Perhaps provide some air superiority to back up those suggestions of force concentration?
Release the F16s!
they are now on it. It just takes over a year to train pilots, sadly
From scratch, sure, but surely am already trained pilot would take significantly less time to learn a new airframe?
It isn’t just about flying a plane.
You’ve got to be certified in each weapon the planes are supplied with. You’ve got to learn the doctrines, then shift to the doctrines, that the planes were built for.
Then you’ve got to resupply the planes. Maintain them. Fix them. Service them. Store them. Debug them. Keep them in the air.
There’s a massive logistical challenge to integrating F-16s into Ukraine.
Not so much. The doctrine won’t be that different. The most pressing matters are air superiority and bombardment. Bombardment they can already do it actually. They can train for the new air superiority tech and see for the rest later.
The mechanics are probably the hardest to train.
Who knew it would be so difficult and time consuming to learn how to fly around and do a bit of pew-pew. I thought it was more like getting in the car and driving to the shop, but with bombs.
From scratch it would take several years. At least in my country, to train a pilot you have to go to the Military Air Force School to complete an 8 semester long career that won’t necessarily grant you a position as a pilot. Of course, with constrained times of war, this can be achieved in less than 4 years, but 1 year seems like a stretch. Now, if you have a vast disposal of trained pilots, I guess you can make it in one year or even less, depending on several factors. The problem is I don’t find stats about this case, and even if there are a lot of Ukrainian pilots ready to fly, they are probably not seasoned in combat.
Which is why it’s shameful that they didn’t start training programs last year.
They have, but it wasn’t yet public knowledge. It takes a few years at least to train a fighter pilot.
Sadly?? Those pilots are lucky, they’re getting paid training in a safe place and when they finally finish they won’t need to fight since there won’t be anything left to fight over, no need for suicide missions.
Training is needed
American officials’ criticisms of Ukraine’s counteroffensive are often cast through the lens of a generation of military officers who have never experienced a war of this scale and intensity.
deleted by creator
Tell them behind closed doors not us, shithead!
I’m going to go off on a limb and say they wouldn’t be if it weren’t already well known by the enemy
U.S. Officials Say they Misallocated Ukraine’s Forces and Firepower
Title without the passive voice.
For those who have only seen the headline:
Nearly three months into the counteroffensive, the Ukrainians may be taking the advice to heart, especially as casualties continue to mount and Russia still holds an edge in troops and equipment.
U.S. assessed Ukraine’s counteroffensive strategy and made recommendations, and now Ukraine is adjusting its strategy accordingly. The headline makes it sound like an endemic issue. Some analysts think it’s too little too late, but I wish them the best.
deleted by creator
So ‘Bahmut holds’ wasn’t a viable strategy after all???
I think its definitely too early to say whether or not any particular element of either Russia or Ukraine’s strategy in the war has been ‘viable’ at this point in time. The ultimate long-term effects of either side’s major strategic decisions are probably difficult to understand right now even for the ones who have been making them, let alone for outside observers such as ourselves.
We can at least acknowledge that Bakhmut was the culminating point of Russian offensive operations in the Donbas. Would it have been the culminating point of their offensive if Ukrainians didn’t defend it so fiercely? Who can say. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces were heavily attrited in the battle there - will this benefit Russia or Ukraine more? Who can say. There are ‘conventional wisdom’ answers to both of these questions, but the nature of the fog of war is such that even small, seemingly unrelated developments can drastically alter the valence of what was previously established as strategically advantageous for one side or vice versa.
Even when institutions dedicated to the study of warfare attempt to analyze utilized strategy X versus counterfactual strategy Y from some episode of military history, the debates are often unending. So can’t you see how cringe it is to claim as a layman that it should’ve been obvious to a given commander (and at runtime, too, despite the fact that you’re making the criticism with the benefit of hindsight) that strategy Z would have been clearly superior to whatever it was they thought was best, back then?
The US is calling for the Somme
Can’t help but remember this article at this moment. And most moments. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
This article reminds me how Russia could prevent the war by not invading. They can also stop war any time by simply going home. We should be clear on the fact that Russia is solely responsible for every single second of this war.
History started Feb 24th 2022 and nothing had ever happened before then.
“they can just go home” genius brilliant take.
Things happened, yeah, Russia invaded Ukraine twice before - in 2014 and 2015. Not sure what’s your point, though.
Remind me how you can stop bullying if you refrain from challenging the bully.
Is this Ukraine’s war, or America’s?
Unnecessarily reductionist/antagonistic. If you had read the article, you would’ve known that the Ukrainians themselves agree with the point. And despite what the title says, the U.S. isn’t the only of Ukrainian’s western partners that thinks a change of strategy in order. This war might be fought primarily by the Ukrainians, but it’s also very clearly a collective responsibility of the western world order.
The truth will never be reductionist.
collective responsibility of the western world order.
ie- capitalist imperialism.
Such a bog-standard whataboutism that I couldn’t even be bothered to roll my eyes anymore. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Your welcome. My colors are red and black.
Defending those colors means defending against Russia as well
Yep. I’m against all capitalist imperialism, even China’s. It’s almost like those supporting NATO aren’t really socialists.
I’ve read those people have a thought called “critical support” where they’re critical against NATO but it’s the only logical lifeline for Ukraine and Europe to end the war some day and prevent similar situations.
Personally; I guess that’s a theory, who knows 🤷
Those colours doesn’t seem to go all the way through though. Scratch them for a moment and you will see the colours of the Russian flag appearing.
Both, and Europe’s.
Break the peace of Europe and it’s an issue for everyone.
I’m watching Putin’s speech at the BRICS summit. The economics of the world is about to change and the American government is about to shutdown. Ukraine is about to be the least of America’s worries.
Mr Ruble-Nosedive shouldn’t give talks about economy.
He didn’t take your advice.
And that is why the Ruble is still plummeting.
I’m watching Purim’s speech at the BRICS summit. The economics of the world is about to change and the American government is about to shutdown. Ukraine is about to be the least of America’s worries.
Also, he’s dating a supermodel, you wouldn’t know her, she goes to school in Canada.
Are you psychic?
I give you credit for bravery, my friend, I wouldn’t be anywhere near where you are without satellites broadcasting /s around me.
People take life too seriously. Someone posting today on here will probably bite it before tomorrow. We should enjoy each other while we have the chance.
Well, that says a lot about you, but nothing at all about actual things happening in reality.
Are you drunk?
The data suggests otherwise…
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=RU-US-CN-IN-BR-ZAThe world bank? Now add the other 40 countries that want to join including Saudi Arabia. When the petrodollar goes, so will that GDP.
Ok - here’s what it looks like if you were to group the GDP of each country into regions. If we group all of the regular trading partners and allies into “The West”, they comprise 58% of global GDP. BRICS and the 137 other countries would be 41%.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/I didn’t know that GDP is constant and can’t change. Surely nothing will change in the future. The PetroYuan is definitely not a possibility if Saudi Arabia joins BRICS. And that definitely won’t hurt America’s economy, reducing it’s GDP. America will always dominate the world. /s
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/SnK9rq-LUl4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Both
American soldiers are in Ukraine? So we’re okay with Proxy Wars now? Further reading.
I wish American soldiers were in ukraine to roll up this war and save lives
They would get dealt with just as Russia dealt with the western-trained 47th mechanized brigade full of NATO hardware using stupid western tactics. They got shredded to pieces together with their commander.
🤦
That could lead to WW3. Just hope that Russia destabilizes and Putin expires.
Fortunately or unfortunately, a destabilized Russia would not be safer for the world than a stable Russia.
Trying to be optimistic.
Not likely putin doesn’t actually want to die
That could lead to WW3.
Only very briefly.
You have to leave the precedent that the peace of Europe will be preserved, that’s how we made it the last 80 years without a world war.
Well, to be precise, it could lead to war with Russia. I doubt that would spill over to the whole world.
That prospect is terrifying enough given Russia’s nuclear weapons, so I’m definitely not arguing that “this is fine”.
I just think we need to be precise. Russia is not the Soviet Union - they don’t have 50 proxy states around the world.
Ukraine’s
Why is NATO helping these guys if they can’t get their shit together?
“These guys” held their own against the supposedly second largest army in the world for quite some time before receiving any significant help, and has now, despite all the headlines, regained quite a bit of their own territory which was lost to the Russian invasion, despite the fact that current military technology clearly favours defense over offense (in a scenario without air superiority).
They have also severely depleted the Russian military capability and most likely hindered Russia in invading and bullying their other neighbours for a long time. All for the price of some old hardware that was gathering dust anyway as well as a fraction of a bloated US military budget.
There are better ways to spend the budget.
Why did the US support the Allies in early WW2 when France was overrun in 6 weeks and allied convoys got wrecked in the Atlantic?
Because the Allies paid the US with money for their arms? If NATO was selling arms to Ukraine, that’d be totally different.
Ask yourself what the alternative is and what a successful outcome for Russia will enable for Putin! Then ask yourself what that means for Europe. Finally ask yourself what upheaval of a European market will do to an American economy and America’s ability to make its influence felt across the world.
Helping Ukraine is far cheaper.
Ask yourself what the alternative is and what a successful outcome for Russia will enable for Putin!
Ask yourself if there is a possibility of Ukraine winning.
Did North Vietnam win over the USA? There’s a good communist counter-example for my hexbear comrades!
And also, whether Ukraine can win (probably not) is less consequential to Europe than it is to Ukraine. But the cost of Russia’s assumed victory is helping to determine whether Russia wants to try again, against another country.
I see a lot of geopolitical calculus in your response - to what extent is the influence of the US over Europe and European markets limited by a Russian victory. You present something of a US-centric point of view but sure it’s a valid one. If Russia wins then yes likely the geopolitical influence of the USA will be knocked back to where it was in the 1980s with true multipolar politics, and it’s also true that if Europe wasn’t sanctioning Russian energy then they’d likely be buying that much cheaper energy, thereby reducing the geopolitical influence of the USA over Europe.
So I think I agree with most of what you say. But your perspective leaves something very important out of the equation:
Where does the will of the people who live in Donbas and Lubansk and Crimea factor into your math? Do we respect their right to self-determination? If not, why not?
Well my answer was in reference to why it was in the US’ interest to pump money into Ukraine so it will invariably be US centric. I’m not American by the way.
The right of self-determination is important but it is not sacrosanct and unassailable. Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, Åland, Greenland - there are many areas around the world, where there is disagreement about where a region should belong. These are hard problems to solve, in some cases there’s been votes, in some places violent, minority resistance movements have arisen.
In no case has a region unilaterally declared independence and been invaded by a large neighbour. This just isn’t how we should play.
So if you’re hoping to use “the right to self-determination” as a justification for Russia’s actions, then I definitely reject that argument.
You can finance this slaughter yourself, thank you very much.
I don’t know which country you think I’m from, but all the countries I have a citizenship in are financing Ukraine plenty.
I know, mine as well, which is a total shame!
You can finance this slaughter right now, or you can finance your own slaughter later.
Your choice.
Indeed, but I would much rather finance the other side…
why is nato helping a country fight russia?
Exactly!
deleted by creator
Because it’s the right thing to do. Because they’re getting invaded by a fascist dictatorship.
It’s not ‘helping’, it’s using generations of Ukrainian men for draining Russian resources and manpower. US provoked this war and they want to prolong it as much as possible because it drains Russia and the EU.
or it couldve been russia being such a shitty neighbor that ukrainians are tired of dealing with them. so ukraine has a revolution and turns westward.
who could figure out why when the country was being looted by putins puppet. or russia invades its neighbors many times before 2014 and 2022. why wouldnt they want to be another vassal state to russia again?
Would US cheerily let Mexico or Canada join e.g. Warsaw pact or present-day CSTO? I sure as hell believe they would intervene militarily. Look at what happened during the Cubon missile crisis. It puts the westoid rambling about ‘crazy Russia’ in a proper perspective, doesn’t it?
we wouldnt put them in a position to consider it. were all too reliant on each other.
That’s what Russia and Ukraine thought, until US started to interfere. It took them 20+ years to finally ignite the war.
right. so thats why russia invaded to “denazify” ukraine. sure buddy.
Kiev regime is openly nazi by promoting banderism and nazi ideology. They even have nazi insignia (wolfsangel) used for official military units. Not to mention nazi insignia running rampant in all sorts of units and even swastikas and balkenkreuzes on military vehicles and such.
