Europe already send way waaay more. Also of higher quality and up to modern standards, not up to the standards of the 50s...
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
31 points (89.7% liked)
Ukraine
8063 readers
601 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
The issue is that Soviet era crap can run dirty ammo. The west is in a real fight, trying to keep up. Once the industry spins up, it'll be fine, but it takes time, which will cost Ukraine. The Russians, meanwhile, have essentially unlimited manpower. We didn't do enough, to start with, and now it'll be impossible, if the wrong people get into power during the elections. We've failed Ukraine.
What a clown moment from you.
If cool internet quotes could win the war, this would've definitely done it.
In 2010 North Korea shelled a South Korean island and about a quarter of the shells turned out to be duds. A lot of the rest proved to be extremly inaccurate. That is not to say they are not a danger, but they are most certainly much worse then new NATO shells. That is not even talking about range.
The artillery situation already turned from Russian dominance to it being fairly balanced with Ukraine having a slight supremecy in some regions. It looks like highly accurate systems like PZH-2000 combined with artillery radar are slowly but surely taking out so much Russian artillery that they are depleting their stockpiles.
As for manpower Russia has basicly a three to one advantage, but Ukranians seem to be more willing to fight and Russia has to pull them from the weakest in society. Otherwise Putin is threatend by a coup.
Russia will start to have really big problems as soon as the oil price falls.
Ukraine uses north Korean munitions, too. Most of the Ukrainian military still uses Russian stuff. The west didn't suddenly drag Ukraine into this century. The Russians notoriously endure more BS than most countries. This war is destined to last a long time. The Russians are developing cheaper Shaheed Drones to overwhelm AA. Cities in Ukraine are going to have a bad time. It's hard to be optimistic.
When the 1950s ammo runs out, what then?
Not sure, but Russia has already begun the process of turning factories, and reportedly even bakeries, into munitions producing facilities. Both sides are gearing up for a long war, and that, I think, is more beneficial for Russia. The west's attention is already being dragged to the middle east, the manpower is heavily in Russia's favor, and again... The next election could stop aid to Ukraine in a flash. It's unreal, how hard we dropped the ball.
At the moment Ukraine takes out 20-40 Russian artillery pieces a day.
They may end up with ammo and nothing to fire it.
Hope you're right, but the reason cluster munitions were sent was because Ukraine was running danger low on ammo. The more this stalemates, and the longer air supremacy is lost, the worse the situation looks for Ukraine.
@Redditgee
@CJOtheReal
@ag10n
This is not a stalemate, it's a war of attrition.
The sides will run low on different things at different times.
The democracies can definitely out-economy Russia, even without the US. It is a matter of will, and I think it's there.
It's easier with the US helping though, mainly due to their huge stockpiles. I'm with Eisenhower on the military industrial complex which is, for once, a source of hope.
Also, what Andrew says:
https://nitter.net/AndrewPerpetua/status/1720793282068844920
What Andrew says was correct, of course, but Zelenskyy was under pressure to do something, in order to keep the inertia of aid coming in. Now that it looks like a quagmire to the casual observer, things seem a little more perilous.
I agree that the west can out-produce Russia, but I'm less confident that without the US, China will continue to stand by, if that's what you can call their current actions.
I also agree on the Eisenhower reference, and have pointed out before, that as much as people freak out about it, it's somewhat necessary. I'm a veteran, and I thought the hero worship of the GWOT was too much, but now I fear that the pendulum has swung too far the opposite way. At least back on reddit, you'd see people absolutely trashing the fools that volunteer for the military, complain that defense spending was far too high, etc. Then, as soon as things pop off, it's, "Russia better stfu or we'll come over there and kick their ass". You can't have it both ways. I'm pretty Left on most issues, but we can't even focus on building a good society, if we aren't secure, first. Our advantageous geography has granted us a lot of leeway, but the world gets smaller, everyday, and our allies aren't granted those advantages, anyway.
@Redditgee @ag10n
My read is that defence is much easier than attack, nowadays; and that favours Russia's current position. I agree re the resource balance - not least because it must always have been the basis of Putin's thinking.
Ukraine has had a rough few months, for sure. It appears that the Russians have outdone their own doctrine, when it comes to the surovikin line, dooming the Ukrainian offensive. Long term, I don't think Russia has enough skilled troops to conduct another serious offensive, but I think they're content to occupy eastern Ukraine. At least until everything is replenished in twenty years, and they decide to move again. The western style of maneuver warfare hasn't proven fruitful, and that is likely because Ukraine is unable to get and maintain air superiority. But that goes back to my point - the west took too long and sent too little. It's easy to see why Ukraine is frustrated with the supply situation, and now fatigue is setting in with a lot of people in the US. We've fumbled plenty of foreign relations in the past, but this seems like the most justifiable war since WWII, and we're failing the test.