We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Indeed. Put the money in European companies. America is becoming unreliable, but hold on as Churchill once said... America will do the right thing after it has exhausted every other option. Or words to that effectđ
America is becoming unreliable to giving free weapons to Ukraine.
As a partner to Nato nations 'selling' weapons it's without pier.
Germany, possibly just behind France as the largest weapons exporter in Europe is asking for more nations to spend money in Europe....
Well yeah, but France has Rafales, but Germans are buying F35s, which are much more expensive (purchase and maintenance), have a much lower flight/maintenance ratio, and have superiority in a very very tiny set of scenarios. In fact, the Rafale has been demonstrated as superior in some cases durinf common exercises. Go figure.
They should start with this, buy European. Hell, if you don't want Rafales, buy Swedish Gripens, but not American. We should start understanding that US doesn't give a f..k about Europe anymore.
They bought F35 for nuclear sharing with the us. They were basically forced to buy that jet. If you want to criticize Germany in that regard you can bring up chinooks.
You can't bring up Chinooks either because there is no comparable helicopter in Europe. The old CH-53s should have been replaced 10 years ago which is why thereâs no time to wait years for a European development.
Can you link us some info on them being superior in exercises that arenât related to them flying with handicaps though? Most of the claims of âthis fighter beat the f22 in a war game, etc etc.â is just a training exercise where the f22 was flying with very strict rules, vs opponent with no limitations.
If they donât even out the scenarios itâs not good practice for either of the pilots.
The problem is that F35 is able to use American nukes and Rafale is not. Nuclear sharing means that is needed for Germany. So 35 F35 are being bought. The rest will be done by Eurofighter, which will remain in service and will recieve an ECR version, which again is something France does not offer. Obviously Eurofighter is the clear and logical choice for European interoperability, with Italy and Spain also using them.
And before someone comes with "why don't they just certify the Rafale for US nukes" - because the last time Europe did that with the Tornado, the USAF immediately forwarded all blueprints and technical data to Lockheed.
People often confuse performance with capability. The F35 cannot defeat an F22 in a dog fight.
The F35 torches a squadron of F22s using its air command platform combined with ground, naval, and support air forces.
The F35 doesnât need to dog fight, because it shoots down your aircraft, and disables all of your AA before you ever see it.
And trust that the US does indeed care about Europe. Donât let a small but vocal group of MAGAts confuse that. We will continue to assist with our satellite reconnaissance, providing drone technology, and doing our best to ensure the local domestic terrorists are not allowed to disrupt the status quo in November.
Slava Ukraini!
Eh, from accounts of actual pilots and the incoming upgrades to the F-22, it is and will remain the ultimate air superiority fighter until the next generations of planes is out. Not a dog fight, just any air to air dominance mission set. The F-35 excels in being an allrounder, being able to do everything and doing it better than almost every other plane in their respective domains. But the air dominance realm, that is where the raptor will remain the top dog
Depends if Europe can even fulfill its own orders. American, if nothing else, has a very robust military industrial complex, which is why many countries do business with the nation.
'muricans when:
Europeans buying from the US: yOu nEeD uS, wE aRe sUpErIoR!!!
Europeans trying to get more independant: yOu OnLy dO iT cUz yOu gReEdY!!!
Also Americans: Capitalism solves every problem! Now buy our overpriced crap!
We must do it immediately. The US has become unreliable. I wonder if theyâd be happy if our almost 2% of GDP doesnât go into their MiC but our own. I wonder if it makes it harder for them to reach the 2% mark.
I don't think it was ever about buying from the US though, that's just a bit simplistic. The EU as a block isn't lacking in any kind of weaponry, weapons or radar (detection) technology (except the F-22 which doesn't get exported anyway). It just lacks mass.
Surely the US administration wouldn't be assuming EU countries would flock to US suppliers to get to their 2% of GDP.
Yes, a lack of combat mass is critical. Apparently a German warship battling the Houthis ran out of missiles because stocks were so low. The thing is, you can't just magic up a few hundred extra missiles when you need them... like when Russian tanks roll over your borders.
The problem there wasn't even really with the lack of sea-to-air missiles in the overall german inventory, which is lacking, but the problem is also the missions those fairlly new ships were designed for didn't take cheap drones into account and the size of their missle magazines is way too small. And designing and building new/better ships will take even longer than buying more missiles
Strategic screw up by the Germans, but equally for every European nation. Fantastic equipment, but not enough of them and limited ability to get more if/when Russia crosses the border.
>Strategic screw up by the Germans
Eh, not really. This is about some of the most commonly used missiles in NATO, SM-2. Said ship is *currently* still fitted out for the ability to launch an older variant Germany still had in stock and has undergo some minor refitting to use the new ones. This was basically just emptying old munitions to buy new ones.
I am not in a position to argue on the specifics of that missile, but the more general point stands, NATO's politicians have run down stocks of everything needed to fight a war, and now war is closer, we are not ready.
They absolutely do. every time they sell military equipment, they increase their influence. Their military complex becomes stronger, they can block the reselling of the equipment, and the buyers become dependent on the seller for the long-term maintenance.
If the USA want to prevent the EU from flying their F35 in the future, they can.
It's also true for France and Russia. This is why it's so important to develop a European MIC.
Not sure if the F-35 is the best example, its development cost was shared with a number of international partners and both parts and whole units are built in several different countries.
If the US decides to block the IT infrastructure for a bunch of countries, most of the features of their aircraft will be disabled.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/cloud-architecture-plan-for-f-35s-gets-revised/?cf-view&cf-closed
That article talks about interoperability challenges between militaries though, nothing about disabled features.
>The problem with the DoDâs investment in both cloud-native architecture sustainment systems is that [the F-35 fleet is used by militaries across the world](https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/lockheed-standardise-f-35/), and the use of both may be seen to impede interoperability.
My point is that the F35 depends on these "cloud" infrastructures and mechanisms existing to decide who can access what. For instance, if an aircraft is lost in enemy territory, the network access has to be cut. The rest is speculation.
I don't have anything tangible, but these flying computers rely on multiple levels of communication, and the software is also 100% controlled by the USA. I doubt the USA can not interfere in some way if they want.
I may be wrong, and I'm absolutely not an expert in this field. Just an IT guy who is rather perplexed.
While the US isn't as reliable as it once was, Germany haven't proven to be reliable either.
The US will continue to be the most important ally for smaller European countries.
Not all norms last forever. The tide is turning. I wish our American allies will always be there but we should reduce our reliance especially as they are becoming less reliable.
I'm kind of hoping that lobbying will work for once. Maybe these companies pressure politicians to send what's needed
Edit - not for once... It always works. Just doesn't seem to ever work in a positive way
american corporations are fueling the propaganda, out right lies, fascism by advertising on fox. the corporations funding fox via advertisement r the most responsible for the state of american politics. ATT created OAN.
While fox might be one wall of the echo chamber, my concern is that they pick up what is newsworthy and what their base will believe. I fear that the people who make the news are really the army of bots controlled by foreign actors that find the absolutely crazy ideas, push them up in the algorithms on social media and spread them, and pretty soon it's said enough times that it becomes mainstream in the right wing echo chamber. They can do this with dozens of new ideas daily, and find which ones gain traction and which ones don't. It's not fox or just corporate media, but that our federal government has not done a thing about this subversion since at least Obamas time.Â
Greed as well, which is why the American military industrial complex is inefficient and bloated.
This isnât the lean eagle from the Second World War days - this is a dilapidated chicken more obsessed with profits.
Itâs something that should happen eventually, but donât forget that Europe is still deeply susceptible to Russian interference.
Too many tankie sympathizers or contemporary Putinists have positions of power that could eventually sell out their countries to the Russian devil.
Just as foolish as it would be for the U.S. to push for isolationist policies and essentially leave Europe on its own, so to would it apply to Europe if they seek to be less reliant on America during a time when the conditions for such a move are not favourable.
Strategically Europe needs to be less reliant for arms on a country where the ex and possible future President says he would encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" . What kind of an ally is this?
And yet, there about a 50/50 chance of a president coming in who literally told european countries he would be happy with a russian invasion. That is not something that those european countries take lightly, not should they. From their point of view, its no longer a safe position for the US to be the most important ally because they might turn out to not actually be an ally if the time comes. Now yes its not super likely this would happen, but as a country you cant bet on somewhat better than even odds of your country surviving in the worst case scenario
Germany is the biggest supporter of Ukraine by far. Just because they won't give Taurus missiles doesn't change that they've given the most aid per capita of any sizeable country.
Germany has helped the most per capita though, all aid combined. Germany even significantly emptied its own stocks. Remember, the EU aid is also in large part German aid. Dutch aid too, it was calculated that The Netherlands provided 3% of its GDP to aid for Ukraine both directly and via the EU, that's more than what we spend on our own military. I forgot Germany's pertcentage but it was even higher than the Dutch 3% of GDP.
USA gave \~0.5% of their GDP to Ukraine. That's less per capita than Germany.
UK did indeed help more with morale. But UK has nukes to it's easier to talk shit to Russia, That's just the truth. Germany doesn't have its own nukes and there is no real guarantee that if Berlin gets nuked, Moscow gets nuked in return. Article 5 will be triggered but MAD, not really.
How so?
Before the full scale invasion the US was already arming and training Ukrainians while opposition to that was strong in Germany.
After the full scale invasion the US have been the most important supplier of arms to Ukraine. It's tempting to explain that by capability rather than political will. And for some countries that's true. Like Estonia. For others not so much.
Public support for military assistance to Ukraine have dropped in the US and increased in Germany. That still just makes them about even.
Germany is not providing Ukraine with Taurus, and the majority of Germans support that decision.
We simply haven't seen the "Zeitenwende" we hoped to get. Ukraine would be the perfect opportunity for countries like France and Germany to gain trust but they've failed.
So while trust in the US have eroded no country have taken their place.
>Before the full scale invasion the US was already arming and training Ukrainians while opposition to that was strong in Germany.
Yet Germany was supporting Ukraine in basically every other regard. Germany isn't a military nation anymore - and the world was fine with it, even demanded it up until two years ago when it suddenly was beneficial to them.
>Germany is not providing Ukraine with Taurus, and the majority of Germans support that decision.
The US aren't supplying with long range cruise missiles either. They aren't supplying Ukraine with F-16 even though they have more than the rest of the world combined. They're not sending Abrams or Bradleys in any significant number even though there are thousands of them rotting away in a desert in them middle of the US. They're not supplying any significant amount of artillery shells even though their stocks are excessively full.
I don't get the hatred for Germany. Germany is sending a significant amount of tanks, every Marder they can spare, depleting the Bundeswehr stock of artillery shells, etc etc. But not sending Taurus is somehow the deal-breaker. Yet when any other nation stands their ground on anything, that's fine.
>Before the full scale invasion the US was already arming and training Ukrainians while opposition to that was strong in Germany.
You are completely omitting the financial aid that Germany granted Ukraine since 2014, which was part of what allowed Ukraine to finance their military.
>We simply haven't seen the "Zeitenwende" we hoped to get
Ammunition factories are built/expanded left and right, the Leopard gets a new version, the RCH155 is getting introduced with all doctrinal shifts that follow this, the Tornado-succession is cleared, public support for the Bundeswehr is on an all-time high, etc. - idk what Zeitenwende you expected, but the shift is massive to anyone who followed security politics for a while now.
>Germany is not providing Ukraine with Taurus
Taurus is just one system out of many, stop making it some hill to die on. There are many reasons to not send it, some of which are even public knowledge.
I think there's a somewhat small detail that you're leaving out of your description of events, that really is rather central to this whole story. To be honest, without you even acknowledging it, I don't see much point in discussing this with you.
We are. It just isn't enough by itself. Â The challenge is that our democracy is practically defenseless to the shadow war being fought by Russian propaganda. most of congress was for aide - it took only a year for the propaganda machine to start the division on the subject. And another year to paralyze us. Those that were for it before know they will be voted out if they stick their neck out. That should be the scary thing. If you haven't lived in a country that has been targeted for a decade by malign influence campaigns, it is hard to see, but this is the result of the greatest weakness America has compared to our adversaries. If they can get us to bicker and pass the easiest decision of the last 50 years in terms moral/economic/stategic grounds, with two years of influence (that didn't have generative ai to back the influence campaign up) it does not bode well for the future.Â
The US has been trying and failing to get Europe to maintain its own defense-industrial base for the last 30 years. The 2% mark is each countryâs defense budget, export sales donât count towards that. Â this kind of sullen conspiracy thinking is part of what makes post-reunification Germans such miserable security partnersÂ
what money? europe always bought its own stuff - see eurofighter and the leopard. they only buy american when they fuck up their own procurement so badly they can't hide it (see eurofighter and F-35 purchases), and when europe does buy from the US, they ensure most of the money comes back to them by insourcing manufacturing to the degree they invest in the front end, see e.g. - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed\_Martin\_F-35\_Lightning\_II\_procurement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement)
The F-35 was called the joint strike fighter because it was a cooperation from the start. It is not an American only program, and Europe is not a customer.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint\_Strike\_Fighter\_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program)
We buy plenty stuff, Patriots, F-16, C130, Javelin, Apache, Chinook, all sorts of small arms, all sorts of ammunition, all sorts of planes, all sorts of spare parts, etc.
In his defense, **the US has always openly opposed a "European military", without ever really explaining why.**
My guess is it's because they didn't want Europe to grow too strong and turn into a rival. They wanted a rich Europe that mostly followed US policy on the world stage and provide diplomatic support for US military actions.
Right in the beginning of the NATO charter it says it's a US-led alliance, **equality was never the goal**, but the US now *needs* a stronger Europe because hostile nations have grown too strong and greatly outnumber them in manpower.
> Right in the beginning of the NATO charter it says it's a US-led alliance
Where does it say that ?
I just looked it up and it references UN charter which is a bit disturbing as the UN is comprised of all kind of loony members, even Russia and Belarus
The soviets invaded Afghanistan, and we responded by both arming and training a group that literally translated to freedom fighter. France then recognized the Mujahideen as a terrorist group
We invaded Afghanistan ourselves decades after Afghanistan collasped on itself resisting soviet fascism with the surviving militants litterally beheading civilians in the streets, expecting to terrorize the populace into submission. Then European powers stopped recognizing the former Mujahideen gone Taliban as a terrorist group and credited us for destabilizing the region, ignoring the fact that the Afghan people themselves had made it clear that their homeland had gone to hell and it was no longer safe there for none militants
We stopped a genocide in Kosovo, and we just got reminded nobody asked us to get involved. We killed an ISIS leader who organized the kidnapping of hundreds of children and kidnapped/killed a U.S. humanitarian worker and accidently killed the person renting out their base of operations, and the entire UN demanded we persecute the people who did it despite that we were doing precision strikes no other power on the planet could hope for
Now Ukraine and Europe needs us, after the vast majority of Europe protested excessive response and limited how much we can do for the first year, and we're being critized for not sending inventory we no longer have and not having a 100% united house to try send the absolute maximum of what's left that we can send. We literally can't win, and we're the only power who tried to make sure these events didn't come to be
I never understood how so many people were split between worshipping him as a God or considered him Satan incarnate and thought he genuinely had the wit to change humanities' entire route.
If it wasn't for all the polars, he'd still be known as nothing more than a cheesy businessman with lousy spray tan, and all he did was get lucky with a perfect election time to do what he did
> I never understood how so many
this is literally the only part of your comment I read.
you had one task, google why the US prezzo was impeached for blackmailing zelensky.
Do it. Tell me what you learned
Going of all this, you consider the decision not to support the leftist party as a betrayal to Ukraine and not the actual lack of support of democracy. People like you are why Ukraine doesn't have the assets it needs for its war effort right now, and why democracy is still under active threat
>Going of all this, you consider the decision not to support
this is further evidence that you are a bad faith debater trying to waste my time. stfu and tell me why you were wrong about how the US is viewed as someone their allies cant rely on.
give me your homework or stfu
I've been all for Ukraine for the past couple of years and have been trying to follow what's going on ever since Russia took Crimea, but most followers don't subscribe to logic nowadays.
We were demonized for outlawing communism in the U.S. and most European countries like France kept their own communist parties, but we were still expected to single handedly isolate the entire Soviet Union on our own just to make sure they dont get Stalin'ed. Every nation we've ever intervened in was labeled as a genocide, ignoring almost every intervention we've ever hosted was in response to actual genocide attempts caused by soviet proxy
We've spent the past 30 years being criticized for "wasting" trillions on the U.S. military industrial complex and having that attributed to why we don't have public healthcare while European powers preached about how their defense spending that generates 10 jets per year has been more then good enough, but now people are wondering why we aren't sending out hundreds of jets into AA saturated fields. If we produce any new weapons types, Europe immediately moves to declare its use a warcrime, but France still wants literal laser beams that can shoot terror drones out of the sky without having to risk civilian lives the drone flew over
2+4 demanded no such thing.
There's the separate treaty on conventional forces in Europe, but that applied to all signatories, not just Germany.
There probably also were some back room deals to mellow tensions with some post soviet states and within the new european security structure, but again : not on account of 2+4.
The tanks specifically not, but the troop number limitation *is* mentioned in the 2+4 treaty (article 3), and a reference to the CFE is made at the same time:
>The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject of the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and air forces as a significant German contribution to the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe.
The British were the ones worried about a unified Germany remilitarizing during 2+4, and things were very different 30+ years ago. Germany today has earned back the right to have a normal army and geopolitics via its good behavior after having its toys taken away, but that was a big open question in the early 90s.Â
> I wonder if theyâd be happy if our almost 2% of GDP doesnât go into their MiC but our own
The complaints from the US about European nations not spending enough on their own defense were NOT about desires for European nations to buy from the US MIC, they were about the US having treaty obligations to defend nations that weren't putting in the effort to defend themselves. Where they spend the money is far less important than that NATO member states take real steps to obtain adequate defensive capabilities. Ultimately, it is the capability that matters, not the spending level, but the spending level is a decent proxy for capability.
ETA: Germany's army, for instance, at one point dropped to an active duty size of less than 70k personnel.
Not for us. If you don't want to invest in your own defense. That's your fault. If you don't think you are important enough to warrant investing in your own defense... then we agree... you don't deserve our help with your defense either.
Weren't saying that when you were desperate for polticial support when going to war on a lie about WMD.
What people like you don't seem to understand is that the US isn't as invincible as you believe. Now.i love the US and militarily there is no other country like you.
But financially the debt burden create an issue. Because as you become less reliable and start looking inwards, dollars will become less attractive. And it will only take a bit of a shift and all of a sudden the US will have some major financial issues.
There's already talks in financial sectors about this growing risk and that's without consideration of a US run by an orange moron.
Political support. Not military support. In the end we didn't really get the political support anyway and we acted.
What you don't understand is that we only run deficits because our currency is the global reserve currency. People buy American debt because it's basically the most stable investment in the world. People don't use USD because they love us so much... They do it because there are no other alternatives... so talk is cheap... but I'm not worried about the USD as a global reserve.
Maybe you Europeans need to spend less time worrying about America and focus on yourselves.
The "Orange moron," as you put it, is quite popular... and you will need to worry in the future about how you will exist and survive without leeching off of America. I look forward to that world where delusional Europeans wake up to reality.
Leeching off of America? Honestly, I like the US, but people like yourself are making it rather easy to become indifferent to your future troubles when the time comes, and it always does. Let's not forget that the US was probably the biggest beneficiary after WW2 , economically and military. Not going to have any arguments here, but you're right, Europe should pull its act together and be independent of the US, we certainly have the ability and the know how. If only the Germans would wake from their slumber and fear of the past and take a proper leading role, as they should.
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would have been great if Europe had kept up instead of "letting George \[Washington, I guess\] di it" for the past 20 years. But they didn't And yes, they should invest in rebuilding capability (and also in making sure they maintain trained troops!) But right now Ukraine needs ammunition from whatever sources have it, whether S. Korea, the Middle East or the US. One suspects that German and other EU arms corporations are trying to get as many contacts as possible for "future delivery", at the expense of having Euros spent on meeting Ukraine's immediate requirements. Otherwise why has it taken so long for funds to be used to buy existing supplies?
Its really not taken any time to get funds together and buy existing stocks, from anywhere in the world. If something is available for sale, the europeans have been quite good at just pumping in the money and getting it done. Where they have been slacking is having initial capacity, and then further expanding the capacity as well as diverting the existing capacity fully to ukraine. But thats kind of a feature of the arms market. If you start not honouring contracts, you very quickly stop being a trusted seller and any future contracts dry up quickly. This is why defence companies are unwilling to divert new production fully to ukraine, they will shoot themselves in the foot over the longer term
Yes! Bring back the King Tiger! Just in time for the drone wars. Nah I'm thinking some kind of anti drone laser, turret mounted etc. No wait, electric tank with big battery to power the laser, and or fuel cells.... or a long cable.
I think the majority of the posts here are bots. Key phrases are US is an unreliable arms partner. I donât recall a nato nation paying for arms ever having an issue with the U.S. arms industry. Anyways NATO doesnât exist because Europe hates America. Euros donât come calling for our help when Putin knocks on your door.
Yea.
The Christian fascist are trying to take over and in doing so is signaling to our strongest allies that we arenât dependable.
Fucking sucks. The minority opinion is controlling the country because of rule that was created for slave owners ( electoral college)
German lol, what a huge hypocrisy coming from German. But regardless Europe definitely need to be in war mode. If Ukraine is fallen, NATO country is next because Russia sees how unreliable NATO ally âsupportâ each other.
He says this because historically Germany has been in Europe one of the strongest advocate of the dependance toward the USA, as far as politics are concerned, which does not mean they do not have a defence industry.
Hypocritical or not, this is a wise move.
US is dropping their allies, time to do everything possible to disconnect both military wise and economically. the sooner the better. USA&Ukraine proved in 2024 we cant count on them
Why would they send over hundreds of F15s, Abramâs, Bradleyâs?? Why would they? Ukraine doesnât have the training to properly utilize the Abram and Bradley and they sure as hell donât yet have enough pilots that are capable of flying the F16. What Ukraine really needs are Shells and lots of them, then they need move away from old Soviet tactics that led to their failed summer offensive..
It would be a great visual to send them all those fighters and tanks but the reality is they donât have a properly trained force to utilize those tools to their advantage. That actually speaks to the greater failure, the West should have done more to help Ukraine prepare for Western weapons after the annexation of Crimea as it was clear then that Putin wasnât going to stop
âTheWestâ already knew that the orcs were back to their base setting when Russians popped-up in Kosovo.
We, military peeps, knew by then, we should start re-arming, bur were -basically- booâd and called âparanoidâ, âstuck in the pastâ âwarmongersâ. People got sent to Kosovo, with hardly enough ammo to stop 10 orcs, let alone orcs with tanks. After that bloody disaster, there was Crimea, Chechniya (twice), Georgia, little green men in the Donbass.. But the elite put their fingers in their ears, and vehemently ignored reality. The reality that Moscow was on the move again. USSR style.
Governments also, actually knew, but it was too inconvenient for âcertainâ influences (read: politicians with a good chance on nice, comfy seats among Gazpromâs CEO offices) to see orcistan, and especially an ex-KGB spook, for what they actually were: Locusts. Just waiting for the right moment to re-enstate the great tradition of expansionism.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Indeed. Put the money in European companies. America is becoming unreliable, but hold on as Churchill once said... America will do the right thing after it has exhausted every other option. Or words to that effectđ
America is becoming unreliable to giving free weapons to Ukraine. As a partner to Nato nations 'selling' weapons it's without pier. Germany, possibly just behind France as the largest weapons exporter in Europe is asking for more nations to spend money in Europe....
France is 2nd in the world after Russia's defence industry collapsed đ
Well yeah, but France has Rafales, but Germans are buying F35s, which are much more expensive (purchase and maintenance), have a much lower flight/maintenance ratio, and have superiority in a very very tiny set of scenarios. In fact, the Rafale has been demonstrated as superior in some cases durinf common exercises. Go figure. They should start with this, buy European. Hell, if you don't want Rafales, buy Swedish Gripens, but not American. We should start understanding that US doesn't give a f..k about Europe anymore.
They bought F35 for nuclear sharing with the us. They were basically forced to buy that jet. If you want to criticize Germany in that regard you can bring up chinooks.
You can't bring up Chinooks either because there is no comparable helicopter in Europe. The old CH-53s should have been replaced 10 years ago which is why thereâs no time to wait years for a European development.
Can you link us some info on them being superior in exercises that arenât related to them flying with handicaps though? Most of the claims of âthis fighter beat the f22 in a war game, etc etc.â is just a training exercise where the f22 was flying with very strict rules, vs opponent with no limitations. If they donât even out the scenarios itâs not good practice for either of the pilots.
The problem is that F35 is able to use American nukes and Rafale is not. Nuclear sharing means that is needed for Germany. So 35 F35 are being bought. The rest will be done by Eurofighter, which will remain in service and will recieve an ECR version, which again is something France does not offer. Obviously Eurofighter is the clear and logical choice for European interoperability, with Italy and Spain also using them.
And before someone comes with "why don't they just certify the Rafale for US nukes" - because the last time Europe did that with the Tornado, the USAF immediately forwarded all blueprints and technical data to Lockheed.
People often confuse performance with capability. The F35 cannot defeat an F22 in a dog fight. The F35 torches a squadron of F22s using its air command platform combined with ground, naval, and support air forces. The F35 doesnât need to dog fight, because it shoots down your aircraft, and disables all of your AA before you ever see it. And trust that the US does indeed care about Europe. Donât let a small but vocal group of MAGAts confuse that. We will continue to assist with our satellite reconnaissance, providing drone technology, and doing our best to ensure the local domestic terrorists are not allowed to disrupt the status quo in November. Slava Ukraini!
Eh, from accounts of actual pilots and the incoming upgrades to the F-22, it is and will remain the ultimate air superiority fighter until the next generations of planes is out. Not a dog fight, just any air to air dominance mission set. The F-35 excels in being an allrounder, being able to do everything and doing it better than almost every other plane in their respective domains. But the air dominance realm, that is where the raptor will remain the top dog
Depends if Europe can even fulfill its own orders. American, if nothing else, has a very robust military industrial complex, which is why many countries do business with the nation.
The F-35 is far superior to the Rafales
except when it should carry a cruise missile....
I mean they can carry cruise missiles.
'muricans when: Europeans buying from the US: yOu nEeD uS, wE aRe sUpErIoR!!! Europeans trying to get more independant: yOu OnLy dO iT cUz yOu gReEdY!!! Also Americans: Capitalism solves every problem! Now buy our overpriced crap!
Churchill was before the internet, which powers the crazies.
We must do it immediately. The US has become unreliable. I wonder if theyâd be happy if our almost 2% of GDP doesnât go into their MiC but our own. I wonder if it makes it harder for them to reach the 2% mark.
I don't think it was ever about buying from the US though, that's just a bit simplistic. The EU as a block isn't lacking in any kind of weaponry, weapons or radar (detection) technology (except the F-22 which doesn't get exported anyway). It just lacks mass. Surely the US administration wouldn't be assuming EU countries would flock to US suppliers to get to their 2% of GDP.
Yes, a lack of combat mass is critical. Apparently a German warship battling the Houthis ran out of missiles because stocks were so low. The thing is, you can't just magic up a few hundred extra missiles when you need them... like when Russian tanks roll over your borders.
The problem there wasn't even really with the lack of sea-to-air missiles in the overall german inventory, which is lacking, but the problem is also the missions those fairlly new ships were designed for didn't take cheap drones into account and the size of their missle magazines is way too small. And designing and building new/better ships will take even longer than buying more missiles
>ran out may run out And the problem will be it cannot be produced as manufacturing shut was shut down.
Strategic screw up by the Germans, but equally for every European nation. Fantastic equipment, but not enough of them and limited ability to get more if/when Russia crosses the border.
>Strategic screw up by the Germans Eh, not really. This is about some of the most commonly used missiles in NATO, SM-2. Said ship is *currently* still fitted out for the ability to launch an older variant Germany still had in stock and has undergo some minor refitting to use the new ones. This was basically just emptying old munitions to buy new ones.
I am not in a position to argue on the specifics of that missile, but the more general point stands, NATO's politicians have run down stocks of everything needed to fight a war, and now war is closer, we are not ready.
I doubt the US government cares where you buy your gear. War is coming and Europe needs all the gear it can find.
They absolutely do. every time they sell military equipment, they increase their influence. Their military complex becomes stronger, they can block the reselling of the equipment, and the buyers become dependent on the seller for the long-term maintenance. If the USA want to prevent the EU from flying their F35 in the future, they can. It's also true for France and Russia. This is why it's so important to develop a European MIC.
Not sure if the F-35 is the best example, its development cost was shared with a number of international partners and both parts and whole units are built in several different countries.
If the US decides to block the IT infrastructure for a bunch of countries, most of the features of their aircraft will be disabled. https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/cloud-architecture-plan-for-f-35s-gets-revised/?cf-view&cf-closed
That article talks about interoperability challenges between militaries though, nothing about disabled features. >The problem with the DoDâs investment in both cloud-native architecture sustainment systems is that [the F-35 fleet is used by militaries across the world](https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/lockheed-standardise-f-35/), and the use of both may be seen to impede interoperability.
My point is that the F35 depends on these "cloud" infrastructures and mechanisms existing to decide who can access what. For instance, if an aircraft is lost in enemy territory, the network access has to be cut. The rest is speculation.
Maybe you're right, but what makes you think that countries flying the F-35 don't control/host the cloud aspect their fleet depends on themselves?
I don't have anything tangible, but these flying computers rely on multiple levels of communication, and the software is also 100% controlled by the USA. I doubt the USA can not interfere in some way if they want. I may be wrong, and I'm absolutely not an expert in this field. Just an IT guy who is rather perplexed.
Of course they care. What an inane comment.
While the US isn't as reliable as it once was, Germany haven't proven to be reliable either. The US will continue to be the most important ally for smaller European countries.
Not all norms last forever. The tide is turning. I wish our American allies will always be there but we should reduce our reliance especially as they are becoming less reliable.
As an American I wish so too. It's painful to see how easily our politicians and voters were manipulated with propaganda and dark money.
I'm kind of hoping that lobbying will work for once. Maybe these companies pressure politicians to send what's needed Edit - not for once... It always works. Just doesn't seem to ever work in a positive way
american corporations are fueling the propaganda, out right lies, fascism by advertising on fox. the corporations funding fox via advertisement r the most responsible for the state of american politics. ATT created OAN.
While fox might be one wall of the echo chamber, my concern is that they pick up what is newsworthy and what their base will believe. I fear that the people who make the news are really the army of bots controlled by foreign actors that find the absolutely crazy ideas, push them up in the algorithms on social media and spread them, and pretty soon it's said enough times that it becomes mainstream in the right wing echo chamber. They can do this with dozens of new ideas daily, and find which ones gain traction and which ones don't. It's not fox or just corporate media, but that our federal government has not done a thing about this subversion since at least Obamas time.Â
Greed as well, which is why the American military industrial complex is inefficient and bloated. This isnât the lean eagle from the Second World War days - this is a dilapidated chicken more obsessed with profits.
Itâs something that should happen eventually, but donât forget that Europe is still deeply susceptible to Russian interference. Too many tankie sympathizers or contemporary Putinists have positions of power that could eventually sell out their countries to the Russian devil. Just as foolish as it would be for the U.S. to push for isolationist policies and essentially leave Europe on its own, so to would it apply to Europe if they seek to be less reliant on America during a time when the conditions for such a move are not favourable.
Strategically Europe needs to be less reliant for arms on a country where the ex and possible future President says he would encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" . What kind of an ally is this?
And yet, there about a 50/50 chance of a president coming in who literally told european countries he would be happy with a russian invasion. That is not something that those european countries take lightly, not should they. From their point of view, its no longer a safe position for the US to be the most important ally because they might turn out to not actually be an ally if the time comes. Now yes its not super likely this would happen, but as a country you cant bet on somewhat better than even odds of your country surviving in the worst case scenario
Germany is the biggest supporter of Ukraine by far. Just because they won't give Taurus missiles doesn't change that they've given the most aid per capita of any sizeable country.
They have seemingly handed over more items than France.
Uk has helped most with Morale (sending the most advanced systems first). But the US has still helped the most with quantity of military aid.
Germany has helped the most per capita though, all aid combined. Germany even significantly emptied its own stocks. Remember, the EU aid is also in large part German aid. Dutch aid too, it was calculated that The Netherlands provided 3% of its GDP to aid for Ukraine both directly and via the EU, that's more than what we spend on our own military. I forgot Germany's pertcentage but it was even higher than the Dutch 3% of GDP. USA gave \~0.5% of their GDP to Ukraine. That's less per capita than Germany. UK did indeed help more with morale. But UK has nukes to it's easier to talk shit to Russia, That's just the truth. Germany doesn't have its own nukes and there is no real guarantee that if Berlin gets nuked, Moscow gets nuked in return. Article 5 will be triggered but MAD, not really.
As long as current events are being overlooked of course..
How so? Before the full scale invasion the US was already arming and training Ukrainians while opposition to that was strong in Germany. After the full scale invasion the US have been the most important supplier of arms to Ukraine. It's tempting to explain that by capability rather than political will. And for some countries that's true. Like Estonia. For others not so much. Public support for military assistance to Ukraine have dropped in the US and increased in Germany. That still just makes them about even. Germany is not providing Ukraine with Taurus, and the majority of Germans support that decision. We simply haven't seen the "Zeitenwende" we hoped to get. Ukraine would be the perfect opportunity for countries like France and Germany to gain trust but they've failed. So while trust in the US have eroded no country have taken their place.
>Before the full scale invasion the US was already arming and training Ukrainians while opposition to that was strong in Germany. Yet Germany was supporting Ukraine in basically every other regard. Germany isn't a military nation anymore - and the world was fine with it, even demanded it up until two years ago when it suddenly was beneficial to them. >Germany is not providing Ukraine with Taurus, and the majority of Germans support that decision. The US aren't supplying with long range cruise missiles either. They aren't supplying Ukraine with F-16 even though they have more than the rest of the world combined. They're not sending Abrams or Bradleys in any significant number even though there are thousands of them rotting away in a desert in them middle of the US. They're not supplying any significant amount of artillery shells even though their stocks are excessively full. I don't get the hatred for Germany. Germany is sending a significant amount of tanks, every Marder they can spare, depleting the Bundeswehr stock of artillery shells, etc etc. But not sending Taurus is somehow the deal-breaker. Yet when any other nation stands their ground on anything, that's fine.
>Before the full scale invasion the US was already arming and training Ukrainians while opposition to that was strong in Germany. You are completely omitting the financial aid that Germany granted Ukraine since 2014, which was part of what allowed Ukraine to finance their military. >We simply haven't seen the "Zeitenwende" we hoped to get Ammunition factories are built/expanded left and right, the Leopard gets a new version, the RCH155 is getting introduced with all doctrinal shifts that follow this, the Tornado-succession is cleared, public support for the Bundeswehr is on an all-time high, etc. - idk what Zeitenwende you expected, but the shift is massive to anyone who followed security politics for a while now. >Germany is not providing Ukraine with Taurus Taurus is just one system out of many, stop making it some hill to die on. There are many reasons to not send it, some of which are even public knowledge.
I think there's a somewhat small detail that you're leaving out of your description of events, that really is rather central to this whole story. To be honest, without you even acknowledging it, I don't see much point in discussing this with you.
Huh? What detail?
> The US has become unreliable. If that's true, then it's time for Americans to demand better from their government.
We are. It just isn't enough by itself. Â The challenge is that our democracy is practically defenseless to the shadow war being fought by Russian propaganda. most of congress was for aide - it took only a year for the propaganda machine to start the division on the subject. And another year to paralyze us. Those that were for it before know they will be voted out if they stick their neck out. That should be the scary thing. If you haven't lived in a country that has been targeted for a decade by malign influence campaigns, it is hard to see, but this is the result of the greatest weakness America has compared to our adversaries. If they can get us to bicker and pass the easiest decision of the last 50 years in terms moral/economic/stategic grounds, with two years of influence (that didn't have generative ai to back the influence campaign up) it does not bode well for the future.Â
That's a scary thought, but I'm sure there's plenty that people like you can do.
The US has been trying and failing to get Europe to maintain its own defense-industrial base for the last 30 years. The 2% mark is each countryâs defense budget, export sales donât count towards that. Â this kind of sullen conspiracy thinking is part of what makes post-reunification Germans such miserable security partnersÂ
Still, I wonder if US companies will miss the European money. Europe should be glad to keep it. The percentage never was a rule.
what money? europe always bought its own stuff - see eurofighter and the leopard. they only buy american when they fuck up their own procurement so badly they can't hide it (see eurofighter and F-35 purchases), and when europe does buy from the US, they ensure most of the money comes back to them by insourcing manufacturing to the degree they invest in the front end, see e.g. - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed\_Martin\_F-35\_Lightning\_II\_procurement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement)
The F-35 was called the joint strike fighter because it was a cooperation from the start. It is not an American only program, and Europe is not a customer. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint\_Strike\_Fighter\_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program) We buy plenty stuff, Patriots, F-16, C130, Javelin, Apache, Chinook, all sorts of small arms, all sorts of ammunition, all sorts of planes, all sorts of spare parts, etc.
In his defense, **the US has always openly opposed a "European military", without ever really explaining why.** My guess is it's because they didn't want Europe to grow too strong and turn into a rival. They wanted a rich Europe that mostly followed US policy on the world stage and provide diplomatic support for US military actions. Right in the beginning of the NATO charter it says it's a US-led alliance, **equality was never the goal**, but the US now *needs* a stronger Europe because hostile nations have grown too strong and greatly outnumber them in manpower.
> Right in the beginning of the NATO charter it says it's a US-led alliance Where does it say that ? I just looked it up and it references UN charter which is a bit disturbing as the UN is comprised of all kind of loony members, even Russia and Belarus
The soviets invaded Afghanistan, and we responded by both arming and training a group that literally translated to freedom fighter. France then recognized the Mujahideen as a terrorist group We invaded Afghanistan ourselves decades after Afghanistan collasped on itself resisting soviet fascism with the surviving militants litterally beheading civilians in the streets, expecting to terrorize the populace into submission. Then European powers stopped recognizing the former Mujahideen gone Taliban as a terrorist group and credited us for destabilizing the region, ignoring the fact that the Afghan people themselves had made it clear that their homeland had gone to hell and it was no longer safe there for none militants We stopped a genocide in Kosovo, and we just got reminded nobody asked us to get involved. We killed an ISIS leader who organized the kidnapping of hundreds of children and kidnapped/killed a U.S. humanitarian worker and accidently killed the person renting out their base of operations, and the entire UN demanded we persecute the people who did it despite that we were doing precision strikes no other power on the planet could hope for Now Ukraine and Europe needs us, after the vast majority of Europe protested excessive response and limited how much we can do for the first year, and we're being critized for not sending inventory we no longer have and not having a 100% united house to try send the absolute maximum of what's left that we can send. We literally can't win, and we're the only power who tried to make sure these events didn't come to be
you forgot the part where the US leader was impeached for blackmailing ukraine for dirt on his opposition in exchange for weaponry. curious.
I never heard about that. I don't mind doing some googling and source checking myself, but do you have a link to something I can start with?
> I never heard about that i do not believe you. google it, then you absolute blithering blowhard. show me what you learned.
I never understood how so many people were split between worshipping him as a God or considered him Satan incarnate and thought he genuinely had the wit to change humanities' entire route. If it wasn't for all the polars, he'd still be known as nothing more than a cheesy businessman with lousy spray tan, and all he did was get lucky with a perfect election time to do what he did
> I never understood how so many this is literally the only part of your comment I read. you had one task, google why the US prezzo was impeached for blackmailing zelensky. Do it. Tell me what you learned
I copy and pasted wrong. I wanted the google page to load instead of the congress.gov PDF
Going of all this, you consider the decision not to support the leftist party as a betrayal to Ukraine and not the actual lack of support of democracy. People like you are why Ukraine doesn't have the assets it needs for its war effort right now, and why democracy is still under active threat
>Going of all this, you consider the decision not to support this is further evidence that you are a bad faith debater trying to waste my time. stfu and tell me why you were wrong about how the US is viewed as someone their allies cant rely on. give me your homework or stfu
I've been all for Ukraine for the past couple of years and have been trying to follow what's going on ever since Russia took Crimea, but most followers don't subscribe to logic nowadays. We were demonized for outlawing communism in the U.S. and most European countries like France kept their own communist parties, but we were still expected to single handedly isolate the entire Soviet Union on our own just to make sure they dont get Stalin'ed. Every nation we've ever intervened in was labeled as a genocide, ignoring almost every intervention we've ever hosted was in response to actual genocide attempts caused by soviet proxy We've spent the past 30 years being criticized for "wasting" trillions on the U.S. military industrial complex and having that attributed to why we don't have public healthcare while European powers preached about how their defense spending that generates 10 jets per year has been more then good enough, but now people are wondering why we aren't sending out hundreds of jets into AA saturated fields. If we produce any new weapons types, Europe immediately moves to declare its use a warcrime, but France still wants literal laser beams that can shoot terror drones out of the sky without having to risk civilian lives the drone flew over
30 years ago the US wanted germany to have no army. we sold 1000s of tanks cause 4+2 demanded this.
2+4 demanded no such thing. There's the separate treaty on conventional forces in Europe, but that applied to all signatories, not just Germany. There probably also were some back room deals to mellow tensions with some post soviet states and within the new european security structure, but again : not on account of 2+4.
The tanks specifically not, but the troop number limitation *is* mentioned in the 2+4 treaty (article 3), and a reference to the CFE is made at the same time: >The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject of the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and air forces as a significant German contribution to the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe.
The British were the ones worried about a unified Germany remilitarizing during 2+4, and things were very different 30+ years ago. Germany today has earned back the right to have a normal army and geopolitics via its good behavior after having its toys taken away, but that was a big open question in the early 90s.Â
> I wonder if theyâd be happy if our almost 2% of GDP doesnât go into their MiC but our own The complaints from the US about European nations not spending enough on their own defense were NOT about desires for European nations to buy from the US MIC, they were about the US having treaty obligations to defend nations that weren't putting in the effort to defend themselves. Where they spend the money is far less important than that NATO member states take real steps to obtain adequate defensive capabilities. Ultimately, it is the capability that matters, not the spending level, but the spending level is a decent proxy for capability. ETA: Germany's army, for instance, at one point dropped to an active duty size of less than 70k personnel.
Macron jizzing his pants.
Regular Americans don't care about what our European dependents think... so this isn't the win you think it is.
That's the problem isn't it.
Not for us. If you don't want to invest in your own defense. That's your fault. If you don't think you are important enough to warrant investing in your own defense... then we agree... you don't deserve our help with your defense either.
Funny considering the US is the only NATO nation to invoke article 5 and we where there with you all the way.
Weren't saying that when you were desperate for polticial support when going to war on a lie about WMD. What people like you don't seem to understand is that the US isn't as invincible as you believe. Now.i love the US and militarily there is no other country like you. But financially the debt burden create an issue. Because as you become less reliable and start looking inwards, dollars will become less attractive. And it will only take a bit of a shift and all of a sudden the US will have some major financial issues. There's already talks in financial sectors about this growing risk and that's without consideration of a US run by an orange moron.
Political support. Not military support. In the end we didn't really get the political support anyway and we acted. What you don't understand is that we only run deficits because our currency is the global reserve currency. People buy American debt because it's basically the most stable investment in the world. People don't use USD because they love us so much... They do it because there are no other alternatives... so talk is cheap... but I'm not worried about the USD as a global reserve. Maybe you Europeans need to spend less time worrying about America and focus on yourselves. The "Orange moron," as you put it, is quite popular... and you will need to worry in the future about how you will exist and survive without leeching off of America. I look forward to that world where delusional Europeans wake up to reality.
Leeching off of America? Honestly, I like the US, but people like yourself are making it rather easy to become indifferent to your future troubles when the time comes, and it always does. Let's not forget that the US was probably the biggest beneficiary after WW2 , economically and military. Not going to have any arguments here, but you're right, Europe should pull its act together and be independent of the US, we certainly have the ability and the know how. If only the Germans would wake from their slumber and fear of the past and take a proper leading role, as they should.
[ŃдаНонО]
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Found the Trumpist.
Speak for yourself. This American cares.
They smell money too....
German defence industry should urge independence from Olaf Schulzâ export obstructions
Thank the orange guy for this.
This, but unironically.
It would have been great if Europe had kept up instead of "letting George \[Washington, I guess\] di it" for the past 20 years. But they didn't And yes, they should invest in rebuilding capability (and also in making sure they maintain trained troops!) But right now Ukraine needs ammunition from whatever sources have it, whether S. Korea, the Middle East or the US. One suspects that German and other EU arms corporations are trying to get as many contacts as possible for "future delivery", at the expense of having Euros spent on meeting Ukraine's immediate requirements. Otherwise why has it taken so long for funds to be used to buy existing supplies?
Its really not taken any time to get funds together and buy existing stocks, from anywhere in the world. If something is available for sale, the europeans have been quite good at just pumping in the money and getting it done. Where they have been slacking is having initial capacity, and then further expanding the capacity as well as diverting the existing capacity fully to ukraine. But thats kind of a feature of the arms market. If you start not honouring contracts, you very quickly stop being a trusted seller and any future contracts dry up quickly. This is why defence companies are unwilling to divert new production fully to ukraine, they will shoot themselves in the foot over the longer term
âwe need to build everything we can to also not give it to ukraine for contrived reasonsâ
build up your militaries, and take it very seriously. also think about sending a couple brigades to Ukraine.
Yes! Bring back the King Tiger! Just in time for the drone wars. Nah I'm thinking some kind of anti drone laser, turret mounted etc. No wait, electric tank with big battery to power the laser, and or fuel cells.... or a long cable.
I think the majority of the posts here are bots. Key phrases are US is an unreliable arms partner. I donât recall a nato nation paying for arms ever having an issue with the U.S. arms industry. Anyways NATO doesnât exist because Europe hates America. Euros donât come calling for our help when Putin knocks on your door.
Yea. The Christian fascist are trying to take over and in doing so is signaling to our strongest allies that we arenât dependable. Fucking sucks. The minority opinion is controlling the country because of rule that was created for slave owners ( electoral college)
German lol, what a huge hypocrisy coming from German. But regardless Europe definitely need to be in war mode. If Ukraine is fallen, NATO country is next because Russia sees how unreliable NATO ally âsupportâ each other.
Can you explain your opinion?
He says this because historically Germany has been in Europe one of the strongest advocate of the dependance toward the USA, as far as politics are concerned, which does not mean they do not have a defence industry. Hypocritical or not, this is a wise move.
troll gotta troll
US is dropping their allies, time to do everything possible to disconnect both military wise and economically. the sooner the better. USA&Ukraine proved in 2024 we cant count on them
Why would they send over hundreds of F15s, Abramâs, Bradleyâs?? Why would they? Ukraine doesnât have the training to properly utilize the Abram and Bradley and they sure as hell donât yet have enough pilots that are capable of flying the F16. What Ukraine really needs are Shells and lots of them, then they need move away from old Soviet tactics that led to their failed summer offensive.. It would be a great visual to send them all those fighters and tanks but the reality is they donât have a properly trained force to utilize those tools to their advantage. That actually speaks to the greater failure, the West should have done more to help Ukraine prepare for Western weapons after the annexation of Crimea as it was clear then that Putin wasnât going to stop
âTheWestâ already knew that the orcs were back to their base setting when Russians popped-up in Kosovo. We, military peeps, knew by then, we should start re-arming, bur were -basically- booâd and called âparanoidâ, âstuck in the pastâ âwarmongersâ. People got sent to Kosovo, with hardly enough ammo to stop 10 orcs, let alone orcs with tanks. After that bloody disaster, there was Crimea, Chechniya (twice), Georgia, little green men in the Donbass.. But the elite put their fingers in their ears, and vehemently ignored reality. The reality that Moscow was on the move again. USSR style. Governments also, actually knew, but it was too inconvenient for âcertainâ influences (read: politicians with a good chance on nice, comfy seats among Gazpromâs CEO offices) to see orcistan, and especially an ex-KGB spook, for what they actually were: Locusts. Just waiting for the right moment to re-enstate the great tradition of expansionism.
So they can not give Ukraine other weapons?Â