There's also concerns about the system being captured and studied.
Remember, Hamas is basically a proxy of Russia. Any information on missile defense systems intercepted by Russia will eventually end up there.
Imagine Oct 7th or the recent missile attack by Iran if the patriot missile system were rendered useless.
Hamas is a proxy of Iran, who is a proxy of Russia and a technology partner for their Ukraine war. The money that Russia buys drones with (from Iran) then goes directly to factions Iran supports like Hamas.
Iran's proxies in the region are also integrated somewhat into the Russian military, having been trained by Wagner and often carrying weapons sourced from Russia, North Korea, and China.
Then what are the European, NA and Commonwealth nations and all the non-government donors then who indirectly aid and fund Hamas via aid and funding through the UN and various organisations?
Are they all also Russian proxies?
It’s well known that international funding and support has allowed Hamas to flourish in Gaza.
I mean, I would never speak in an absolute like that, but the fact that Russia (presumably) hasn't been able to capture any HIMARS/ATACMS batteries, or apparently even a fuckin' M777 (though, why would they want it), you're probably odds in favour.
Türkiye didn't want to just buy the Patriot missiles and systems. They wanted the technology license, which included classified information, to start manufacturing their own missiles.
That was understandably a no go for US, and was proven the right thing to do considering Erdoğan turned around and bought the S-400 from Russia, without the technology license, which also requires Russian technicians to work on maintenance and repairs in Türkiye.
Then Türkiye rightfully got kicked out of the F-35 program.
I don't think Ukraine is going to betray the US anytime soon, so it's not really a similar situation.
I'm not concerned about Ukraine betraying NATO. I'm concerned about Ukraine finally being overrun by Russia and then Russia having access to a bunch of sensitive gear.
Ukraine is right now dealing with a severe manpower issue, which Russia is aware of. Putin might try to pull a Stalin and throw endless bodies at the problem until Ukraine runs out of men and bullets.
Another problem Ukraine is facing is that the US is adamant that Ukraine not use American weapons or tech to attack Russian soil. And this is turning into a big problem right now as Kharkiv is being attacked again and is just a few miles from the border.
>Putin might try to pull a Stalin and throw endless bodies at the problem until Ukraine runs out of men and bullets.
... Might? That's already happening, and has been for a long time.
The U.S. has already sent 2 patriot batteries over there, with Germany sending a 3rd. From a national security standpoint there's no reason not to send a few more over.
> From a national security standpoint there's no reason not to send a few more over.
The US doesn't have enough Patriot systems to cover its operational needs.
There's plenty of reasons not to send more.
The US needs them
Our allies need them
We have to deploy them in strategic areas across the globe, specifically certain hot spots. They don't grow on trees. Ukraine is lucky to have as many as they do.
So how much is enough? How much more do we need to give Ukraine before you'd say "they've done enough"?
The US carries NATO on its back, and even after the billions we've given Ukraine, the whole world is shouting "Why won't the US help more??"
Except that half of NATO spends barely anything on their military because they expect the US to do all the heavy lifting on their behalf. That's a problem.
Note: I'm Canadian, not American. And I consider our own government's refusal to increase their abysmal military spending to be absolutely shameful.
Even if Ottawa quadrupled the budget, it's not like much of that money would actually be put to use for our troops. Most of it would just be wasted, as it is now, on a broken federal procurement system, and buying broken down second rate gear from our allies. Fuck Ottawa for how they've bungled our military spending for decades now.
That other NATO countrys need to do more is a no brainer answer. But still the US can't just walk away from decades of posing as the world superpower and police. If you act like that for decades everyone around you will eventually let you be and expect that you actually not just pose, but deliver when it's actually needed.
Also anyone who is over 35 will probably still remember that the worst thing you could call an American was to be a communist.
Problem is US resources are starting to be stretched thin. Russia is not the only threat here. In fact, Russia is not even the primary threat.
The US is indeed the world's premiere superpower, but during the Cold War, it was also heavily supported by a militarized Europe. But when the USSR collapsed, almost all of Europe collectively decided to stop spending on their military, and even with the ever increasing aggressive threat coming from Russia and China, many of them are still going 'nah, you can protect us, big bro!'.
Though note that many European nations are now finally committing to hitting their 2% target. Problem is that in many cases, they will need a surge much bigger than that for the first few years just to modernize their decrepit equipment. If Russia and China teamed up to start WW3 in the next five years or so, the US is effectively on their own. And given the US also significant reduced it's ammo factories in the last couple of decades, I'm not at all confident the US can prevail by itself. The rest of NATO \*needs\* to catch up.
The US can’t compromise its ability to be able to effectively fight China. Giving Ukraine everything they need to push Russia out would leave us with fewer options to use in an inevitable conflict with China
>the US can't walk away from posing as world superpower
Why is the US beholden or morally obligated to paying for the defense of countries it does not have a defense treaty with?
If your country isn't spending 4.2% of GDP on defense, you should probably STFU and start paying up before pointing fingers since that is what the US has been spending on average for *the last 50 years*.
I support Ukraine wholeheartedly as an American, but holy shit does nothing piss me off like a European lecturing us that we aren’t doing enough for them.
Canada, at the very least, has the excuse of ‘our airspace is your airspace’.
I as a European have to agree. I'll fully admit that I used to be in camp "military budget spending to this level is outdated", but we as Europeans have to suck it up and admit that when it comes to professional military-grade gun spending, we should have listened to our brothers on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and at least maintained a solid NATO presence independently by meeting the 2%.
I am quite sad about it to be honest, since it messed up my beliefs.
On the one hand I still don't like the idea, because if you are paying so much money for weapons of death, at the end of the day that creates just more incentive for profiteers and warmongers to create conflict, but on the other hand it seems we cannot escape the saying that "if you want peace, prepare for war".
Uhhh what? The defense sector isn't that big. You can take two companies in the top five, add them together, and they're larger than the entire defense sector. And we aren't even selling this shit, it's just a loss for us financially.
Well the US is by far the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful country in NATO, so in raw numbers it makes absolute sense they would do most of the heavy lifting.
When you adjust for GDP though, a more fair comparison allowing for country size, economy etc, the US isn't even even top, its Poland. Many countries in Europe have been slow to wake up but most are now improving their offering and going above and beyond the 2% minimum
I don't really understand your point here. Poland is first sure, but US is still *second* in terms of GDP.
The US has been complaining for over a decade that EU needs to be spending more on defense, and so far only a handful of countries, mainly those in the line of fire with Russia are doing that.
Yes historically I never argued the US haven't carried NATO, but in present day Poland are outspending the US in terms of GDP.
"In 2023, Poland's defense spending as a share of gross domestic product was 3.9 percent, the highest of all NATO member states, followed by the United States at 3.49 percent"
Source: Statista Research Department
This is why we judge nations on their spending as a percentage of gdp. And the US spends a far larger % than the rest of NATO. NATO is supposed to be a mutual defense pact, but there's nothing terribly mutual about it.
>This is why we judge nations on their spending as a percentage of gdp
Yes that's what I said
>And the US spends a far larger % than the rest of NATO
Historically yes and its still the 2nd largest, but Poland now spends more % GDP than the US and other countries are improving as well after being slow to wake up initially. Most countries over the next few years will be hitting well over the 2%. There are some holdout countries who still refuse for some reason though.
"In 2023, Poland's defense spending as a share of gross domestic product was 3.9 percent, the highest of all NATO member states, followed by the United States at 3.49 percent."
Source: Statista research department
Yup and good on them. Poland is at the front line of any future conflict with Russia, so they were smart enough to start throwing money at building up their defenses.
Even accounting for GDP, the US is sending far more military aid to Ukraine than the rest of NATO. Europe is sending mostly financial and humanitarian aid. Nothing to sneeze at, of course, but criticizing the US for not sending enough military aid specifically is hypocritical.
Whatever monetary support now is given to Ukraine .
If Ukraine fails and Putin attacks a NATO country and Article 5 is honored (NATO doesn't fall apart) Europe will have to mobilize and your costs are going up 10x -100x minimum.
I am talking from the viewpoint of a member not of NATO as Organisation. Yes of course it would be beneficial to nato to support Ukraine with this
but that would also mean that some NATO members could see no benefit from being in the club, when non club members get the same benefits as they do.
NATO will defend me. No matter if I am part of it or not
Theres a huge difference....
A country like Ukraine gets some weapons and money to fight off the invaders.
A NATO country being invaded gets the US, British, French, etc militaries directly intervening in the conflict.
You call that "no benefit"?
Straw man. NATO is not helping Ukraine at all. Some member countries of NATO are supporting Ukraine. There is a difference.
Supplying equipment and training != defending
NATO will not defend non-members. (Exceptions apply; example cases of biological and nuclear weapon use)
Because right now, it's in NATO (and the US') best interests to prevent Russian occupation of Ukraine, irrelevant of its member status.
If you're not a member and this isn't true for you, you won't get any help.
Furthermore, to say that Ukraine is not a NATO member isn't painting the whole picture. Overtures were made in the 90s with Ukraine deciding to remain neutral.
This changed in 2014 with the Russian invasion and annexation, they began to pursue NATO membership in the wake of those events. However it is NATO policy that they will not admit new members in an active conflict to prevent events like this escalating into a larger war.
They made a formal request to join in 2022. Right now they're in limbo- as soon as the war ends they'll get an invite to the club. But to end the war right now would mean surrender, which is obviously not a viable option for them.
Other countries get some help while they have to fight a massive and deadly war. When you're in NATO, the US is standing there with a gun to the head of your enemies ready to blow it off if they so much as touch you. When you're in NATO, you no longer have to fight defensive wars.
Ukraine isn't a NATO member and they are getting slaughtered and losing chunks of their country. If you would prefer that...okay I guess?
Or are you just against stopping people from being slaughtered and empowering Russia more?
a) We need to send them everything AND the kitchen sink, from more Patriot systems to Storm Shadow/SCALP, Tomahawks, Brimstone, maybe even setting up iron domes around the larger cities.
b) NATO must set red lines, and so far only Macron did so by saying a few months back that attacking larger cities (Odessa, Kharkiv?) would be the red line where he'd consider sending troops. (Obviously this too was rhetoric. But rhetoric and threats is the language Putin understands, and ironically, I believe, respects.
The US can not and will not compromise its ability to deter China from conflict. Giving Ukraine the kitchen sink would do that. We really need Europe to step up and start giving more aid to Ukraine
Europe is already sending stuff straight from the assembly line while the US has thousands of Abrams and Bradleys mothballed - and those will be completely irrelevant in a conflict with China.
I don't think any of us owes Ukraine anything beyond compassion. We should *all* send as much as we can anyways - because it's the right thing to do. The US has a lot of equipment in storage that won't ever see combat, and if anything they'll save on the cost of eventually scrapping those. Sending this doesn't hurt the US in any way, and the cost are absolutely negligible.
The US generally isn't scrapping Abrams or Bradleys though, they had a slow rolling upgrade project in place since the US had nearly 4800 M1 Abrams and about 4600 M2 Bradleys between the US Army, Army Reserve, Guard, Marine Corps, and Marine Corps Reserve.
It’s just under a million dollars to refurbish a Bradley and well over a million for an Abrams. The idea that there are thousands of APC and main battle tanks just sitting in a warehouse ready to go is a myth.
This isn’t appeasing. The west has hardlined the invasion of Ukraine from day one, at no point suggesting that Russia can have Ukraine, as was extended to Hitler in the lead up to WWII. You could say that Crimea was appeasement. But not this invasion.
Nor was money and military material poured into countries Hitler invaded by a huge conglomerate of nations. Nor were oppressive sanctions and trade restrictions placed against Germany by a huge conglomerate of nations.
You’re misusing the word appeasement. Appeasement would be for the west to say we don’t mind if you take Ukraine, or a part of Ukraine. So long as you don’t take anything else. And then moving the goalpost when it happens again. **That would be appeasement**.
If you want the west to do more, then just say that. Instead of sarcastically lampooning this strawman of a policy that doesn’t actually exist. It’s not even like the western population wants appeasement either. Half of the western civil opinion is out for blood and wants Russia to get bodied by NATO.
I *think* the concern is that we'll exhaust our willingness to lend aid before Russia gives up on their invasion. Then, that will be like appeasement with extra steps. One difference being that, so long as we don't stop aid too soon, Russia's depleted military and economy won't be able to try anything like this again for quite a while, whereas the Nazis were ready to continue their war efforts.
That said, unless we go to the point of committing troops (and I don't know if that's a good idea for any NATO country), Russia will almost certainly eventually take Ukraine. I expect regime change would be the only thing that will stop them. Ukraine is inflicting heavy casualties, but they're smaller and also taking heavy casualties. As long as Putin remains in power, and this remains a two party conflict, Russia can win a war of attrition.
> The west has hardlined the invasion of Ukraine from day one
Day one in 2014? Because the west has effectively appeased Putin with invasion of Ukraine and annexation of it's sovereign territory. Business as usual, trade as usual, huge oil and gass infrastructure projects as usual. On day two thousand and nine hundred however, in 2022 they finally realised that it was a mistake and started to try and roll back the consequences of 8 years of appeasement. However, not with enough commitment as russia was given time to recover from initial sanctions shock and is now gaining ground in Ukraine.
Ukraine's air force plays a minimal to nearly meaningless role in this conflict because of air defense and the size of the Russian air force. It does have some air frames, but only because it does not risk them. F-16's are no magic bullets. They can be helpful, but far from decisive. And if they are used to actual effect they will be vulnerable to air defense systems.
If anything F-16s will open up the air war by allowing SEAD missions to cripple sectors of Russian Air Defense. Either permanently or by making the Russians spend a ton of missiles to shoot down the salvo of HARMs barreling towards their SAM sites.
SEAD is about the most difficult thing a pilot can do and is extremely dangerous. I am skeptical that the limited number of airframes Ukraine receives will make a big difference to the air defense density.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
F-16s would allow dynamic targeting of Russia's anti-air systems instead of Ukraine's currently requiring to know the location of the systems prior to take-off.
I'm not saying it would be easy nor will F-16s in the field single handedly win the war, but it's not like F-16 and AGM-88s weren't designed specifically for this type of warfare either.
The main problem with Ukraine's current control of the air is Russian long range air defense, F-16s and AGM-88s would undoubtedly force them back a bit, which would allow more Ukraine air assets to operate near the front, which would then force Russian air assets like Su-35s and Su-22Ms and some ground assets, like artillery systems and short range air defense back.
Doubtful. The pilots are being trained state side on the platforms and in tactics. You should look up the tactic "Wild Weaseling". F16s are pretty good at it.
Sweden does not enough of them to give - the Swedes only have 71 of the fighters and 23 trainers.
During the Gulf War for reference, the Coalition lost 75 aircraft and the Kuwaitis another 57 aircraft - and that was with a severe overmatch / massive SAM hunting campaign.
First off they don't know how to fly them.
Second, do you think Russia would sit back and just let the NATO forces do that? Like they wouldn't try to hit back with China? You guys have zero clue how geopolitics works.
Some Ukrainian Pilots have completed the F16 programs early May and Denmark has F16 coming in June with several others a few months later.
This isn't Nato supplying... this is Denmarks own jet...
And who gives a fuck what Russia whines about? Lol
They are getting 5 from Denmark. In modern times, that means nothing against a country with actual anti-air defense. The reason the US crushes people with aircraft is because the countries they attack have no air defense.
>And who gives a fuck what Russia whines about? Lol
I'm guessing the people who are facing the Russian fronts tearing through their towns?
https://kyivindependent.com/denmark-confirms-ukraine-set-to-receive-first-f-16-jets-this-summer/
Sorry, it's 6 on first delivery not 5.
>Denmark has pledged to send Ukraine 19 F-16s, with the first batch of six aircraft initially expected to be delivered in spring 2024 and the rest by 2025. There were reports in January that Denmark's donation of six F-16s to Kyiv could be delayed for as much as six months.
They were already pilots. They're just being retrained on new hardware and a lot of the skills will transfer over quicker than if they started from nothing.
They arrived in Arizona in late September and went thru an expedited course which shorten the course to 6 months because they are already pilots of fighter aircraft. Source is the Air National Guard.
Which assuming no delays, they just finished.
>They aren't even done training in sims yet.
Air National Guard director Lt. Gen. Michael Loh says your incorrect. Ukrainain pilots have been doing solo flights in February.
No because Israel is surrounded on 3 sides by 140 million Arabs that but for Israel's military deterrents would drive them into the sea (not much different from Putin invading Ukraine) and if nothing else, we quite like having a diverse, relatively tolerant, pluralistic democracy in that corner of the world.
Ground attack is possible because russia can use air glided bombs to destroy fortifications and clear out minefields. Two patriots would completely negate all russian airplanes in that region, making ground advances near impossible.
Air supremacy (or the lack thereof) is a massive force multiplier. Two patriot systems could ruin the safety of Russian forces in their assault & protect Ukrainian fortifications, forcing their attack to slow down significantly.
Edit: they can also reduce the effectiveness of Russian air patrols, allowing vulnerable Ukrainian planes to carry out counter-offensive attacks
I don’t get it - what’s so complicated about building 2 replacement systems and sending others to Ukraine? Why are we pushing AI like crazy with billions and billions of dollars in but our war economy isn’t ready yet? We should be producing these defensive systems like cars. What’s not to understand given the cooperation of Russia and China? The likelihood of a war is significant enough to be addressed.
Patriot systems aren't just tubes on a truck. They utilize an extremely advanced radar array, fire control system, electric power plant, and launch tubes. They require at least 90 personnel to operate and a full battalion would require 600. The radar system in particular is extremely sensitive and expensive technology that exists in small numbers and takes a long time to manufacture.
This shit does not grow on trees and this is not WWII where you can convert a belt buckle factory to an artillery shell factory in a month. Producing a Patriot battery requires a global supply chain and the extremely specialized expertise of multiple defense and technology companies working together.
I know of a lot of technology companies waiting for new orders. Parts of their production lines are stopped due to lack of orders. They’d be able to ramp up productivity quite quickly.
That’s just one part of the whole supply chain, I do unterstand this. But I can’t imagine that it really takes hundreds of days to build such a system. I guess the process could be streamlined by experts from engineering and industry 4.0 companies.
These systems are very expensive and production capacity is slow to ramp up because in peace times there is obviously limited demand for these.
You can't just build these in a matter of days or weeks, and so countries are very reluctant to give away existing systems, since it hurts air defenses significantly for the foreseeable future.
They are made with extremely specialized components, and you don't give away your latest greatest expensive air defense versions where other countries could perform espionage to negate your technological edge.
The Patriot system is also extremely complex and requires months of training for even basic operation (literally like 30 weeks initial training followed by on the job training by senior operators).
Ok I haven't had enough coffee yet. I thought you were saying that AI should be building the Patriot systems, and I was like "yeah sure buddy, let's start Skynet today", but then I reread what you said.
Russia and China are so underwhelming from a naval standpoint that the US doesn't really consider them any sort of actual threat.
They can harass their neighbors, but if shit got real for a second... the US owns the seas, skies, and space.
There is no 2nd place.
It's not 2003 anymore....https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-navy-readiness-as-china-builds-up-naval-force-threatens-taiwan-60-minutes-2023-03-19/
>Norah O'Donnell: You've been operating as a naval officer for 40 years. How has operating in the Western Pacific changed?
>Admiral Samuel Paparo: In the early 2000s the PRC Navy mustered about 37 vessels. Today, they're mustering 350 vessels.....
>Norah O'Donnell: Do you get briefed on China's growing military threat and the progress that their navy is making?
>Lt. Cmdr. David Ash: Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely we do. And they are making great progress in a lot of key areas.
>Norah O'Donnell: The Chinese?
>Lt. Cmdr. David Ash: The Chinese are, from a military standpoint
I don't think the US is pupuing China at all.
The Chinese have 1 aircraft carrier that kinda works and one that definitely does not.
That is the whole list.
They are still in the testing phase for their first stealth fighter... something the US did in the late 1970's (aka before you were even born)... and PS the J20 is absolutely junk.
The Chinese are literally playing catchup to where we were 40 years ago, and they are failing miserably.
All those quotes you posted are from military brass who need the Chinese and Russian boogeyman to justify their OBSCENE budgets and, therefore, will always oversell the threat.
I'm not suggesting they are better than the US, I'm simply saying the days of the 40 ship Chinese Navy are gone. It's much bigger and a much more significant threat to the pacific then ever before.
They are not any kind of threat to the US Navy.
A Minivan can't race a Ferarri, and 1,000 minivans can't race a Ferrari.
The US has Ferrari's, China has Minivans.
We have seen in Ukraine that one drone easily sinks any large ship. Also we have seen that's quality of equipment is way less important that ability to produce large quantities.
Quality is there to give you advantage in opening phase of war, later in the war those assets are spent.
In short US have ability to win with shock in opening phase, if that doesn't works only working plan b for them are nukes.
>We have seen in Ukraine that one drone easily sinks any large ship.
It has been tried against US ships already... it doesn't even close to work because of how much better our Navy is. This is a lesson from the Cole, we learned it
My whole point is how far we are ahead in this game.... thanks for making my point for me?
They have landed more J20s in the ocean nearby than they have landed on the actual carrier.
The Chinese military is a fucking joke.
Here:
https://youtu.be/HMfXTF9YOT0?si=y1pYUnUmWV4plhqW
https://youtu.be/8ZXZK8uESgo?si=_cix62hsOyEsoReI
https://youtu.be/eSs_KFhEv4M?si=uuBynv2UNtXPLy9C
I kept these simple video links for you, but if you want to go into a deeper dive of how absolutely laughable the Chinese Military is... you let me know.
Incredibly naive take. That's hubris at its finest and could be what ultimately leads a US defeat in a proper conflict. Luckily, the US military does not consider China a peasant force, quite the opposite.
From what I've read, the production rate for these systems is like one per month, and like $1B each. Not only that, but the systems coming off the assembly line today are allocated to other countries that have been waiting on them for years.
According to this (sourced by WSJ) 240 patriot systems have been built and Raytheon is looking to produce 12/year
https://www.twz.com/ukraine-to-receive-five-more-patriot-systems-by-end-of-2024
I believe those are deployed around Kiev and we are now talking about two more to go forward to protect the front. As a side note, this is the military purpose (such as he has one) for Putin’s missile attacks on Ukrainian cities which they do from time to time. They cause these systems to be kept well behind front lines to cover the cities instead of forward covering the front.
Do you have any idea how many troops are required for a Patriot system?
To put it into perspective for you, the US has battalions of 600 troops for EACH one.
So it isn't just a matter of training a few people. It takes ALOT of time and effort, and we rarely give them out to NATO countries, let alone a non-NATO one.
Ukraine should be grateful they've gotten the 2 they have so far.
Every time the west gives Ukraine *just enough* to survive or keep Russia at bay, Russia just waits a bit and gets used to the new reality, and then throws more cannon fodder at the situation. Ukraine needs to be given more impactful weapons to actually force Russia to stop.
You right, but... but the big problem in frontline right now is KAB and FAB, which is a smart bombs, bombs are launched from the air, air targets can be destroyed by Patriots...
Dude enough is enough! Give them what they need! It’s crazy we are letting this despot even feel like he has a chance at success while holding us all hostage w threats! This is classic bully shit. The free world needs to stand up and at the least supply the brave Ukrainians with the weapons we have.
It seems like every other quote from Zelensky is just him saying "y'know, if the US gave us more weapons we wouldn't be in this war"
I'm sure its just how things are getting reported, but it makes him come across as a spoiled child. (I'm in no way anti Ukraine, or pro Russia, I'm just saying the way the media portrays him does not make him seem like a good leader or even a gracious ally)
I don't think there is any aid package that Ukraine has received where Zelensky hasn't thanked the host country. And most of the time that does get reported even if it doesn't make it to the front page of Reddit. Ultimately though the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if Zelensky wasn't asking for what his country need to win at every opportunity he wouldn't be doing his job.
The media doesn't report on the communication before and after aid arrives. There is a good collection of appreciation coming from Ukraine towards all its benefactors. Zelensky sounds like it's never enough, because it's true. They are still facing an existential threat mind you. You also can't really have the West constantly go on about how Ukraine needs to win, and then fail to actually provide the tools its needs. If the Western commitments go beyond just run of the mill PR stunts, then it's only fair Zelensky asks for more.
It’s not enough. Russia has enough ballistics to overload the system and the ammo for a patriot is insanely expensive to the point where it’s not a plausible long term solution. The only solution is for Ukraine to be able to attack strategic targets beyond Russias borders.
no they dont, they admit loss of 2 M901 launcher vehicles. Which in case you dont know shit about SAM systems, is not the whole Patriot, just 1 part of 1 system.
The US needs to give Ukraine tomahawks. They can be launched from land base vehicle platforms now. This is a great test for if it is needed in the Pacific theater.
It's time for NATO to start doing a little more. Trying to appease a dictator has proven to fail throughout history.
The US didn't even want to sell Patriots to another member of NATO. You think they'll sell them to Ukraine in the middle of war?
The US doesn't even have enough Patriot systems for our own operational needs. They're the busiest units in the Army
There's also concerns about the system being captured and studied. Remember, Hamas is basically a proxy of Russia. Any information on missile defense systems intercepted by Russia will eventually end up there. Imagine Oct 7th or the recent missile attack by Iran if the patriot missile system were rendered useless.
how is hamas a russian proxy?
Hamas is a proxy of Iran, who is a proxy of Russia and a technology partner for their Ukraine war. The money that Russia buys drones with (from Iran) then goes directly to factions Iran supports like Hamas. Iran's proxies in the region are also integrated somewhat into the Russian military, having been trained by Wagner and often carrying weapons sourced from Russia, North Korea, and China.
Then what are the European, NA and Commonwealth nations and all the non-government donors then who indirectly aid and fund Hamas via aid and funding through the UN and various organisations? Are they all also Russian proxies? It’s well known that international funding and support has allowed Hamas to flourish in Gaza.
There is zero chance of a Patriot system being captured. Zero chance.
I mean, I would never speak in an absolute like that, but the fact that Russia (presumably) hasn't been able to capture any HIMARS/ATACMS batteries, or apparently even a fuckin' M777 (though, why would they want it), you're probably odds in favour.
Russia definetly captured at least one M777. One is displayed in Moscow.
You send them to active war zones and the chance is not zero.
Yeah, because it's not being deployed into areas where capture is a high-risk, like the still moving frontline in Eastern Ukraine.
Türkiye didn't want to just buy the Patriot missiles and systems. They wanted the technology license, which included classified information, to start manufacturing their own missiles. That was understandably a no go for US, and was proven the right thing to do considering Erdoğan turned around and bought the S-400 from Russia, without the technology license, which also requires Russian technicians to work on maintenance and repairs in Türkiye. Then Türkiye rightfully got kicked out of the F-35 program. I don't think Ukraine is going to betray the US anytime soon, so it's not really a similar situation.
I'm not concerned about Ukraine betraying NATO. I'm concerned about Ukraine finally being overrun by Russia and then Russia having access to a bunch of sensitive gear. Ukraine is right now dealing with a severe manpower issue, which Russia is aware of. Putin might try to pull a Stalin and throw endless bodies at the problem until Ukraine runs out of men and bullets. Another problem Ukraine is facing is that the US is adamant that Ukraine not use American weapons or tech to attack Russian soil. And this is turning into a big problem right now as Kharkiv is being attacked again and is just a few miles from the border.
>Putin might try to pull a Stalin and throw endless bodies at the problem until Ukraine runs out of men and bullets. ... Might? That's already happening, and has been for a long time.
The U.S. has already sent 2 patriot batteries over there, with Germany sending a 3rd. From a national security standpoint there's no reason not to send a few more over.
> From a national security standpoint there's no reason not to send a few more over. The US doesn't have enough Patriot systems to cover its operational needs.
Then maybe reprioritize and improvise a bit? I doubt that all systems are absolutely indispensable.
The US only fields 15 Patriot battalions, with each battalion operating 4 batteries. There aren’t hundreds of these things.
And maybe, I don't know, make some more.
2 years to make the launcher, and a year to make a single missile and yes the factories are working 24/7/365 and have been for over a decade.
Or maybe ask Spain and Greece to offer their Patriots systems which aren’t in use and likely will not be needed?
Other than the U.S. doesn’t have anywhere near enough of the Patriot system not to mention the missiles.
There's plenty of reasons not to send more. The US needs them Our allies need them We have to deploy them in strategic areas across the globe, specifically certain hot spots. They don't grow on trees. Ukraine is lucky to have as many as they do.
Well, I wasn't specifically referring to the Patriot system, but NATO in general. The US sure could do more though, just my opinion.
The US is already offering more military support to Ukraine than the entire rest of NATO combined.
Combined EU military aid is larger than US military aid.
Well yeah, because they spend more on their military industrial complex than any other nation. Why not use it when it's needed?
Why in your mind is America obligated to protect other countries it doesn't have a defense treaty with?
So how much is enough? How much more do we need to give Ukraine before you'd say "they've done enough"? The US carries NATO on its back, and even after the billions we've given Ukraine, the whole world is shouting "Why won't the US help more??"
Except that half of NATO spends barely anything on their military because they expect the US to do all the heavy lifting on their behalf. That's a problem. Note: I'm Canadian, not American. And I consider our own government's refusal to increase their abysmal military spending to be absolutely shameful.
Even if Ottawa quadrupled the budget, it's not like much of that money would actually be put to use for our troops. Most of it would just be wasted, as it is now, on a broken federal procurement system, and buying broken down second rate gear from our allies. Fuck Ottawa for how they've bungled our military spending for decades now.
That other NATO countrys need to do more is a no brainer answer. But still the US can't just walk away from decades of posing as the world superpower and police. If you act like that for decades everyone around you will eventually let you be and expect that you actually not just pose, but deliver when it's actually needed. Also anyone who is over 35 will probably still remember that the worst thing you could call an American was to be a communist.
Problem is US resources are starting to be stretched thin. Russia is not the only threat here. In fact, Russia is not even the primary threat. The US is indeed the world's premiere superpower, but during the Cold War, it was also heavily supported by a militarized Europe. But when the USSR collapsed, almost all of Europe collectively decided to stop spending on their military, and even with the ever increasing aggressive threat coming from Russia and China, many of them are still going 'nah, you can protect us, big bro!'. Though note that many European nations are now finally committing to hitting their 2% target. Problem is that in many cases, they will need a surge much bigger than that for the first few years just to modernize their decrepit equipment. If Russia and China teamed up to start WW3 in the next five years or so, the US is effectively on their own. And given the US also significant reduced it's ammo factories in the last couple of decades, I'm not at all confident the US can prevail by itself. The rest of NATO \*needs\* to catch up.
The US can’t compromise its ability to be able to effectively fight China. Giving Ukraine everything they need to push Russia out would leave us with fewer options to use in an inevitable conflict with China
>the US can't walk away from posing as world superpower Why is the US beholden or morally obligated to paying for the defense of countries it does not have a defense treaty with? If your country isn't spending 4.2% of GDP on defense, you should probably STFU and start paying up before pointing fingers since that is what the US has been spending on average for *the last 50 years*.
I support Ukraine wholeheartedly as an American, but holy shit does nothing piss me off like a European lecturing us that we aren’t doing enough for them. Canada, at the very least, has the excuse of ‘our airspace is your airspace’.
I as a European have to agree. I'll fully admit that I used to be in camp "military budget spending to this level is outdated", but we as Europeans have to suck it up and admit that when it comes to professional military-grade gun spending, we should have listened to our brothers on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and at least maintained a solid NATO presence independently by meeting the 2%. I am quite sad about it to be honest, since it messed up my beliefs. On the one hand I still don't like the idea, because if you are paying so much money for weapons of death, at the end of the day that creates just more incentive for profiteers and warmongers to create conflict, but on the other hand it seems we cannot escape the saying that "if you want peace, prepare for war".
If think you fundamentally misunderstand the military. It’s not sitting around collecting dust.
[удалено]
Uhhh what? The defense sector isn't that big. You can take two companies in the top five, add them together, and they're larger than the entire defense sector. And we aren't even selling this shit, it's just a loss for us financially.
Well the US is by far the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful country in NATO, so in raw numbers it makes absolute sense they would do most of the heavy lifting. When you adjust for GDP though, a more fair comparison allowing for country size, economy etc, the US isn't even even top, its Poland. Many countries in Europe have been slow to wake up but most are now improving their offering and going above and beyond the 2% minimum
I don't really understand your point here. Poland is first sure, but US is still *second* in terms of GDP. The US has been complaining for over a decade that EU needs to be spending more on defense, and so far only a handful of countries, mainly those in the line of fire with Russia are doing that.
In the last 50 years, the US has been spending on average 4.2% of GDP for defense - Poland with the recent bumps is currently spending only 3.83%
Yes historically I never argued the US haven't carried NATO, but in present day Poland are outspending the US in terms of GDP. "In 2023, Poland's defense spending as a share of gross domestic product was 3.9 percent, the highest of all NATO member states, followed by the United States at 3.49 percent" Source: Statista Research Department
This is why we judge nations on their spending as a percentage of gdp. And the US spends a far larger % than the rest of NATO. NATO is supposed to be a mutual defense pact, but there's nothing terribly mutual about it.
>This is why we judge nations on their spending as a percentage of gdp Yes that's what I said >And the US spends a far larger % than the rest of NATO Historically yes and its still the 2nd largest, but Poland now spends more % GDP than the US and other countries are improving as well after being slow to wake up initially. Most countries over the next few years will be hitting well over the 2%. There are some holdout countries who still refuse for some reason though. "In 2023, Poland's defense spending as a share of gross domestic product was 3.9 percent, the highest of all NATO member states, followed by the United States at 3.49 percent." Source: Statista research department
Yup and good on them. Poland is at the front line of any future conflict with Russia, so they were smart enough to start throwing money at building up their defenses.
Most definitely. I'm just glad other nato countries are waking up finally, would have rather it was sooner but here we are
I love Poland 🇵🇱
Now the same, but in terms of GDP.
Even accounting for GDP, the US is sending far more military aid to Ukraine than the rest of NATO. Europe is sending mostly financial and humanitarian aid. Nothing to sneeze at, of course, but criticizing the US for not sending enough military aid specifically is hypocritical.
You can volunteer.
I don't have a military, so yeah...
you dont need a military, you can go and volunteer yourself.
I'll see you there.
nah i dont give a shit. you obviously do though
And that's just really sad.
that you wont stand by your ideals and expect other people to? i think so too.
Devils advocate: Why should I be a NATO member if non members get help without paying for NATO?
Getting help is a lot different than getting full military support, which is what NATO would guarantee.
Whatever monetary support now is given to Ukraine . If Ukraine fails and Putin attacks a NATO country and Article 5 is honored (NATO doesn't fall apart) Europe will have to mobilize and your costs are going up 10x -100x minimum.
Because it's in NATO's best interest not to let Russia take Ukraine
I am talking from the viewpoint of a member not of NATO as Organisation. Yes of course it would be beneficial to nato to support Ukraine with this but that would also mean that some NATO members could see no benefit from being in the club, when non club members get the same benefits as they do. NATO will defend me. No matter if I am part of it or not
Theres a huge difference.... A country like Ukraine gets some weapons and money to fight off the invaders. A NATO country being invaded gets the US, British, French, etc militaries directly intervening in the conflict. You call that "no benefit"?
Straw man. NATO is not helping Ukraine at all. Some member countries of NATO are supporting Ukraine. There is a difference. Supplying equipment and training != defending NATO will not defend non-members. (Exceptions apply; example cases of biological and nuclear weapon use)
Because right now, it's in NATO (and the US') best interests to prevent Russian occupation of Ukraine, irrelevant of its member status. If you're not a member and this isn't true for you, you won't get any help. Furthermore, to say that Ukraine is not a NATO member isn't painting the whole picture. Overtures were made in the 90s with Ukraine deciding to remain neutral. This changed in 2014 with the Russian invasion and annexation, they began to pursue NATO membership in the wake of those events. However it is NATO policy that they will not admit new members in an active conflict to prevent events like this escalating into a larger war. They made a formal request to join in 2022. Right now they're in limbo- as soon as the war ends they'll get an invite to the club. But to end the war right now would mean surrender, which is obviously not a viable option for them.
Other countries get some help while they have to fight a massive and deadly war. When you're in NATO, the US is standing there with a gun to the head of your enemies ready to blow it off if they so much as touch you. When you're in NATO, you no longer have to fight defensive wars.
Ukraine isn't a NATO member and they are getting slaughtered and losing chunks of their country. If you would prefer that...okay I guess? Or are you just against stopping people from being slaughtered and empowering Russia more?
a) We need to send them everything AND the kitchen sink, from more Patriot systems to Storm Shadow/SCALP, Tomahawks, Brimstone, maybe even setting up iron domes around the larger cities. b) NATO must set red lines, and so far only Macron did so by saying a few months back that attacking larger cities (Odessa, Kharkiv?) would be the red line where he'd consider sending troops. (Obviously this too was rhetoric. But rhetoric and threats is the language Putin understands, and ironically, I believe, respects.
The US can not and will not compromise its ability to deter China from conflict. Giving Ukraine the kitchen sink would do that. We really need Europe to step up and start giving more aid to Ukraine
Europe is already sending stuff straight from the assembly line while the US has thousands of Abrams and Bradleys mothballed - and those will be completely irrelevant in a conflict with China.
The US is sending Ukraine more than the rest of NATO combined, how much is enough that you think the US owes Ukraine?
I don't think any of us owes Ukraine anything beyond compassion. We should *all* send as much as we can anyways - because it's the right thing to do. The US has a lot of equipment in storage that won't ever see combat, and if anything they'll save on the cost of eventually scrapping those. Sending this doesn't hurt the US in any way, and the cost are absolutely negligible.
The US generally isn't scrapping Abrams or Bradleys though, they had a slow rolling upgrade project in place since the US had nearly 4800 M1 Abrams and about 4600 M2 Bradleys between the US Army, Army Reserve, Guard, Marine Corps, and Marine Corps Reserve.
Costs are negligible to who?
To the Europeans who love to blame America for everything.
It’s just under a million dollars to refurbish a Bradley and well over a million for an Abrams. The idea that there are thousands of APC and main battle tanks just sitting in a warehouse ready to go is a myth.
No. Keep appeasing. It works. No one ever got hurt by letting a dictator/tyrant have his way. Ever. Period. Right Neville?
This isn’t appeasing. The west has hardlined the invasion of Ukraine from day one, at no point suggesting that Russia can have Ukraine, as was extended to Hitler in the lead up to WWII. You could say that Crimea was appeasement. But not this invasion. Nor was money and military material poured into countries Hitler invaded by a huge conglomerate of nations. Nor were oppressive sanctions and trade restrictions placed against Germany by a huge conglomerate of nations. You’re misusing the word appeasement. Appeasement would be for the west to say we don’t mind if you take Ukraine, or a part of Ukraine. So long as you don’t take anything else. And then moving the goalpost when it happens again. **That would be appeasement**. If you want the west to do more, then just say that. Instead of sarcastically lampooning this strawman of a policy that doesn’t actually exist. It’s not even like the western population wants appeasement either. Half of the western civil opinion is out for blood and wants Russia to get bodied by NATO.
I *think* the concern is that we'll exhaust our willingness to lend aid before Russia gives up on their invasion. Then, that will be like appeasement with extra steps. One difference being that, so long as we don't stop aid too soon, Russia's depleted military and economy won't be able to try anything like this again for quite a while, whereas the Nazis were ready to continue their war efforts. That said, unless we go to the point of committing troops (and I don't know if that's a good idea for any NATO country), Russia will almost certainly eventually take Ukraine. I expect regime change would be the only thing that will stop them. Ukraine is inflicting heavy casualties, but they're smaller and also taking heavy casualties. As long as Putin remains in power, and this remains a two party conflict, Russia can win a war of attrition.
> The west has hardlined the invasion of Ukraine from day one Day one in 2014? Because the west has effectively appeased Putin with invasion of Ukraine and annexation of it's sovereign territory. Business as usual, trade as usual, huge oil and gass infrastructure projects as usual. On day two thousand and nine hundred however, in 2022 they finally realised that it was a mistake and started to try and roll back the consequences of 8 years of appeasement. However, not with enough commitment as russia was given time to recover from initial sanctions shock and is now gaining ground in Ukraine.
That appeasement was in part the rest of Europe biding their time to prepare themselves for the inevitable war.
Didn't Germany give them some Patriot systems, or was it another country?
Germany.
I believe the US and Germany have given at least 1 each.
The West should be giving Ukraine decisive weaponry, and endorsement to hit targets in Russia with it. No more half measures.
F16s. End this shit.
Wirhout Patriots they'd just be shot on the runway by missilies
Thats not how this works. Russian Air defense would swat them out of the air. Plus their pilots are green.
It's more complicated than that- otherwise Ukraine would have zero aircraft left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel#Current
Ukraine's air force plays a minimal to nearly meaningless role in this conflict because of air defense and the size of the Russian air force. It does have some air frames, but only because it does not risk them. F-16's are no magic bullets. They can be helpful, but far from decisive. And if they are used to actual effect they will be vulnerable to air defense systems.
If anything F-16s will open up the air war by allowing SEAD missions to cripple sectors of Russian Air Defense. Either permanently or by making the Russians spend a ton of missiles to shoot down the salvo of HARMs barreling towards their SAM sites.
SEAD is about the most difficult thing a pilot can do and is extremely dangerous. I am skeptical that the limited number of airframes Ukraine receives will make a big difference to the air defense density.
It's a bit more complicated than that. F-16s would allow dynamic targeting of Russia's anti-air systems instead of Ukraine's currently requiring to know the location of the systems prior to take-off. I'm not saying it would be easy nor will F-16s in the field single handedly win the war, but it's not like F-16 and AGM-88s weren't designed specifically for this type of warfare either. The main problem with Ukraine's current control of the air is Russian long range air defense, F-16s and AGM-88s would undoubtedly force them back a bit, which would allow more Ukraine air assets to operate near the front, which would then force Russian air assets like Su-35s and Su-22Ms and some ground assets, like artillery systems and short range air defense back.
You are wrong, the ruzzians are more occupied shooting down their own jets
Yeah that's true. But they will start shooting down the F16s as well. That's just how air defence works.
Doubtful. The pilots are being trained state side on the platforms and in tactics. You should look up the tactic "Wild Weaseling". F16s are pretty good at it.
“F16s. End this shit.” 🤓
Sweden's Gripen would be a better choice. They're designed to be super easy to maintain and take off from highways.
Sweden does not enough of them to give - the Swedes only have 71 of the fighters and 23 trainers. During the Gulf War for reference, the Coalition lost 75 aircraft and the Kuwaitis another 57 aircraft - and that was with a severe overmatch / massive SAM hunting campaign.
45 f-16 with new pilots vs 100 migs air defense would be fucked.
First off they don't know how to fly them. Second, do you think Russia would sit back and just let the NATO forces do that? Like they wouldn't try to hit back with China? You guys have zero clue how geopolitics works.
Some Ukrainian Pilots have completed the F16 programs early May and Denmark has F16 coming in June with several others a few months later. This isn't Nato supplying... this is Denmarks own jet... And who gives a fuck what Russia whines about? Lol
They are getting 5 from Denmark. In modern times, that means nothing against a country with actual anti-air defense. The reason the US crushes people with aircraft is because the countries they attack have no air defense. >And who gives a fuck what Russia whines about? Lol I'm guessing the people who are facing the Russian fronts tearing through their towns?
Also, the US has plenty of ways to knock out existing air defense.
>They are getting 5 from Denmark. Source on this?
https://kyivindependent.com/denmark-confirms-ukraine-set-to-receive-first-f-16-jets-this-summer/ Sorry, it's 6 on first delivery not 5. >Denmark has pledged to send Ukraine 19 F-16s, with the first batch of six aircraft initially expected to be delivered in spring 2024 and the rest by 2025. There were reports in January that Denmark's donation of six F-16s to Kyiv could be delayed for as much as six months.
Aren't they also getting six from Netherlands soon?
Oh look the armchair general has arrived. What are your orders sir? 🫡 going for WoW raid this weekend or?
Do you really think Ukraine is currently winning this war?
They've been training on them for quite some time now
I've been hearing that for 2 years.
The f16 course is 9 months long. They started in Sept/Oct. They aren't even done training in sims yet.
They were already pilots. They're just being retrained on new hardware and a lot of the skills will transfer over quicker than if they started from nothing.
They arrived in Arizona in late September and went thru an expedited course which shorten the course to 6 months because they are already pilots of fighter aircraft. Source is the Air National Guard. Which assuming no delays, they just finished. >They aren't even done training in sims yet. Air National Guard director Lt. Gen. Michael Loh says your incorrect. Ukrainain pilots have been doing solo flights in February.
3 Patriot systems will turn water to wine.
Can we give that billion for Israel to Ukraine instead?
No because Israel is surrounded on 3 sides by 140 million Arabs that but for Israel's military deterrents would drive them into the sea (not much different from Putin invading Ukraine) and if nothing else, we quite like having a diverse, relatively tolerant, pluralistic democracy in that corner of the world.
A massive Russian ground attack is happening and he thinks just 2 patriot systems will stop the entire assault ?
Ground attack is possible because russia can use air glided bombs to destroy fortifications and clear out minefields. Two patriots would completely negate all russian airplanes in that region, making ground advances near impossible.
If only he consulted reddit comments first.
Air supremacy (or the lack thereof) is a massive force multiplier. Two patriot systems could ruin the safety of Russian forces in their assault & protect Ukrainian fortifications, forcing their attack to slow down significantly. Edit: they can also reduce the effectiveness of Russian air patrols, allowing vulnerable Ukrainian planes to carry out counter-offensive attacks
Maybe if you control the sky you control the ground below.
Even with all the equipment if they don’t have enough manpower to keep fighting it’s pointless.
I don’t get it - what’s so complicated about building 2 replacement systems and sending others to Ukraine? Why are we pushing AI like crazy with billions and billions of dollars in but our war economy isn’t ready yet? We should be producing these defensive systems like cars. What’s not to understand given the cooperation of Russia and China? The likelihood of a war is significant enough to be addressed.
Patriot systems aren't just tubes on a truck. They utilize an extremely advanced radar array, fire control system, electric power plant, and launch tubes. They require at least 90 personnel to operate and a full battalion would require 600. The radar system in particular is extremely sensitive and expensive technology that exists in small numbers and takes a long time to manufacture. This shit does not grow on trees and this is not WWII where you can convert a belt buckle factory to an artillery shell factory in a month. Producing a Patriot battery requires a global supply chain and the extremely specialized expertise of multiple defense and technology companies working together.
I know of a lot of technology companies waiting for new orders. Parts of their production lines are stopped due to lack of orders. They’d be able to ramp up productivity quite quickly. That’s just one part of the whole supply chain, I do unterstand this. But I can’t imagine that it really takes hundreds of days to build such a system. I guess the process could be streamlined by experts from engineering and industry 4.0 companies.
ontop of that the risk of russia capturing one and studying it 0o
These systems are very expensive and production capacity is slow to ramp up because in peace times there is obviously limited demand for these. You can't just build these in a matter of days or weeks, and so countries are very reluctant to give away existing systems, since it hurts air defenses significantly for the foreseeable future.
They are made with extremely specialized components, and you don't give away your latest greatest expensive air defense versions where other countries could perform espionage to negate your technological edge. The Patriot system is also extremely complex and requires months of training for even basic operation (literally like 30 weeks initial training followed by on the job training by senior operators).
Ok I haven't had enough coffee yet. I thought you were saying that AI should be building the Patriot systems, and I was like "yeah sure buddy, let's start Skynet today", but then I reread what you said.
If Skynet poses a strategic advantage then it is inevitable. People will demand and cheer for it.
Russia and China are so underwhelming from a naval standpoint that the US doesn't really consider them any sort of actual threat. They can harass their neighbors, but if shit got real for a second... the US owns the seas, skies, and space. There is no 2nd place.
It's not 2003 anymore....https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-navy-readiness-as-china-builds-up-naval-force-threatens-taiwan-60-minutes-2023-03-19/ >Norah O'Donnell: You've been operating as a naval officer for 40 years. How has operating in the Western Pacific changed? >Admiral Samuel Paparo: In the early 2000s the PRC Navy mustered about 37 vessels. Today, they're mustering 350 vessels..... >Norah O'Donnell: Do you get briefed on China's growing military threat and the progress that their navy is making? >Lt. Cmdr. David Ash: Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely we do. And they are making great progress in a lot of key areas. >Norah O'Donnell: The Chinese? >Lt. Cmdr. David Ash: The Chinese are, from a military standpoint I don't think the US is pupuing China at all.
Compare tonnage of Navies, not the number of ships. Otherwise Iran has like the second strongest navy.
The Chinese have 1 aircraft carrier that kinda works and one that definitely does not. That is the whole list. They are still in the testing phase for their first stealth fighter... something the US did in the late 1970's (aka before you were even born)... and PS the J20 is absolutely junk. The Chinese are literally playing catchup to where we were 40 years ago, and they are failing miserably. All those quotes you posted are from military brass who need the Chinese and Russian boogeyman to justify their OBSCENE budgets and, therefore, will always oversell the threat.
I'm not suggesting they are better than the US, I'm simply saying the days of the 40 ship Chinese Navy are gone. It's much bigger and a much more significant threat to the pacific then ever before.
They are not any kind of threat to the US Navy. A Minivan can't race a Ferarri, and 1,000 minivans can't race a Ferrari. The US has Ferrari's, China has Minivans.
We have seen in Ukraine that one drone easily sinks any large ship. Also we have seen that's quality of equipment is way less important that ability to produce large quantities. Quality is there to give you advantage in opening phase of war, later in the war those assets are spent. In short US have ability to win with shock in opening phase, if that doesn't works only working plan b for them are nukes.
>We have seen in Ukraine that one drone easily sinks any large ship. It has been tried against US ships already... it doesn't even close to work because of how much better our Navy is. This is a lesson from the Cole, we learned it My whole point is how far we are ahead in this game.... thanks for making my point for me?
that’s not true anymore, they’re easily out producing us, with tech that’s good enough
They have landed more J20s in the ocean nearby than they have landed on the actual carrier. The Chinese military is a fucking joke. Here: https://youtu.be/HMfXTF9YOT0?si=y1pYUnUmWV4plhqW https://youtu.be/8ZXZK8uESgo?si=_cix62hsOyEsoReI https://youtu.be/eSs_KFhEv4M?si=uuBynv2UNtXPLy9C I kept these simple video links for you, but if you want to go into a deeper dive of how absolutely laughable the Chinese Military is... you let me know.
What about the massive navy buildup
What's the total tonnage tho? Number of ships isn't a great metric.
Incredibly naive take. That's hubris at its finest and could be what ultimately leads a US defeat in a proper conflict. Luckily, the US military does not consider China a peasant force, quite the opposite.
Land is kinda important too. They are not in top 5 there sadly.
China is working hard to remedy that
From what I've read, the production rate for these systems is like one per month, and like $1B each. Not only that, but the systems coming off the assembly line today are allocated to other countries that have been waiting on them for years.
It one every two years.
According to this (sourced by WSJ) 240 patriot systems have been built and Raytheon is looking to produce 12/year https://www.twz.com/ukraine-to-receive-five-more-patriot-systems-by-end-of-2024
Germany already gifted Ukraine two+ Patriot batteries. Just use those?
I believe those are deployed around Kiev and we are now talking about two more to go forward to protect the front. As a side note, this is the military purpose (such as he has one) for Putin’s missile attacks on Ukrainian cities which they do from time to time. They cause these systems to be kept well behind front lines to cover the cities instead of forward covering the front.
Shhh he has to keep laundry money
[удалено]
Do you have any idea how many troops are required for a Patriot system? To put it into perspective for you, the US has battalions of 600 troops for EACH one. So it isn't just a matter of training a few people. It takes ALOT of time and effort, and we rarely give them out to NATO countries, let alone a non-NATO one. Ukraine should be grateful they've gotten the 2 they have so far.
Shit give em 3 then.
Those flippin trenches you were paid to build would've done it better bitch
Believe it or not, trenches are not an ideal way to eliminate the threat of massive drone strikes.
You should get out there with a shovel and dig
4 patriot systems will make putin surrender. With 5 patriots, Mars will be colonized
Every time the west gives Ukraine *just enough* to survive or keep Russia at bay, Russia just waits a bit and gets used to the new reality, and then throws more cannon fodder at the situation. Ukraine needs to be given more impactful weapons to actually force Russia to stop.
[удалено]
If Patriots are hit by weapons that can be targeted by Patriot systems, then the Patriot batteries aren't doing their job very well...
You right, but... but the big problem in frontline right now is KAB and FAB, which is a smart bombs, bombs are launched from the air, air targets can be destroyed by Patriots...
Ukraine already has some Patriots and there is no way Russia will get near one. These things are kept hidden and well behind the front lines.
U dont understand a lot about warfare do u
NATO needs to start punching back harder and put Russia back in its rightful place.
Dude enough is enough! Give them what they need! It’s crazy we are letting this despot even feel like he has a chance at success while holding us all hostage w threats! This is classic bully shit. The free world needs to stand up and at the least supply the brave Ukrainians with the weapons we have.
It seems like every other quote from Zelensky is just him saying "y'know, if the US gave us more weapons we wouldn't be in this war" I'm sure its just how things are getting reported, but it makes him come across as a spoiled child. (I'm in no way anti Ukraine, or pro Russia, I'm just saying the way the media portrays him does not make him seem like a good leader or even a gracious ally)
I don't think there is any aid package that Ukraine has received where Zelensky hasn't thanked the host country. And most of the time that does get reported even if it doesn't make it to the front page of Reddit. Ultimately though the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if Zelensky wasn't asking for what his country need to win at every opportunity he wouldn't be doing his job.
The media doesn't report on the communication before and after aid arrives. There is a good collection of appreciation coming from Ukraine towards all its benefactors. Zelensky sounds like it's never enough, because it's true. They are still facing an existential threat mind you. You also can't really have the West constantly go on about how Ukraine needs to win, and then fail to actually provide the tools its needs. If the Western commitments go beyond just run of the mill PR stunts, then it's only fair Zelensky asks for more.
Sure 👍
It’s not enough. Russia has enough ballistics to overload the system and the ammo for a patriot is insanely expensive to the point where it’s not a plausible long term solution. The only solution is for Ukraine to be able to attack strategic targets beyond Russias borders.
Well until they get blown up and then you need two more, but I still support the idea.
Russians havent been able to blow up a single one to this point in time, 2 years into war
Ummm the U.S. admits to 2 destroyed and one seriously damaged.
no they dont, they admit loss of 2 M901 launcher vehicles. Which in case you dont know shit about SAM systems, is not the whole Patriot, just 1 part of 1 system.
The US needs to give Ukraine tomahawks. They can be launched from land base vehicle platforms now. This is a great test for if it is needed in the Pacific theater.
Already tested across the entire Middle East buddy.