Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Sunday said Ukraine needs to secure the supply of new weapons from its Western backers and that arms deliveries need to speed up.
“It is very important to maintain the dynamics of defense support from our partners. The speed of supply has been and will be one of the key factors in this war,” Zelensky said in his nightly address.
The Ukrainian leader said that Russia seeks to “exhaust” Ukrainian forces, and for that reason, Kyiv must “speed up the events, speed up the supply and opening of new necessary weaponry options for Ukraine.”
The same day President Biden announced last week that the US would be providing Ukraine with M1 Abrams tanks, Zelensky was demanding more. Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to Zelensky, said Saturday that Ukraine is in “fast-track” talks with its Western backers on the possibility of receiving fighter jets and long-range missiles.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has rejected the idea Ukraine would be receiving fighter jets. But Scholz previously ruled out sending heavy tanks to Ukraine and eventually caved under the pressure of Germany’s allies. Biden pledged to send the Abrams tanks as part of a deal to get Scholz’s government to send German-made Leopard 2 tanks.
Ukraine has its eye on US-made F-16s and French-made Rafale or Mirage fighter jets. While Kyiv has yet to receive any Western-made fighter jets, it is already preparing for them by working to improve its airfields so that advanced aircraft can operate in the country.
“We have to prepare the airfield infrastructure so that pilots could land safely on the airstrips,” Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Col. Yuri Ignat told reporters Friday, according to The War Zone. “The works are in progress in different regions of Ukraine with the support of the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Ministry of Defense and other government agencies to support us in the creation of this airfield network.”
POLITICO reported Saturday that the idea of sending Ukraine F-16s is gaining momentum among some officials in the Pentagon. The provision of Western fighter jets to Ukraine would be a major escalation of military aid and would be viewed by Moscow as a major provocation. Since the US and Germany announced they would be sending tanks, Russian officials have been warning that NATO’s growing role in the conflict could lead to a “full-blown” war in Europe.
87 thoughts on “Zelensky Says Ukraine Needs More New Weapons, Faster”
Daniel Ellsberg’s revealing, horrifying book on US policy re nukes, The Doomsday Machine, lays out America’s policy throughout late 20th C very clearly. We, the naive unwashed public, thought this policy was no first strike. Right? Nope. Total nuclear annihilation of all cities in both USSR and China with populations of 25,000+ was called for if there was “any armed conflict with the USSR.” Regarding deaths, those from firestorms were so large these numbers were excluded from discussion because advisors might, get this, advocate fewer nukes per city. Devastation from one was so bad, more not needed. But military budgets ruled the day. Total deaths (not counting Soviet response, fallout, etc) exceeded more than half the population. My question is: what is current policy? We have no way of knowing. Its top secret.
“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has made the world far more dangerous,not only in the short run, but in ways that may be irreversible. It is a tragic and criminal attack. We are seeing humanity at its almost worst, but not quite the worst – so far, since 1945 we haven’t seen nuclear war.”
-Daniel Ellsberg 6/18/2022 The Analysis News
BTW, Dan Ellsberg and I were bunk mates for almost a week in 1982 at the Men’s Facility at the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita. We were among over 1,000 people arrested blockading the University of California nuclear weapons lab at Livermore. Dan had the lower bunk.
Cool story bro.
Well good on ya, Sky. Doesn’t make the quote you stated any more plausible.
“. . . what is current policy?”
China and India are the only nuclear powers that have no first strike policies. India makes an exception if attacked by chemical or biological weapons. China is committed to a policy of pure deterrence. To emphasize the purely defensive purpose of China’s 350 nukes, China stores its warheads and bombs separately from its missiles and bombers. China is confident that its second strike could survive any first strike and destroy any country or alliance that attacked it.
During the Cold War it was always obvious that the US would be the country that would launch a first strike. During the Cold War the USSR and the Warsaw Pact had overwhelming conventional superiority in Europe. NATO had no way to stop a Soviet ground and air offensive and every simulation ended with a US nuclear first strike to protect NATO. The USSR had complete tactical superiority over the US and its allies during the cold war. In other words, the USSR had no reason to use nukes first.
That has changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO. As we have seen in the Ukraine, Russia is the power most likely to use nukes in a European war.
Here’s a short version of current nuclear weapons policy: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103923/-1/-1/1/NUCLEAR-STRATEGY-AND-POLICY-NPR-FACTSHEET.PDF
And here’s a longer version: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF
Regarding projected deaths from a US-Russia nuclear war, here is an estimate from a recent article in Nature Food: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0
Here’s the Abstract from that article:
Atmospheric soot loadings from nuclear weapon detonation would cause disruptions to the Earth’s climate, limiting terrestrial and aquatic food production. Here, we use climate, crop and fishery models to estimate the impacts
arising from six scenarios of stratospheric soot injection, predicting the total food calories available in each nation post-war after stored food is consumed. In quantifying impacts away from target areas, we demonstrate that soot injections larger than 5 Tg would lead to mass food shortages, and livestock and aquatic food production would be unable to compensate for reduced crop output, in almost all countries. Adaptation measures such as food waste reduction would have limited impact on increasing available calories. We estimate more than 2 billion people could die from nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and more
than 5 billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia—underlining the importance of global cooperation in preventing nuclear war. (italics added)
Thanks for the info. But but but … I don’t believe anything released or available to the “public” is anything like what those in military/nat’l security have in mind. My take-away from Ellsberg is that keeping that information hidden is their number one priority.
United States Declaratory Policy
As long as nuclear weapons exist, the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners. The U.S. would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in
extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.
Perhaps that is an understatement of the actual US nuclear doctrine, as you seem to suggest. But it is adequately alarming for me. Note that the doctrine does not restrict nuclear weapons to defending US territory, but also US ‘vital interests’. And in addition, the vital interests of US ‘allies and partners’.
Where does Ukraine fit in? Ally or partner? How far will the US go to defend the vital interests of Ukraine? By the look of it, the US could choose to go all the way to nukes.
As to the true nature of US policy and strategy, whether at home or abroad, I believe the actions speak louder and more clearly than any documents — including secret documents, which may just act as drugs to keep the ‘leaders’ oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
Interesting that historically great pains taken to keep President out of loop.
If Putin insists on continuing the war, who can blame Zelenskyy for wanting a level playing field. Highly motivated and well led Ukrainian forces have made effective use of the aid they have received to date. It would be wise to get Ukraine to guarantee that no donated weapons will be used outside Ukraine.
Even if Russia eventually wears down the Ukrainian army, Russia will be forced into the role of an occupying power fighting an intractable guerrilla resistance. But guerrilla wars take a long time. The Russian military has been so inept and unmotivated, the Ukrainians have a chance of defeating or stalemating the invaders with their conventional army.
BTW, Noam Chomsky supports the US giving arms to Ukraine to stop Putin’s invasion. For the record, I agree with Chomsky that a lasting peace must address Russia’s legitimate security concerns. But Chomsky recognizes that Putin’s invasion is like Hitler and Stalin’s invasion of Poland and that Ukraine has a right to self defense.
Yeah, it’s crazy how many progressives have jumped onto the hate Russia bandwagon. Ukraine keeps doing what it does best, take whatever it can for free. And the US as usual arms the brutal to prevent self determination, and now to steal Russia’s only warm water port. Our leaders also couldn’t stand that we went so long without a major war, to bankrupt peaceful priorities and enrich themselves.
I was at Political Wire for a couple of years. When this happened, virtually every progressive there morphed into a rabid Zelensky fan/Putin hater. I not only left the group this past year, I left the democratic party for good.
If Ukraine were doing well in the war, the US would not be in such a hurry to send more-advanced weapons. The atmosphere in Washington is more like panic than steady progress. Chris Hedges’ column today in ScheerPost pretty well analyzes the desperate situation in the pro-war camp as Ukraine continues to crumble and US sees its proxy-war options shrinking.
The only thing Biden’s people are worried about is their legacy as yet another failed cabal that tried to start a proxy war that they couldn’t win.
Biden doesn’t give a crap about the people of Ukraine. If he did, he wouldn’t have stopped the only shot at a peaceful settlement we had back in last March.
Could we arrange to send you to Ukraine to fight with these brave people? I’d be willing to chip something in.
As to self-defense, the people in eastern Ukraine deserve to live their lives unmolested by their corrupt government. If that were possible, and if Biden had been willing to put down on paper what he spoke out loud, there would have been no conflict. None.
In addition, I think we need to cut the crap about Putin wanting to take over all of Ukraine. Only moronic idjits and liars promote that crap.
“In addition, I think we need to cut the crap about Putin wanting to take over all of Ukraine. Only moronic idjits and liars promote that crap.”
Has Putin retracted his initial claim that the objective of the invasion is to take over all of Ukraine (“de-militarization and de-Nazification”)?
I mean, I thought he was lying about that from the start as a matter of strategy, but it’s hard to fault people for taking him at his word.
How you translate “de-militarization and de-Nazification” into conquest of Ukraine is really beyond me. It’s just as easy to interpret this as a military operation to destroy Ukraine’s private army as well as the weapons we’ve been sneaking in and training troops there for since we threw out their elected government 8 + years ago.
If the Russian goal were conquest, there would have been a ready force of at least a million and they wouldn’t have entered at the outskirts of Kiev.
I happen to believe – based on words and actions – that Putin is rational. This means I do not believe he intends or intended to “conquer” Ukraine. Only an idiot would interpret this past year as the attempted conquest of that country. As for me, I can’t imagine any advantage that would accrue to a successful conquest – none.
When you say a regime is militarized and controlled by Nazis, then saying you’re going to de-militarize and de-Nazify it means that you’re going to replace it with something else. Which means conquest.
I agree with you that Putin was likely lying when he said that, and that the goals are therefore more limited than what he said they were.
But since he did say it, people are going to take him at his word to the extent that they consider doing so useful.
We happen to disagree on the meaning behind the two terms. All I will agree on is the fact that it is in the interests of the government that steered us into this cul de sac to lead people to swallow the idea that not only does Putin want to conquer Ukraine (whatever that means), but all of Europe as well.
All this signifies to me is that people are as gulliable as hell and believe everything they’re told regardless of how far-fetched it may be.
Given that the Russians were trying continuously to get an agreement with Biden on NATO and the east right up to the day that Zelensky’s thugs ramped up their assault on the east, I find the notion that they had any intention of launching a full-scale invasion of anyone to be ridiculous in the extreme, and attribute such beliefs to the current plague of The Stupid in the West.
My wife and I have both friends and relatives in Germany, Austria, France, Hungary, Serbia, and Czechia. Many of them are convinced of the Bullcrap story that Putin intends to conquer all of Europe. These are not uneducated people, but they still believe this crap because all the media are lined up behind the idiots in Kiev and DC.
In a sane world, we’d agree that all of the involved regimes are gangs of lying thugs who are constantly jockeying to increase their power, sometimes at the expense of other regimes, sometimes at the expense of “their own” people, and usually both. We can argue all day over which regime is the cobra and which one is just a copperhead, but they’re all snakes and they’re all poisonous.
Why don’t you go and fight for Russia? Looks like they need the help. Ukraine just needs weapons. Russia needs motivation. Ukrainians East and West have apparently chosen their indigenous government over the Russian invaders. One tip off about where Ukrainian hearts and minds stand is the unanimity among Ukrainian expatriates in supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russian imperialism. On the other hand, Russian expatriates are vocal in their opposition to Putin’s invasion.
Bombs to Zelensky is like candy to kids…never enough…
All about money … sad.
If we go toe to toe with the Russians, all bets are off.
Folly of escalation and absurdity of sending F-16s into Ukraine. It takes years to train a fighter pilot and operation in an arena with 9K317M’Buk-M3, S300, S400, and Pantsir SM Surface to Air Missiles – SAMs is down right deadly for the pilots of F-16s or any other jet.
Low level ingress and pop up roll ahead will put the F-16 in multiple SAM envelopes. Low level ingress and release is still deadly for the F-16 even with Electronic Warfare – EW countermeasures, chaff, and flares.
SU-25 or F-16 maters not they are both targets for the state of the art SAM systems developed by Russia. At best a few jets and tanks might survive, but there will likely be burning tanks and smoking holes in the ground where each F-16 is burning.
That’s if we are assuming that U.S. or Nato trained pilots won’t be flying those planes?
As a retired military pilot and fighter pilot I guarantee that any Ukrainian placed in the cockpit of an F-16 in the high threat war going on will become a smoking hole in the ground in short order. The F-16s are to be transferred from Poland and that is perhaps where they will train Ukrainians to fly the F-16.
Regardless of where they are trained or aircraft type this gesture by the West is pointless. Ukraine has already lost far superior Russian fighters and most of their experienced pilots.
p.s. It really doesn’t matter if the pilots flying the F-16s are American or European the net-centric Russian SAM net work will destroy any aircraft.
Because Putin has made it clear that he wants to restore the territory of the Soviet Union, his original intent for attacking the Ukraine must have been to take all of Ukraine. When that failed, he has apparently reduced his aims to “only” adding the Donbas to Russian territory. If that persists, it will create an economic disaster for the Ukraine and therefore indirectly for us.
The current fighting on both sides appears to be limited for the local strengthening of strategic positions and not for taking much more territory.
For the Ukrainian army, to eventually win this war by retaking all territory taken by Putin it means a switch from mostly defensive to purely offensive warfare with the concomitant increase of fatalities. Will total population in the end decide the outcome of this war? If that is the case, Russia has the upper hand.
And even if the Ukraine manages to achieve that victory, it will continue to be an economic and military basket case, totally dependent on the EU and us to survive economically.
And Russia will continue to be its immediate neighbor.
If Russia loses this war, will there be an uprising and the establishment of a democratic form of governance? Russian history of events after military defeats tells me: No. The Czars remained after their disaster against Japan and the Bolsheviks, later Stalin, won in 1917 when soldiers were running away from the Russian army.
When your post begins with a statement that arises either from deep ignorance or deliberate dishonesty, there’s no reason to read any further. You fully discredit yourself.
What planet you livin’ on?
Why are you lying about what Putin “made clear”? Ukraine made itself a basket case when the people there chose to subject themselves to the rule of a bunch of crooks. That’s on the Ukrainian people – no one else.
Yeah, the US government propaganda has made it clear that he is the new Hitler, and the only reason he possibly would have invaded (it’s our patriotic duty to ignore the decades of moving NATO and missiles onto Russia’s doorstep while unilaterally cancelling arms controls, the last decade of blaming Russia for everything that goes wrong in the USA in a repeat of past propaganda run-ups to another US war, the fact we stole the 2014 Ukranian election, the fact we’ve been arming Ukraine for this since, the fact that a brutal civil war was being wages in Ukraine with our blessing since 2014, or the litany of threats and propaganda we’ve smeared Russia with in the last decade) is to CONQUER EUROPE.
Ow, I stubbed my toe! PUTIN’S FAULT!
That’s what happens when you believe Western propaganda. There is no indication whatsoever that Putin/Russia has any imperial ambitions whatsoever. Give just one single quote, one single fact that would support the claims of Western propaganda. There is none! It’s entirely fabricated.
In fact, I can give you dozens of quotes or facts to the contrary, but let’s start with just two:
1) For 8 years Putin refused to recognize the Luhansk and Donetsk republics because he wanted to maintain Ukraine as a sovereign country. It’s only after the Duma unanimously demanded the recognition of the Republics when Ukraine had started shelling them he recognized their independence to come to their assistance under Art. 5 of the UN Charter in order to prevent a genocide of the ethnic Russians in the Donbass. By that time it was clear the the West/Ukraine had no intention of complying with the Minsk II peace agreement.
2) Russia launched the Special Military Operation with about 150k troops to remove the threat from the Donbass. To occupy Ukraine, Russia would have had to attack with 1 million troops because the attacking force needs a 1 to 3 superiority. It’s only after the SMO destroyed the Ukrainian forces and Nato rebuild a 2nd Ukrainian army, that Russia had to mobilize 300k more troops, which are still not sufficient to occupy the whole of Ukraine.
Thus, everything you get from Western media is false. That is tragic because Western leaders are led to make the wrong decisions based on erroneous information. The West destroys itself because it believes its own propaganda.
Have all of the World’s diplomats taken time off, at the same time?….
Someone needs to put a leash on NATO. We could be heading for another World War, the way things are going. Maybe it is time for me to restock the old bomb shelter?… Bye-Done is suppose to work for the American people, not the evil MIC. Why am I thinking “beware the Ides of March”?…………………
And the Ahole in chief in DC will give him everything he wants. I give up on this country. It’s being run – not governed – by a bunch of clueless, incompetent juveniles.
It’s a kakistocracy.
Lets see. Every time Russia warns they will escalate if we do, they follow through with it. So now they’re threatening that giving F-16s to Ukraine might result in a full blown war with the west. So given their history, they’re probably bluffing, right?
Zelensky is so extremely obnoxious. Like a spoiled maniacal brat, he thinks he’s on top of the world. I can’t stand seeing his ugly face on the screen, makes me want to punch a wall.
Har! Did you happen to see the rendering of him on Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” cover? I saw it standing in the checkout line and it’s fortunate that my stomach was empty, or I may have involuntarily expelled its contents 😁
He’s a repulsive and odious troll, in his olive drab t-shirt pretending to be a “fighter” while traveling the west First Class, staying at 5 star hotels with his wife, and paying for nothing. His constant urges to his people to “fight on no matter what the cost”, while demanding more money from the west (none of which is audited or tracked, and a very large part being siphoned off through corruption) is so incredibly self-serving; once the shooting stops, he’s back to being a nobody again. So; no amount of deaths or sacrifices are enough to keep him and his wife in the style they have become accustomed to.
He has unusual talents too:
Well sure, ZelBoy; we’ll just cancel school lunch programs for poor kids here so we’ll have a little extra to send ya.
Without political debate or serious discussion allowed. We wouldn’t want our people choosing basic services over apocalyptic war we don’t need to fight.
Hell, we wouldn’t want our people getting all uppity and thinking they have a choice.
Great, let’s give him a ton of offensive firepower and hope he stays our puppet and doesn’t decide to just drag NATO into WW3.
The Russian MOD is fighting a very successful war of attrition disarming NATO (Ukraine was disarmed in March), tank by tank, artillery by artillery, air defense by air defense.
NATO overall has accumulated the following equipment losses;
381 Aircraft, 205 helicopters, 2982 UAV’s, 402 Anti Aircraft systems, 7679 tanks inc. APC’s, 997 multiple rocket launchers, 3962 rocket launchers and 8226 military automotive equipment.
What the empire looses in the Ukraine, they loose for the final Russian attack on NATO. Remember Russia attacked Ukraine just as NATO was about to unleash in the Donbass. Russia has shown they will pre-emptively attack to defend the Motherland from Europe and America when the time is dictated by events on the ground.
If you take what the US has said about sending about 131 tanks to Ukraine over several months at face value, then Zelensky is 100% correct. And if he wants our air assets to be useful, then infrastructure such as proper air fields need to be built, supplied, maintained, and protected.
This is the single most sane speech he has made. He is admitting that the Ukrainian military is losing to Russia, and that the forces that NATO has already discussed are not sufficient to turn the tide. He is calling these forces defense forces, not offense forces.
Zelensky must at this point know that all those weapons will be destroyed the minute they enter Ukraine, if in fact there is a Ukraine by the time they actually get there. I’m thinking that he’s looking ahead to lining his pockets with MIC kickbacks as he heads off to a beach somewhere after Ukraine is no more. That might be in Florida, Israel, who knows.
Why would Zelenskyy necessarily know that the Russian forces are going to suddenly display an ability they haven’t shown before?
Let’s clarify that Russia, as far as it can be determined, has not attempted to destroy Western-provided weapons “the minute they enter Ukraine.”
If I were a gambler, I wouldn’t bet on Ukraine being able to effectively operate manned warplanes from airfields on its own territory. I also think it would be pointless to bother.
I don’t know what all the Russians may or may not have attempted, but my guess is that they have various reasons, military and political, for not likely attempting e.g. convoy bombing near the Polish border.
If it had happened, you’d know. The Western MSM might not tell you, but posters here would. 😎
Yeahhh….we kind of rock, don’t we Red 😉
Certainly he must know that there is no way NATO can “win” this war. Those “wonder weapons” won’t arrive for months or years. Russia can just sit tight and wait for Ukraine to unravel as a nation.
“Winning” is a function of achieving one’s chosen objectives.
If NATO’s objectives include e.g. returning Crimea to Ukrainian rule, it seems unlikely that there’s a “win” in the cards for them.
Similarly, if Russia’s objectives include anything beyond Luhansk, Donetsk, and maybe a land corridor connecting the two to Crimea, they’re also likely in for a disappointing result on the “win” meter.
It’s a war. Everyone loses except the belligerent regimes’ political classes, and occasionally even some of them.
Thomas, I seriously believe that what you stated as “Russia’s objectives” ARE in fact Russia’s objectives.
Why would Putin wish for control over a belligerent population (the portions not currently annexed by Russia)?
I believe that too (although the only portion Russia seems to have successfully annexed so far is Luhansk, and that isn’t even for sure).
But if you lie about your objectives up front, it shouldn’t be surprising when some people believe it when your lie is used as a propaganda instrument against you.
But I think those are exactly Russia’s objectives. Kherson south of the Dnieper river, as a very defensible shield for Crimea; the Black Sea coast including Mariupol between Crimea and Donetsk, and all of the Donbas. And let Ukraine bleed itself to death trying to “take it back”. They’ve said as much, right from the start; I see no reason not to believe them. The way they have been fighting the war, from the get go, doesn’t really indicate they’ve been trying for much more.
I always try to impute maximum rationality to regimes where military affairs are concerned. Which means, to me, that Putin is well aware that he’s not going to come out of this with any of Kherson or much of Zaporizhia, and is just making noise there in hopes of tying down sufficient Ukrainian troops to let him finish the job of securing Donetsk in less than a year.
I think Kherson south of the river is a MUST for Russia; especially since Ukraine used their control of this province to cut off the supply of drinking water to Crimea before the war – so that’s valuable territory. I don’t see any scenario where they give that back; or the parts of Zaporizhe province they control linking Crimea to Donbas. I guess we’ll see.
Once the Russians have breached the 2nd line of defense in the Donbass, they can take everything East of the Dnipr river. Then its up to the Kyiv regime to decide if it wants to lose Odessa too in order to become an impoverished land-locked country or if it wants to make peace with the Russians. I think the Russians wouldn’t mind taking Odessa and make a land bridge to Transnistria, but in his Valdai address Putin hinted that Odessa could be the “apple of discord” or the solution to peace. Thus, it’s entirely up to Ukraine to decide how much it wants to lose.
A 60 ton battle tank isn’t something you can hide in the back of a truck. They are very visible when moved 1,000 km from Poland to the front.
He knows, but so what? US and EU have to move into “war economy” as financialization of everything living has exausted itself. This start producing the only product that can be financialized but does not require market forces and its purpose is to be destroyed. Thus produce more.
But this can go on for not too long. Tgis money is not found by selling debt, but by printing — let us see what fancy name they conjure up this time as quantitative easing jas been retired.
The outcome? More inflation and depression. Or war time destruction of wealth except for the wealth well hidden and protected.
When we get crazies out of the basement to run the country — this is the result. Both political parties are now beholden. And new one nor on the horison.
Today’s splash on CNN —- Zelenski sais he cannot defend against IRANIAN ballistic missikes orovided to Russia? How transparent can this get? Anyone thinking that Russia needs Iran for supply of ballistic missiles needs head examined. It is not hard to get what tgis is all about.
Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel.
Itching for starting a war against Iran. A perfect new prooaganda — Iran is keeping Russia’s war in Ukraine alive.
This Israel centric thinking can cost America dearly. Iran has been present in all known periods of human history of Eurasia, Well before any signs of Israel. And it will be there well past this hyperexciteable Euro-Atlantic era that Israel has latched on.
Befire any ideas are hatched to strike Iran — let ilus check out the changed world. Both China and Russia have 20+ year strategic agreements signed with Iran. It is China that publicly declared its support for Iran’s security, Russia and Iran go deep into history. It was Russian Tzar that heloed Iran structure a modern army, a structure in many ways still present.
It is not in American interest to get involved in sny Eurasian conflict, least of all the confluct that was delayed many a time — a post-Soviet heretage of Ukraine. And we need heads examined to think Iran is an easy target, Fighting for Ukraine (the Borderlands) is one thing — but pokung into Eurasia, something else.
I do understand school of thought that challenging Russia and China earler rather than later is better. But such line of thinking is linear and crude, not allowing for evolution that may resolve problems without destructive wars. Cautious, step at a time is neeed, not idiotic full blown bluster Netanyahu style. And CNN doing his bidding!
Size Matters – On A U.S. Ground Intervention In Ukraine
Stalin was right. Do you think the West will realize, before it’s too late (except for Ukraine, where it’s already too late), that it just doesn’t have sufficient quantity?
Define “the West.”
The US alone — not counting its NATO/EU vassal states — has more than twice the population and more than 10 times the GDP of Russia. There’s no plausible “attrition” scenario in which “the West” runs out of people or stuff before Russia does.
Population and GDP don’t magically create production capacity or trained and effective forces.
The West does not have adequate stockpiles of materiel, or sufficient production capacity, or the ability to rapidly bring adequate capacity online, to successfully fight an industrial land war against a near-peer. This has become increasingly clear over the course of the war to date and was known and cited by credible authorities quite early.
A good starting point for understanding reality is reading Alex Vershinin’s comments from last summer.
“The West does not have adequate stockpiles of materiel, or sufficient production capacity, or the ability to rapidly bring adequate capacity online, to successfully fight an industrial land war against a near-peer.”
And that will likely be a problem for “the West” when and if it comes up against a “near-peer.”
You really don’t get it, Thomas. Did you read the Vershinin piece? You should. And you should read some of the many other related stories and commentaries that make it clear that what you think is true about Western production capacity is not true. Here’s another one:
Did you read your history books on the US conversion to wartime production in World War Two?
SINCE World War Two, the US has maintained its wartime production capacity at a much higher level than before. And there are plenty of economic know-nothings who would promote increasing that capacity as a way to “jump-start the economy.” If the US regime decides to buy a thousand tanks a month, they’ll be rolling off re-combobulated assembly lines in a hot minute.
Oh, yes, I’ve read my history books. Ramping up production in WWII took place over a period of years, beginning with the establishment of mobilization agencies in 1939. It required giving the government near-dictatorial authority over many aspects of production (and substantial restrictions on domestic consumption) and it entailed increasing the federal budget ten-fold. The chances of that happening in the current environment are effectively nonexistent.
US military production capacity is overwhelmingly focused on high-tech wonder-weapons that cost big bucks and bring big profits to the weapons industry. Conventional artillery, tanks, ammunition? Not so much. That should be obvious from the small numbers and slow delivery schedules of the weapons tranches for Ukraine.
Your hot minute for production of a thousand tanks a month would be a very long minute indeed. Those tanks are produced at exactly one (1) facility, in Lima, Ohio. The current rate is maybe a dozen a month and I think those are mostly, maybe all, upgrades of existing tanks.
Long before anything approaching the production levels you imagine could be even within the realm of possibility, the war in Ukraine will almost certainly either be over or have escalated to a battle of superpowers with weapons that don’t crawl on the ground.
And it wouldn’t take nearly as long or be nearly as difficult now. The government still has that near-dictatorial authority (and invoked it as recently as last year — it’s called the War Production Act), it never ramped down after that war nearly as much as it ramped up for that war, and it’s given up on even pretending to intend to ever stop growing its budget.
The US government spent $92.569 billion in 1945, its highest wartime spending. In 2022 dollars, that’s $1.5 trillion — $200 billion less than the single 2023 spending bill passed last month, which will beyond a shadow of a doubt be increased drastically with various “emergency supplementals” and one-offs. And the US GDP has multiplied by more than ten times since then.
OK, Thomas. Sit back and watch.
That’s what I do every minute of every day that I’m awake. Which is most of them.
No wonder you get so grumpy sometimes. 😎
It’s not so bad here, where I can at least meaningfully engage with those who believe (or pretend to believe) that I support the US/EU/NATO empire and its Ukrainian satrapy.
Over on Twitter, I have very limited space to do so with those who believe (or pretend to believe) that I support the Russian empire.
I have never believed that you support either.
Russia can mobilize 25 million reservists for defending the homeland. How many US Marines would even get to Ukraine to be slaughtered there?
There is a reason why the US only fights against civilians and uses proxy forces when up against a real army. To defeat the N/zis, you needed the Bolshevists, but you would also have allied with the N/zis to fight the Bolshevists. You cannot fight a land war, and with the new Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles, your fleet is just a liability.
Most of the US economy is fictitious anyways. No country spends so much on its medical service while having such a low life-expectancy as the US. Just because lawyers and bankers earn high salaries in the US doesn’t mean that they are very productive or socially beneficial. No, they are a drain on the system, but it bloats your nominal GDP. Russia has only 1/3 of the US’s population but produces twice as many engineers. What are you going to do? Buy your weapons in China?
The US system is very wasteful. You produce fancy toys that break down in a real war as in Ukraine. No, I’m sorry but the US is doomed; militarily, economically, financially, socially and morally it is bankrupt.
I’m glad to hear that the Russian regime can mobilize 25 million reservists to defend their homeland. Apparently they haven’t been able to mobilize enough to successfully complete a land grab from someone else’s yet, though.
Zelensky Says Ukraine Needs More Cocaine, Faster
Joe Biden March 2022: “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment & have planes & tanks… that’s called World War III.”
First the Administration sets up parameters for WWIII then slowly but surely builds to war. But Russia Russia Russia right? This was the plan all along to incite WWIII.
Well, yes. I had a bad feeling as soon as I heard Biden mention WWIII. Of course he said he was totally against it, but that can be a useful technique for transmitting a mixed message, leaving the receiver to unravel the functional message from the confusion. In this case I take Biden to have been saying, “World War III is a real possibility in this conflict, and I want Russia to know that we have already been thinking about it.”
I can think of a place we could shove all of those weapons… faster.
Comments are closed.