Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Formulka t1_j238tie wrote

Reply to comment by Kakrime in Russia fires 100 missiles from air and sea - Ukraine by RandomForks

Ukraine is getting just enough to slowly push back against the Russians while we in the west can deliver weapons that would win the war in a month today. It's sickening but that's politics, trying to boil Russia like the proverbial frog.

28

jimsmoments89 t1_j23dq1n wrote

Makes me wonder if the long-term objective of the west is to, as you say, deplete Russia and weaken them further. But they trade Ukrainian lives to make this happen, and Ukraine can do little to actually get the volume of military material that can end the war through the battlefield in the shorter term.

The EU also in all likelihood don't want to end up having Ukraine as a militarized neighbour that could be a long-term threat. Because the EU and Ukraine still hasn't formalized their relationship, to the EU I think they still see Ukraine as a Troubled ex soviet satellite with baggage.

Maybe the EU wants to keep up arming their own militaries while supplying Ukraine with a matching volume of weapons, as balance and deterrent.

Depleting Russia of weapons and soldiers over time might also open up for the Russian federation to fracture in the future, if local powers feel the central government is weak enough

15

Formulka t1_j23ehfl wrote

Depleting Russia might be part of the reason but a bigger one probably are internal politics of various NATO countries. Militarized Ukraine is no threat to EU, where did you get that idea? After the war or after they kick the Russians out they will need substantial forces and high-tech weapons to prevent any further conflicts and loss of life.

13

jimsmoments89 t1_j23gz57 wrote

Any country that is more militarized than their neighbours is a potential to threat to those neighbours unless there is a balance. Nothing against Ukraine per se.

Ukraine only needs to reclaim their territory and join NATO. They don't need to have the 3rd largest military in the world after that

5

axusgrad t1_j23wknk wrote

Because surely Russia won't attack a third time

7

jimsmoments89 t1_j24wtk0 wrote

Right, but with NATO involved in Ukraines defense as a de factor member, what Ukraine has in military material matters not as much.

Safe to say it will still be the largest in Europe.

2

Brave_Principle7522 t1_j25bryv wrote

To join NATO you have to have a percentage of gdp to war funds and all their equipment has to match nato the all nato countries have to agree which means even politics matter as if you angered another country in the past the can deny you so there is a lot to it

1

Krivvan t1_j23gxr9 wrote

There was the recent press conference where Biden sorta hinted/implied that they were limited in the weapons they could send due to concerns from some EU members in NATO. Even mentioned how doing so could risk the breakup of the EU and NATO somehow.

I don't think he hinted over what kinds of concerns they were beyond escalation though.

9

-----shreddit----- t1_j23uxgc wrote

He was talking about long range missiles i think

3

Krivvan t1_j25jjht wrote

The question started with "if patriots are ok then why not other weapons" but I imagine the answer would apply to any kind of military assistance seen as "too offensive."

1

Kom501 t1_j23tmru wrote

You guys are massively overestimating the EU's military/industrial capacity (the cold war ended and the EU cut defense and isn't ready for a war like this) and the impact of the weapons they are holding back like the West has magic weapons. Russia has been firing 100's of missiles every few days from safe within Russia and it has had little impact. Russia is massively bigger and spread out than Ukraine.

The USA is the only one who has enough inventory of long range munitions, and a few hundred fired back at key targets would do little. Ukraine could fire 500 cruise missiles at Moscow and it would kill a few thousand people, be repaired in a few months, and have no effect on the war machine, and no one besides the USA has that many. What magic weapon are we holding back that could win in a month. Wars are not fought like a movie, it is a long march of logistics and maneuvering to just take small objectives.

8

Epyr t1_j23ykl0 wrote

They don't know what they are talking about, though emotions make it understandable as Ukrainians are dying every day.

A lot of Western tech takes a lot of time to train on which limits what can be sent. It's also a tough 'game' to play of equipping Ukraine without giving them equipment that you really don't want to potentially fall into Russian hands. That, and most of these countries still need to maintain stocks in case they are invaded or are drawn into a war.

4

No_I_Am_Sparticus t1_j24rbab wrote

Just throwing weapons at Ukraine may well also result in some of them going 'missing'. It happens and has happened.

3

RobeLife1 t1_j2705g6 wrote

Theres one thing that Ukraine has that almost no UN state possess, and that's battle hardened/ tested soldiers a very valuable asset that might be a scary prospect to some and explain why they get and don't get different types of support.

2

starskip42 t1_j23u0bo wrote

The EU would love a highly militarized and friendly neighbor who will protect them against an aggressive other neighbor.

There is a need for both arming Ukraine AND preparing for escalation on home soil. If the initiative is pressed too hard the escalation would likely come sooner than they can prepare for.

The baggage of corruption is on hold as membership is currently in a candidate state. It's not moving until after the war, and will come with a mountain of oversight.

Fracturing the russian federation is a real possibility. But it will take time, and continued losses. If putin stops the war he avoids this but not his own downfall. He's boned either way... unfortunately he knows this.

Once putin falls Belarus is free.

−1

Kakrime t1_j2390fj wrote

We people need to keep pressing on governments for heavy weapons

6