Russia does not have the capacity to fight 5 or 10 more years (unless the US backstops them). Ukraine does not need the resources to go 10 years. They need the resources to outlast the Russians. That is probably more like 18 to 24 months. It could be less.
In my view, that is not only affordable but quite inexpensive given the benefits.
Europe and the US have contributed about $250 billion collectively over the last 3 years (Europe has contributed more). That is a small amount of money for either of them. Most of the $120 billion the US counts as Ukraine aid has been spent on new weapons systems for the United States for the US military. The US builds themselves new weapons, sends Ukraine old ones, and counts the value of the old weapons as Ukraine aid. The thing is, most of these weapons would have been decommissioned in a few years without being used (assuming the US does not enter any major wars). So, the “real” cost to the US is actually far less.
Both the US and Europe not only can sustain their current commitment. They could easily increase it without breaking a sweat. I lay no claim to it but Norway alone has a $1.7 trillion dollar pile of cash.
In my view, the real question is who is going to pay for the aftermath of Russia’s continued aggression if they are allowed to invade Ukraine?
Was it cheaper to have World War II or to stop Germany in Poland or Czechoslovakia? What would we have done in 1945 if given the chance to do it again?
Perhaps you are right that it is unrealistic. That is more an opinion than a demonstrable fact and my opinion is no better than yours.
I am not sure I can agree that it is brainless. While that is also an opinion, there are lots to facts to counter that argument.
Supporting Ukraine no matter what it takes seems like the clear and obvious choice. I guess that is why it is what every country that matters is doing (except the US—now).
Looks like we’ll meet again here in a few years, after thousands more will die and more territory will be lost to argue again about how this war can hypothetically end, just because Zelensky’s ego was too big.
Russia is importing North Koreans to fight. You think if Ukraine gets unlimited weapons the war will last 5 more years? What day of the 3 day invasion are we on now?
The only reason the war has lasted this long is because of the drip feeding of weapons. which was probably a ploy to extend the war and make defense contractors more rich. So yeah, end it quickly by giving Ukraine what it needs to win.
And if you’re wrong and the war can indeed go on for 10 more years are you prepared to deal with the consequences of the destruction of Ukraine, potentially nuclear war and destabilization of Europe?
Theory that more weapons wins is based on Russia being overextended and not outproducing west by itself. Your point on “endless war being perfect US policy” is the right one. Wining a war is always terrible. It means an end to war, and just look at how sad everyone around here is about that prospect. That Ukraine could suffer far more destruction, as retaliation for the special weapons it uses for terrorism inside Russia, is far more likely, as is striking western nations as punishment for “breaking the script of a slow war of attrition with eventual Russian victory”.
ATCMS got Ukraine electricity sector destroyed, instead of winning. US can produce 60 per year.
There is what we are currently vs. what we can. We CAN produce a lot more. We have the resource advantage, the population advantage, the money advantage, the heavy industry advantage.
It’s not a propaganda bubble. It’s basic fucking math
That’s unsustainable, brainless and unrealistic, who is going to pay and fight if the war continues for 5 more years, what about 10 more years?
Russia does not have the capacity to fight 5 or 10 more years (unless the US backstops them). Ukraine does not need the resources to go 10 years. They need the resources to outlast the Russians. That is probably more like 18 to 24 months. It could be less.
In my view, that is not only affordable but quite inexpensive given the benefits.
Europe and the US have contributed about $250 billion collectively over the last 3 years (Europe has contributed more). That is a small amount of money for either of them. Most of the $120 billion the US counts as Ukraine aid has been spent on new weapons systems for the United States for the US military. The US builds themselves new weapons, sends Ukraine old ones, and counts the value of the old weapons as Ukraine aid. The thing is, most of these weapons would have been decommissioned in a few years without being used (assuming the US does not enter any major wars). So, the “real” cost to the US is actually far less.
Both the US and Europe not only can sustain their current commitment. They could easily increase it without breaking a sweat. I lay no claim to it but Norway alone has a $1.7 trillion dollar pile of cash.
In my view, the real question is who is going to pay for the aftermath of Russia’s continued aggression if they are allowed to invade Ukraine?
Was it cheaper to have World War II or to stop Germany in Poland or Czechoslovakia? What would we have done in 1945 if given the chance to do it again?
Perhaps you are right that it is unrealistic. That is more an opinion than a demonstrable fact and my opinion is no better than yours.
I am not sure I can agree that it is brainless. While that is also an opinion, there are lots to facts to counter that argument.
Supporting Ukraine no matter what it takes seems like the clear and obvious choice. I guess that is why it is what every country that matters is doing (except the US—now).
Do you have a better argument?
Looks like we’ll meet again here in a few years, after thousands more will die and more territory will be lost to argue again about how this war can hypothetically end, just because Zelensky’s ego was too big.
Don’t pretend like you give a shit about Ukrainian lives.
Don’t pretend like you give a shit about Ukrainian lives
Russia is importing North Koreans to fight. You think if Ukraine gets unlimited weapons the war will last 5 more years? What day of the 3 day invasion are we on now?
The only reason the war has lasted this long is because of the drip feeding of weapons. which was probably a ploy to extend the war and make defense contractors more rich. So yeah, end it quickly by giving Ukraine what it needs to win.
So, what’s your "totally realistic"TM solution?
And if you’re wrong and the war can indeed go on for 10 more years are you prepared to deal with the consequences of the destruction of Ukraine, potentially nuclear war and destabilization of Europe?
So you don’t actually want to talk solutions. I asked what is your solution? I will answer no more questions until you answer mine.
Theory that more weapons wins is based on Russia being overextended and not outproducing west by itself. Your point on “endless war being perfect US policy” is the right one. Wining a war is always terrible. It means an end to war, and just look at how sad everyone around here is about that prospect. That Ukraine could suffer far more destruction, as retaliation for the special weapons it uses for terrorism inside Russia, is far more likely, as is striking western nations as punishment for “breaking the script of a slow war of attrition with eventual Russian victory”.
ATCMS got Ukraine electricity sector destroyed, instead of winning. US can produce 60 per year.
Out producing the west by itself? Bwahaahhahahahaa.
3 times the artillery shells as US+Europe combined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry_of_Russia#%3A~%3Atext=As+of+2024%2C+Russia+produces%2Cfrom+the+US+and+Europe.
Your propaganda bubble is not there to help you.
There is what we are currently vs. what we can. We CAN produce a lot more. We have the resource advantage, the population advantage, the money advantage, the heavy industry advantage.
It’s not a propaganda bubble. It’s basic fucking math