1 whole slice! And look, a big part of this other slice!" Meanwhile the west and NATO have 7/8s of the rest of the pizza. Russia's barley holding on with the woefully inadequate weapons we've been sending to Ukraine. But sure, keep telling yourself that Russia stronk.
Weapons don't win wars, people do, and Ukraine has a severe troops shortage right now that will only get worse as the war goes on. You can give them all the weapons in the world, if there's no one there to fire them, they'll still lose
Guess India just lacked the manpower to kick out the Brits. Same with the Japanese and *checks notes, 4 American ships.
Weapons absolutely matter.
I never said weapons don't matter, I said people do matter, and if the war goes on long enough then ukraine won't have any to fight the war.
The weapon difference between colonial India and Britain is nowhere near that between Russia and Ukraine. This has become a war of artillery and drones, both sides have them and can produce them at scale. This isn't some colonial era imperial war where one side has machine guns and the other has a couple muskets and swords.
Why don't you look to more modern examples where overwhelming firepower and technological superiority was supposed to win a war, like Vietnam or Afghanistan. Hell look at Korea, China was able to force the Americans to a draw after it's economy was in ruins after a decade of Japanese occupation and civil war while the u.s. had half the worlds production capacity. The Russian economy is leagues better then China was in the early 50s, and the u.s. isnt nearly as dominant.
Modern example. Sure. Desert storm 1991. The Kuwaitis sure didn't have to deal with an insurance after the Iraqis were kicked out.
And that's one thing all your examples have in common. A guerrilla insurgency fighting an invading or occupying force. That's not what will happen in Ukraine.
Give them what they need to win
The Korean war didn't involve an insurgency to a large extent. Or russias last conventional war, which they won through attrition and throwing bodies at the line.
The thing about the gulf war, and the six day war, was they relied on overwhelming aerial superiority and a quick end to the conflict. That strategy only works for so long because eventually the enemy can take out your aircraft and modern planes are hard to build so it takes a while to build up again, so you have to use them sparingly. Even if we gave ukraine f22s the Russians have jets of there own and SAMs to take them down. Both sides have ramped down there air campaigns because both sides have ways to take down the planes which are very expensive. Again this is a war of artillery, drones and armor, both sides have them and no magical million dollar weapons system from Lockheed Martin will change that.
Shock and awe only works for so long, and once it's worn off you can find yourselve in a quagmire and running out of troops.
Didn't Iraq have jets of their own? Didn't Iraq have the latest SAM systems?
I love how you're just making shit up and moving the goalposts
Do you think the Iraqi air force is on the same level as the russian air force? Or Iraqi sam production and stockpiles are anywhere near Russian production and stockpiles?
I'm not moving the goalposts, I stand by my original statement, ukraine is short on man power and you need men to win a drawn out war of attrition.
You still haven't addressed how China was able to push America out of north Korea even though America had the definitive production and technological advantage. They even had unquestioned aerial dominance for a while.
Aerial dominance is great in quick offensive operations, but once a line is entrenched and established it becomes more dangerous and costly to try and fly over that line, that's why, again, the war has become one of artillery.
That is fundementally wrong. Firepower absolutely makes up for numbers disadvantage.
if a hundred Russians, Norks and other Mercenaries and their vehicles get smoked in a battle by a single cluster bomb. Rinse and repeat
These people are delusional, the liberation of Ukraine can only happen if NATO troops land on the battlefield. And we all know that means nuclear war.
It only means Nuclear War if Putin decides he's ready to die.
its not a gaurantee he flips a switch and decides to unleash fire the second NATO starts shooting at him, good chance he scuffles off and cuts his losses, if the fighting is contained to Ukraine and the border, its not a given that he'd condemn himself and his empire to death over the wasteland that is the Donbas