War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

(Thread IKs: fatherboxx)

Back Hack: Jan 17, 2010

Ripperljohn posted:

Doesn�t the US profit immensely from it�s weak partners in NATO?

Everyone knows they need the US, everyone buys or develops weapons with them, no one can afford to step out of line.

I think you could argue that the US let the lax spending get out of hand for too long given the current situation, but it was absolutely in their interest to maintain the status quo for as long as they have.

It�s more like the opposite, we buy more weapons and fund more military research project from Europe than they buy from us because we�re the only thing stopping Europe�s MIC from collapsing.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 18:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 07:22

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Ripperljohn posted:

Doesn�t the US profit immensely from it�s weak partners in NATO?

Everyone knows they need the US, everyone buys or develops weapons with them, no one can afford to step out of line.

I think you could argue that the US let the lax spending get out of hand for too long given the current situation, but it was absolutely in their interest to maintain the status quo for as long as they have.

No, because NATO's larger partners have their own MICs, so Europe not carrying their weight ultimately means less profit for the US MIC so whatever orders they would get; additionally a weaker Europe means the US isn't as free to act elsewhere around the world; i.e the number of realpolitikers insisting the US should bury the hatchet with Russia to focus more on China.

Instability is ultimately bad for business and Europe being weak means more instability and less flexibility on the international stage.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 18:04

ranbo das: Oct 16, 2013

NATO members such as Turkey and Hungary known for not stepping out of line for fear of the US.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 18:08

Orthanc6: Nov 4, 2009

Ripperljohn posted:

Doesn�t the US profit immensely from it�s weak partners in NATO?

Everyone knows they need the US, everyone buys or develops weapons with them, no one can afford to step out of line.

I think you could argue that the US let the lax spending get out of hand for too long given the current situation, but it was absolutely in their interest to maintain the status quo for as long as they have.

Not exactly, sure NATO countries are buying from the US MIC, but they weren't buying nearly as much as Ukraine is now. So both from a greedy economic perspective and an actual strategic perspective Europe was not buying enough for US interests, nor their own apparently.

Improving the living standards of NATO/EU citizens is vital to securing democracy, but that doesn't stop dictators from doing their thing. We need to do both, the last 30 years, and WW2 show that appeasement means less than nothing for dissuading dictators. Quite the opposite in fact. Military aggression is either countered immediately and strongly with comparable force, or someone loses their country. It sucks that it works that way, but it has always worked that way.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 18:08

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Canada being a spectacular embarrassment is NOT something the United States wants, it screws everything up.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 18:19

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Ripperljohn posted:

Doesn�t the US profit immensely from it�s weak partners in NATO?

Everyone knows they need the US, everyone buys or develops weapons with them, no one can afford to step out of line.

I think you could argue that the US let the lax spending get out of hand for too long given the current situation, but it was absolutely in their interest to maintain the status quo for as long as they have.

Pretty sure Europe upping their budgets means they buy more, which in fact makes more money for US companies if my math is right

# ? Jul 20, 2023 18:26

saratoga: Mar 5, 2001; This is a Randbrick post. It goes in that D&D megathread on page 294

"i think obama was mediocre in that debate, but hillary was fucking terrible. also russert is filth."

-randbrick, 12/26/08

Ripperljohn posted:

Doesn�t the US profit immensely from it�s weak partners in NATO?

In terms of arms exports by value the EU is neck and neck with the US in spite of spending a lot less, so it's not obvious that this arrangement is profitable. The US could probably keep a significantly smaller armed forces while still exporting about the same amount of equipment.

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

Pretty sure Europe upping their budgets means they buy more, which in fact makes more money for US companies if my math is right

To some extent but probably the lions share will be spent on the EU country's own defense industry.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 19:07

Mr. Apollo: Nov 8, 2000

ASAP ROCKY posted this on his Instagram but then deleted shortly afterwards and limited comments on his account.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 19:17

DJ_Mindboggler: Nov 21, 2013

Ripperljohn posted:

Doesn�t the US profit immensely from it�s weak partners in NATO?

Everyone knows they need the US, everyone buys or develops weapons with them, no one can afford to step out of line.

I think you could argue that the US let the lax spending get out of hand for too long given the current situation, but it was absolutely in their interest to maintain the status quo for as long as they have.

There are some MIC firms which profit, but as the Europeans are so fond of pointing out in their own cases, it's not like there aren't more socially beneficial areas that money could be going to. Also, "let"? For the past several administrations the US gov't has asked/begged for NATO countries to meet the 2% spending limit, only to get ignored. How would the US compel spending increases in a way which doesn't threaten the unity of the alliance?

# ? Jul 20, 2023 21:01

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

It really can't be pointed out how lmao the state of most of european NATO was/is

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-strength-country/

Turkey, Greece, and such juggernauts as Romania handily outnumbering the countries with enormous homegrown MICs.

And "we spent on good things" is a bit of a bunk argument. France has been happy to bomb the poo poo out of the ~~empire~~enemies of allied regimes, while Germany and Sweden are peaceful neutral paradises ja ja arming all kinds of horrible people and cashing the checks.

It is pretty lol from this side of the Atlantic. At least countries like Canada, Norway, and Finland, while small, specialize and contribute to the alliance.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 21:15

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

It really can't be pointed out how lmao the state of most of european NATO was/is

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-strength-country/

Turkey, Greece, and such juggernauts as Romania handily outnumbering the countries with enormous homegrown MICs.

And "we spent on good things" is a bit of a bunk argument. France has been happy to bomb the poo poo out of the ~~empire~~enemies of allied regimes, while Germany and Sweden are peaceful neutral paradises ja ja arming all kinds of horrible people and cashing the checks.

It is pretty lol from this side of the Atlantic. At least countries like Canada, Norway, and Finland, while small, specialize and contribute to the alliance.

Some of those numbers are likely overestimates, too. Like the 300 tanks for Spain includes Leo 2A4s, and IIRC they had a hard time finding 4 working ones to donate. For comparison Ukraine started with something like 850-900.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 21:26

jaete: Jun 21, 2009; Nap Ghost

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

It really can't be pointed out how lmao the state of most of european NATO was/is

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-strength-country/

This link is about tanks only. For some reason, after USA, the most tanky countries are the ones closest to Russia. Perhaps there's a reason for this?

What about air forces? Or missiles, or...

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

And "we spent on good things" is a bit of a bunk argument. France has been happy to bomb the poo poo out of the ~~empire~~enemies of allied regimes, while Germany and Sweden are peaceful neutral paradises ja ja arming all kinds of horrible people and cashing the checks.

Not sure what you're saying here. France is militarily fairly strong yes. Sweden has had a strong military industry for 400 years or so, yes. Sweden and Germany are... arming horrible people? You mean like every country on earth with a military industry?

# ? Jul 20, 2023 21:31

Grape: Nov 16, 2017; Happily shilling for China!

jaete posted:

This link is about tanks only. For some reason, after USA, the most tanky countries are the ones closest to Russia. Perhaps there's a reason for this?

Eh, I don't think Turkey and especially not Greece are tanked up because of Russia. But it is about living in a much scarier neighborhood than Western Europe in the same way as the former East Bloc countries.

Greece probably is tanked up BECAUSE of Turkey lol.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 21:39

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

jaete posted:

This link is about tanks only. For some reason, after USA, the most tanky countries are the ones closest to Russia. Perhaps there's a reason for this?

What about air forces? Or missiles, or...

Remember when France and the UK were bombing Libya and ran out of missiles after a couple weeks and had to ask the US for supplies? Good times.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 21:45

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Grape posted:

Eh, I don't think Turkey and especially not Greece are tanked up because of Russia. But it is about living in a much scarier neighborhood than Western Europe in the same way as the former East Bloc countries.

Greece probably is tanked up BECAUSE of Turkey lol.

Yeah there's a joke that NATO primarily exists to stop Turkey and Greece from going to war.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 21:57

Grape: Nov 16, 2017; Happily shilling for China!

They even have an island they can do proxy crap on without direct conflict. It's perfect.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 22:07

Mederlock: Jun 23, 2012; You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it; Grimey Drawer

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

It is pretty lol from this side of the Atlantic. At least countries like Canada, Norway, and Finland, while small, specialize and contribute to the alliance.

The Canadian military is now a hollowed out shell of it's former self. We used to have a competent if small blue water navy, a functioning aerospace industry supporting a robust air force, and an army that could deploy globally with a credible amount of heavy steel and well-trained ground forces.

Now our guys can barely get basic equipment like boots issued or uniforms that aren't threadbare and faded or even helmets and rain gear, we can barely fill out a single tank battalion if we're lucky, there's very limited budget for regular live fire range time or exercises, the air force is barely limping along with 40+ year old airframes that regularly have parts replaced from the one's too broken to fly, the Navy is tiny and having nothing but issues, we haven't even had a single credible air defense system since 2012 .

Of the three descriptors used for the Canadian military, the only one that's true anymore is "Small".

Mederlock fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jul 20, 2023

# ? Jul 20, 2023 22:13

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

I think the general public--and some good posters itt--are unaware of just how much got drawn down during the 30-year peace dividend. NATO is not really just supplying Ukraine from its excess: it is supplying Ukraine from the only stores it has for some munitions, including munitions which haven't had a new one created in decades.

Go look at the NATO order of battle from 1988 and compare it to today. I'll wait. Does NATO retain enough to stop Russia--even a rebuilt Russia 5 years from now--from getting to Berlin. Of course: almost certainly. But Talinn? Vilnius? Riga? Probably not.

Another point to consider: the 1-2% that NATO countries have spent have not always been spent wisely. For example, the UK and France really, really want to keep their own aircraft carriers. That's a lot more glamorous than 155mm artillery shells, but a lot more niche. The US spent a gajillion dollars on the Future Combat System, only to realize that whoops, 22 tons will not be as survivable as 70 tons. Maybe we should have just spent the money on smoke grenades and uparmored Humvees instead. How a nation invests in its defense is as important as how much it invests, and NATO has done poorly at both.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 22:16

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

BabyFur Denny posted:

I am not arguing for reducing military spending. I am arguing against increasing it to something ridiculous as 4% for every single country. I never said we don't need military spending. I say we don't need to spend more on military than we already are. Keep our current capabilities. It's more than enough. China and Russia know they can't defeat the United Western military at its current strength. But they think they can drive the west apart and make enough countries hesitant to join a military conflict.

The US shouldn't be relied on at all at this point. They might be out of NATO as soon the next election + 1 year.

Considering how fast Russia took Mariupol, they might already be dug in around occupied Riga when the French, British and Germans finally mobilize and get their asses over there. And I'm not putting my money on the Bundeswehr grinding themselves down on heavy Russian fortifications to liberate Riga, like Ukraine is doing right now in Bakhmut. There is absolutely no way we could put up a fight like Ukraine. I don't know if our ragtag cat herd of 20 different hollowed out armies are capable of sophisticated offensive operations, even if we had the equipment for it.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 22:23

Coquito Ergo Sum: Feb 9, 2021

As far as tanks on the list go, most of them are in varying forms of mothball and storage:

USA: Keeps a constant order of M1 Abrams moving through Lima, partly as a jobs program, but also as a means of keeping a constantly-developing tank program and running tank manufacturing base.

Turkey: Turkey never really drops tanks unless they're beyond repair, and they've bought tanks from many countries. They also keep upgrading their old ones. Last I heard, they still had M48s and M60s. They also have a small delivery of T-84s from Ukraine that can fire NATO rounds, but I don't think those are in service.

Greece: They kind of did what Turkey did and bought up shitloads of 48s and 60s and kept them running, then bought Leopard 1s and kept them running. They have Leopard 2s, which is mostly a given for many NATO powers. Arming Greece was probably pretty important to NATO following their Civil War, but that's conjecture on my part.

Poland: Poland actually manufactured much of its own equipment during and after the Cold War (mainly licensed Soviet designs). T-72s are easy to produce and keep running, and T-72A and B designs were solid tanks up until roughly the mid-1990s. Poland's now doing some funky stuff, claiming that they can't have enough Abrams and Leopard 2s, and now they want to buy K2s on top of have a factory that can build special versions of the K2 specifically for Poland.

jaete posted:

This link is about tanks only. For some reason, after USA, the most tanky countries are the ones closest to Russia. Perhaps there's a reason for this?

The USSR was a major exporter of weapons, especially tanks, so it figures their former umbrella states would have plenty of tanks. The USSR didn't export the T-64 and T-80 nearly as much as other models, but 64s and 80s have ended up in the service of different countries, through post-breakup shenanigans and limited export orders. Most of those nations have questionably-working stockpiles of T-55s, T-62s and T-72s. Ukraine for example ended up with loads of 64s and 80s due to having a large army and being a manufacturing base for both models.

Europe has plenty of its own arms manufacturers, especially France/UK/Germany. Even Poland has manufacturing capacity that they've been trying to rebuild over the past few decades. All of these countries of course want to boost their own industries, but sometimes only their own companies are set up to build equipment for their countries' own specific needs. France is much this way. Europe doesn't don't need to buy US, but I'm sure they'll buy up US stockpiles if they believe they can use them, and for the right price. The F-35 is a notable example.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 22:28

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

GABA ghoul posted:

The US shouldn't be relied on at all at this point. They might be out of NATO as soon the next election + 1 year.

Considering how fast Russia took Mariupol, they might already be dug in around occupied Riga when the French, British and Germans finally mobilize and get their asses over there. And I'm not putting my money on the Bundeswehr grinding themselves down on heavy Russian fortifications to liberate Riga, like Ukraine is doing right now in Bakhmut. There is absolutely no way we could put up a fight like Ukraine. I don't know if our ragtag cat herd of 20 different hollowed out armies are capable of sophisticated offensive operations, even if we had the equipment for it.

Yep, it's just shameful when Bundeswehr doesn't even have reliable rifles.

The key difference though is that NATO would dominate the airspace, and air reserves are a lot quicker to call up than big ground formations because they can operate from bases in Germany, Poland, Finland etc. Baltic Sea has also become a NATO lake now so Russia's Baltic Fleet can't do much. So rapid deployment forces might be enough on ground until more forces are mobilised.

And looking back into the preparation for the invasion of Ukraine, Russian deployment was painfully slow to the point of confusing observers. I believe they had genuine problems with putting together attack formations, and despite extra time not all of those issues were solved. If Russia was going to attack any NATO territory it wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 22:47

Bell_: Sep 3, 2006; Tiny Baltimore
A billion light years away
A goon's posting the same thing
But he's already turned to dust
And the shitpost we read
Is a billion light-years old
A ghost just like the rest of us

Ynglaur posted:

I think the general public--and some good posters itt--are unaware of just how much got drawn down during the 30-year peace dividend. NATO is not really just supplying Ukraine from its excess: it is supplying Ukraine from the only stores it has for some munitions, including munitions which haven't had a new one created in decades.

Go look at the NATO order of battle from 1988 and compare it to today. I'll wait. Does NATO retain enough to stop Russia--even a rebuilt Russia 5 years from now--from getting to Berlin. Of course: almost certainly. But Talinn? Vilnius? Riga? Probably not.

For a Russia to be "rebuilt" in 5 years; what does that mean? What is that process going to look like?

What's it going to take for Russia to get to Vilnius, and who's wearing the boots on the ground to go there?

How much of their current operations and conditions are we going to ignore to indulge this exercise?

# ? Jul 20, 2023 23:17

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Quick roundup of the SECDEF and CJCS press briefing following the latest Ukraine Contact Group meeting. I'll also throw an excerpt from the Joint Staff Directtor for Operations, J3, below. Not terribly much said. These updates are 2-5 days old.

This time I am not including the full intro the way I usually do, because while long, it does not say much. You can read it in full in the link below.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...-chairman-gene/

Highlights:
-F-16s probably not that helpful and very expensive in current fight compared to other land-based capabilities and SAMs. Denmark and Netherlands are heading up that training effort. Cites minefields as a much bigger problem than air power for Ukraine right now.
-Counteroffensive is ongoing, but going slower than hoped. War is hard and unpredictable, etc.
-DPICM confirmed delivered as of 13 July. Also says another country other than the US previously gave Ukraine cluster munitions, but does not specify which country that was.
-Ukraine has uncommitted combat power, but Russia also has extensive and complex defenses in depth

quote:

STAFF: All right, thank you. The second question will go to Idrees Ali with Reuters.

Q: Thank you. Chairman Milley, we're now entering the fifth week of the counteroffensive, so going into the sixth week. And you publicly have talked about, as have others in the U.S. government, about how the counteroffensive is going slower than expected. I appreciate the realities of the front lines, the mines and the situation there, but has the counteroffensive stalled? And how is this not a failure so far?

And, Secretary Austin, you talked about the alliance and the contact group being together. But publicly, there seems to be a bit of fraying. Defense Minister Wallace last week said that he had told his Ukrainian counterparts that, quote/unquote, "We are not Amazon, and that they should show us some appreciation."

Do you agree with the sentiments that Secretary Wallace expressed?

And what exactly do the Ukrainians need to, sort of, break the front lines and the security zone and make the progress that you had expected them to make?

SEC. AUSTIN: Well, first, thanks, Idrees. And I'll answer first, and then the chairman can chime in. You know, we're just off of -- just back from the summit in Vilnius, and what I witnessed in Vilnius was indeed unity and cohesion, in every meeting that I sat in.

And so I would -- it's the same thing that I witnessed today as I talked to ministers of defense and chiefs of defense. That unity is still there. There's no question that we have provided Ukraine a lot, we, the international coalition. Ukraine is in a fight, and we have to remember that, when you're in a fight, you want everything that you can get your hands on. And so that's to be expected.

Ben Wallace and I have worked along with coalition partners over the last year or so on this particular issue, and Ben has done a lot to enable and to help the Ukrainian military. And so he's been a great partner. But, again, I continue to see unity and cohesion. I continue to hear ministers say that we're going to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.

And I heard their leaders say the same thing in Vilnius last week. This is more -- much -- this is about much more than just Ukraine. This is about the rules-based international order. And I think people realize that. People around the globe realize that. And, you know, it's about the ability of a country to protect its sovereign territory. And so there's an interest across the -- around the globe to ensure that Ukraine can be successful in defending its sovereign territory.

...

GEN. MILLEY: So, just, I would say a couple things. First of all, the Russians have had several months to put in a very complex defense in depth, the linear defense in depth. It's not quite connected trench lines like World War I, but it's not dissimilar from that, either -- lots of complex minefields, dragons' teeth, barbed wire, trenches, et cetera. They've got a very extensive security zone in depth, and then they've got at least two, perhaps even three main defensive belts.

So they've had a long time to prepare that. Now, they suffered a lot of casualties, the Russians did, to date. So they've also done that mobilization, you know, from months ago. So the troops that are manning those Russian lines are poorly trained, poorly equipped. Their sustainment and logistics is not high. Their morale is low. And now, recently, because of the Prigozhin mutiny, the command-and-control apparatus at the strategic level is certainly confusing at best and probably challenging in many, many other ways.

At the operational, tactical level, they've had significant casualties among their officer corps. But in addition to that, the recent events of Prigozhin has also led to, and you're reporting it in the media, about various folks being replaced.

So the Russian situation is not very good, even though they've been fighting a fight because of the minefields. What the Ukrainians have, though, is a significant amount of combat power not yet committed. And I will not say what's going to happen in the future because that's going to be a Ukrainian decision to -- as to where and when they commit their reserve, et cetera.

Right now, they are preserving their combat power and they are slowly and deliberately and steadily working their way through all these minefields. And it's a tough fight. It's a very difficult fight.

It started about five or six weeks ago. And the various wargames that were done ahead of time have predicted certain levels of advance. And that has slowed down. Why? Because that's the difference between war on paper and real war. These are real people in real machines that are out there really clearing real minefields and they're really dying.

So, when that happens units tend to slow down and that's rightly so, in order to survive, in order to get through these minefields. So, they're working their way through it. It is far from a failure, in my view. I think that it's way too early to make that kind of call. I think there's a lot of fighting left to go.

And I'll stay with the what we've said before, this is going to be long, it's going to be hard, it's going to be bloody. And at the end of the day, we'll see where the Ukrainians end up, vis-a-vis the Russians.

SEC. AUSTIN: And Idrees let me just tag onto what he Chairman said. I absolutely agree with everything the Chairman said. What I would remind you that we -- this is not over. We continue to generate combat power. We're training three -- training and equipping three brigades in Germany right now and there's other training ongoing around the region, as the Chairman pointed out earlier.

Countries continue to provide platforms. And, you know, we talked about the additional Leopards and infantry fighting vehicles that are on the horizon, as well as artillery pieces. And so, we're going to continue to generate combat power. We're going to continue to push in additional Bradley fighting vehicles, and also Strykers and artillery pieces. And you heard the Chairman mention that earlier. So, our work continues. And we're going to do everything we can to make sure that Ukrainians can be a success.

...

GEN. MILLEY: So Missy, the -- I'd offer two things. One is, you know, what's the military problem to solve here with the air power? And it's control of the airspace, and you can do that two ways. You can do that air-to-air or you can do that from the ground to the air.

In terms of the most effective and efficient and cost-effective way to do that right now for the Ukrainians is from ground to air through air defense systems, and that's what they've been provided from the beginning if this war 'til now. And that's important, because what you want to do is protect those assault forces from Russian close-air support and/or attack-helicopter support, and they've got air defense systems, the Ru- -- Ukrainians do, that can do that.

The casualties that the Ukrainians are suffering on this offensive are not so much from Russian airpower; they're from minefields, minefields that are covered with direct fire from anti-tank hunter-killer teams, that sort of thing. So it's minefields. So the problem to solve is minefields, not the air piece right this minute. And that's what the coalition is trying to provide them: additional mine clearing, MICLICs, line charges, Bangalores -- that sort of thing, in order to continue to work their way through the minefields.

So I'm confident that they can do this, and especially if they execute the tactics, techniques and procedures that they've been taught, which they are doing, and execute these operations at night, which would deny the Russians the ability to use any of their airpower anyway. So the real problem is the minefields. It's not right now the airpower.

Now, having said that, just do a quick math drill here. Ten F-16s are $2 billion, so the Russians have hundreds of fourth- and fifth-generation airframes. So if they're going to try to match the Russians one for one, or even, you know, two-to-one, you're talking about a large number of aircraft. That's going to take years to train the pilots, years to do the maintenance and sustainment, years to generate that degree of financial support to do that. You're talking way more billions of dollars than has already been generated.

So the key thing is to focus on air defense, focus on the blocking-and-tackling sort of offensive combined arms maneuver, which is artillery, as both long-range and short-range artillery, and then get in your engineers and your mine-breaching equipment. That's the kind of stuff they need. That's what they want. That's what they're asking for. When I talk to Zaluzhny, that's what he's asking for, so --

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...t-staff-brigad/

quote:

Q: OK. Lieutenant General Sims, for you, could you give us your assessment of the reasons for what we're seeing in Ukraine's counteroffensive in terms of their -- like, are there sort of smaller advances and sort of small -- the smaller scale of the operations that we're seeing? How would you explain to people who aren't familiar with the situation? Why is that happening at this point?

And then Pat, if possible, can you just talk about whether the secretary's call with Senator Tuberville? Thanks.

GEN. RYDER: Yeah, Missy, I'll -- so I'll come back after we're done with General Sims's portion and address that. But over to General Sims.

GEN. SIMS: Well, Missy, I think if I could sum it up in a single word, I'd tell you it's because it's really hard. You know, we're talking about, you know, actual human beings that are in the midst of some pretty severe fighting. So if you look at this in this case, you know, we have, you know, men and women who are incorporating new techniques. They're using new equipment and they're doing that all while being shot at and bombed, not to mention the -- the -- and if you've seen in other places, extensive mining that the Russians have put in place. And so where they are gaining hundreds of meters a day, maybe a kilometer a day in some places, they're doing that at great cost in terms of effort.

And so just back to my opening comment there, it's really, really hard. I don't think it's impossible, and I think that's what we're seeing from the Ukrainians, is that they are really making a go of it in great order, really, across the battlefield. It may not be at the speed that we would prefer. You know, if you use an historic example and if you look at this country, with the exception of the Gulf War, where we, you know, had gone pretty fast through that, we had done a bunch of preparation prior to our crossing the berm in the Gulf War, let me take you back to World War II -- I mean, just from the time when we hit the beaches at D-Day, you were looking at two months before the breakout.

So this is hard warfare, it's in really tough terrain, it's under fire, and really, when you consider all of that, it's pretty remarkable.

...

Q: Hi, Sir. Thanks so much for doing this. I wanted to ask you about the counter-offensive and -- since it is going a little slower than some may have liked, it seems like perhaps this might last longer as well. And as we go into the fall, you look at new U.S. equipment that is potentially arriving -- the Abrams, for example, maybe even F-16s. Can you talk at all about what kind of capability those weapons would bring to the counteroffensive and how useful that would be?

GEN. SIMS: Yes, sure, Ma'am. Well, let me start with air. We've said this for a while, you know, this -- the conditions on the environment certainly are changing over time. But the conditions right now for the employment of the F-16s are probably not -- they're probably not ideal. I mean, the Russians still possess some air defense capability. They have air capability. And the number of F-16s that would be provided may not be perfect for what's going on right now. As the future changes, that certainly will dictate how that is employed.

In terms of the Abrams, you know, the Abrams will certainly make a difference on the battlefield. I mean, we know it's an extraordinary tank. And, you know, the training ongoing right now will make them, you know, I would think, extraordinarily good at employing them. I can't tell you whether the offensive would still be going on by then or not, I just know that when the Abrams arrive, they'll be able to make a difference with Ukrainians.

# ? Jul 20, 2023 23:52

Moon Slayer: Jun 19, 2007

mlmp08 posted:

-DPICM confirmed delivered as of 13 July. Also says another country other than the US previously gave Ukraine cluster munitions, but does not specify which country that was.

San Marino! :argh:

# ? Jul 21, 2023 00:22

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

GABA ghoul posted:

The US shouldn't be relied on at all at this point. They might be out of NATO as soon the next election + 1 year.

Considering how fast Russia took Mariupol, they might already be dug in around occupied Riga when the French, British and Germans finally mobilize and get their asses over there. And I'm not putting my money on the Bundeswehr grinding themselves down on heavy Russian fortifications to liberate Riga, like Ukraine is doing right now in Bakhmut. There is absolutely no way we could put up a fight like Ukraine. I don't know if our ragtag cat herd of 20 different hollowed out armies are capable of sophisticated offensive operations, even if we had the equipment for it.

I'd like to point out that IIRC, Russia's taking of Mariupol involved both being able to casually just stock up and prepare for over a year, but also enjoying the fact that a bunch of Mariupol's high-ranking government and military officials turned out to be traitors who sabotaged the defenses. Russia's not going to have that advantage in western Europe.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 01:11

Mederlock: Jun 23, 2012; You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it; Grimey Drawer

mlmp08 posted:

Quick roundup of the SECDEF and CJCS press briefing following the latest Ukraine Contact Group meeting. I'll also throw an excerpt from the Joint Staff Directtor for Operations, J3, below. Not terribly much said. These updates are 2-5 days old.

This time I am not including the full intro the way I usually do, because while long, it does not say much. You can read it in full in the link below.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...-chairman-gene/

Highlights:
-F-16s probably not that helpful and very expensive in current fight compared to other land-based capabilities and SAMs. Denmark and Netherlands are heading up that training effort. Cites minefields as a much bigger problem than air power for Ukraine right now.
-Counteroffensive is ongoing, but going slower than hoped. War is hard and unpredictable,. etc.
-DPICM confirmed delivered as of 13 July. Also says another country other than the US previously gave Ukraine cluster munitions, but does not specify which country that was.
-Ukraine has uncommitted combat power, but Russia also has extensive and complex defenses in depth

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...t-staff-brigad/

Appreciate these updates mlmp08. Even though I don't always read the linked release, I do always read the summary and do dig in deeper when something catches my eye.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 01:27

Mr Luxury Yacht: Apr 16, 2012

Mederlock posted:

The Canadian military is now a hollowed out shell of it's former self. We used to have a competent if small blue water navy, a functioning aerospace industry supporting a robust air force, and an army that could deploy globally with a credible amount of heavy steel and well-trained ground forces.

Now our guys can barely get basic equipment like boots issued or uniforms that aren't threadbare and faded or even helmets and rain gear, we can barely fill out a single tank battalion if we're lucky, there's very limited budget for regular live fire range time or exercises, the air force is barely limping along with 40+ year old airframes that regularly have parts replaced from the one's too broken to fly, the Navy is tiny and having nothing but issues, we haven't even had a single credible air defense system since 2012 .

Of the three descriptors used for the Canadian military, the only one that's true anymore is "Small".

Yeah but dysfunction is more the primary cause of that rather than budget.

Our annual defense budget is a bit higher than, if I did my math right, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark combined. Hell we spend more on our military than Israel or Poland or Turkey. There's no monetary reason our military should be so hollowed out but decades of lovely contracts, terrible local industry that has to be in on every deal driving up the cost, and multiple governments just generally not giving a poo poo post cold war has done a real number on defense here.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 01:38

saratoga: Mar 5, 2001; This is a Randbrick post. It goes in that D&D megathread on page 294

"i think obama was mediocre in that debate, but hillary was fucking terrible. also russert is filth."

-randbrick, 12/26/08

Bell_ posted:

For a Russia to be "rebuilt" in 5 years; what does that mean? What is that process going to look like?

Five years isn't much time, but if the war ends quickly and oil goes back over $120 a barrel then they'd have something like a trillion dollars worth of cash from oil exports with which to rearm. You can replace a lot of mediocre but cheap to produce Soviet junk with that kind of money.

This is why I think getting Ukraine into NATO is going to be so important. As long as it's outside the temptation is always going to be there to build up more tanks and throw the dice. War really needs to be less appealing to discourage that kind of thinking.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 01:39

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Mr Luxury Yacht posted:

Yeah but dysfunction is more the primary cause of that rather than budget.

Our annual defense budget is a bit higher than, if I did my math right, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark combined. Hell we spend more on our military than Israel or Poland or Turkey. There's no monetary reason our military should be so hollowed out but decades of lovely contracts, terrible local industry that has to be in on every deal driving up the cost, and multiple governments just generally not giving a poo poo post cold war has done a real number on defense here.

but despite this, my main reasoning is that Canada is still good at being in NORAD

were Canada threatened, the US will be in Toronto, Montr�al, Qu�bec, Ottawa, Halifax, and Vancouver long before anyone else, and Canada can continue its one good skill of defending the arctic

Calgary and Edmonton too, most likely

# ? Jul 21, 2023 02:04

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

saratoga posted:

Five years isn't much time, but if the war ends quickly and oil goes back over $120 a barrel then they'd have something like a trillion dollars worth of cash from oil exports with which to rearm. You can replace a lot of mediocre but cheap to produce Soviet junk with that kind of money.

This is why I think getting Ukraine into NATO is going to be so important. As long as it's outside the temptation is always going to be there to build up more tanks and throw the dice. War really needs to be less appealing to discourage that kind of thinking.

How much of that money do you think is actually going to end up in the budget, and of that how much goes to the military, and of that how much is marked for equipment, after which how much equipment is actually purchased?

# ? Jul 21, 2023 02:06

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Bell_ posted:

For a Russia to be "rebuilt" in 5 years; what does that mean? What is that process going to look like?

What's it going to take for Russia to get to Vilnius, and who's wearing the boots on the ground to go there?

How much of their current operations and conditions are we going to ignore to indulge this exercise?

Part of that process is happening as we speak; as Russia continues to fight, unless they lose/collapse of course, they're going to come out of this learning and relearning many hard lessons NATO and the US are still trying to figure out for a peer/near peer conflict. As lol as Russia's command structure is, some people of talent are probably rapidly climbing the ranks due to rapidly recently opened positions. Russia has a sizeable army, much of it in Ukraine with many more who presumably can be drafted if push comes to shove; looking online I see an estimate that Russia currently has 1.3 million total personnel; if the war ends even with demobilization Russia probably will manage to quickly refill their professional standing forces roster and maintain their rapid reaction force ~80,000 men easily enough.

Russia might be able to with astonishing speed rebuild their capability post-war, especially if the various sanctions and embargos rapidly drop or it becomes easier to trade with China without an active shooting war.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 02:57

Shogeton: Apr 26, 2007; "Little by little the old world crumbled, and not once did the king imagine that some of the pieces might fall on him"

Yeah, the reason Russia has all this shitton of artillery and tanks and ammunition for them is for the most part using up their Soviet Union inheritance, built up over decades. Russia is going to take far, far, FAR longer than 5 years to get anywhere close to their capabilities they were before the was in Ukraine, even in a best case scenario where all sanctions vanish.

And Perun had a video, where he was pretty clear that if Europe, without US aid, decided 'Oh, Russia is attacking, okay guys, all together' Russia would be the one getting its rear end kicked. And that is with the army back then. Right now, Russia is getting weaker every month. Europe is of course also putting some of its gear into play, but rarely its best one, and some countries in Europe have been kicking up production.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 02:58

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

A lot of people have a hard time understanding that Russia is just an economy about the size of Canada that simply inherited the equipment of a vast empire.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 03:05

saratoga: Mar 5, 2001; This is a Randbrick post. It goes in that D&D megathread on page 294

"i think obama was mediocre in that debate, but hillary was fucking terrible. also russert is filth."

-randbrick, 12/26/08

Volmarias posted:

How much of that money do you think is actually going to end up in the budget, and of that how much goes to the military, and of that how much is marked for equipment, after which how much equipment is actually purchased?

I have no idea how much money Putin or his successors might choose to spend on the military in future years. Rather I am pointing out that if oil prices pick up, they would certainly have the funds to do so if they desired.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 03:34

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

saratoga posted:

Five years isn't much time, but if the war ends quickly and oil goes back over $120 a barrel then they'd have something like a trillion dollars worth of cash from oil exports with which to rearm. You can replace a lot of mediocre but cheap to produce Soviet junk with that kind of money.

International oil markets are going to be looking extremely different in five to ten years because of the IRA. As the US transitions to electric vehicles it�s going to change the international oil market in huge ways. They also just added WTI -midland to the Brent benchmark.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/wti-midland-crude-brent-benchmark-17875348.php

These events in some part are because of the conflict. Russia hosed up.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 04:12

Griefor: Jun 11, 2009

Baronjutter posted:

A lot of people have a hard time understanding that Russia is just an economy about the size of Canada that simply inherited the equipment of a vast empire.

For military finances they are not equivalent though. The same amount of money will buy al lot more Russian soldiers and equipment than Canadian soldiers and equipment.

Also I imagine Russia spends quite a bit more than 4% GDP on their military right now.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 05:33

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Nenonen posted:

Yep, it's just shameful when Bundeswehr doesn't even have reliable rifles.

The key difference though is that NATO would dominate the airspace, and air reserves are a lot quicker to call up than big ground formations because they can operate from bases in Germany, Poland, Finland etc. Baltic Sea has also become a NATO lake now so Russia's Baltic Fleet can't do much. So rapid deployment forces might be enough on ground until more forces are mobilised.

And looking back into the preparation for the invasion of Ukraine, Russian deployment was painfully slow to the point of confusing observers. I believe they had genuine problems with putting together attack formations, and despite extra time not all of those issues were solved. If Russia was going to attack any NATO territory it wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Germany is planning to permanently base a full brigade in Lithuania. In the future, there will be no need to mobilize from Germany before having boots on the ground there. Up until now, only a tiny staff was stationed there, with units scraped together and transferred for exercises in the Baltic states. Starting in 2026 or so (infrastructure needs to be built), roughly 4000 German soldiers (+ families) will be right on the frontline of any shenanigans in that area.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 05:54

Dick Ripple: May 19, 2021

Latest War on the Rocks episode was released https://warontherocks.com/2023/07/ukraine-struggles-to-scale-offensive-combat-operations/

Nothing really new, but reinforcing what we know in that Russian defenses planning/operations in the south are extremely capable and their assessment is that the only feasible way that Ukraine will overcome them is by having an effective force structure full of experienced officers and NCOs...

Is it possible that Russia can stay on the strategic defensive indefinitely? Because I do not know how long or how many men Ukraine can throw at these fortifications, but Russia is getting really good at building trenches and placing countless amounts of mines everywhere.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 06:01

SlowBloke: Aug 14, 2017

Coquito Ergo Sum posted:

As far as tanks on the list go, most of them are in varying forms of mothball and storage:

USA: Keeps a constant order of M1 Abrams moving through Lima, partly as a jobs program, but also as a means of keeping a constantly-developing tank program and running tank manufacturing base.

Turkey: Turkey never really drops tanks unless they're beyond repair, and they've bought tanks from many countries. They also keep upgrading their old ones. Last I heard, they still had M48s and M60s. They also have a small delivery of T-84s from Ukraine that can fire NATO rounds, but I don't think those are in service.

Greece: They kind of did what Turkey did and bought up shitloads of 48s and 60s and kept them running, then bought Leopard 1s and kept them running. They have Leopard 2s, which is mostly a given for many NATO powers. Arming Greece was probably pretty important to NATO following their Civil War, but that's conjecture on my part.

Poland: Poland actually manufactured much of its own equipment during and after the Cold War (mainly licensed Soviet designs). T-72s are easy to produce and keep running, and T-72A and B designs were solid tanks up until roughly the mid-1990s. Poland's now doing some funky stuff, claiming that they can't have enough Abrams and Leopard 2s, and now they want to buy K2s on top of have a factory that can build special versions of the K2 specifically for Poland.

The USSR was a major exporter of weapons, especially tanks, so it figures their former umbrella states would have plenty of tanks. The USSR didn't export the T-64 and T-80 nearly as much as other models, but 64s and 80s have ended up in the service of different countries, through post-breakup shenanigans and limited export orders. Most of those nations have questionably-working stockpiles of T-55s, T-62s and T-72s. Ukraine for example ended up with loads of 64s and 80s due to having a large army and being a manufacturing base for both models.

Europe has plenty of its own arms manufacturers, especially France/UK/Germany. Even Poland has manufacturing capacity that they've been trying to rebuild over the past few decades. All of these countries of course want to boost their own industries, but sometimes only their own companies are set up to build equipment for their countries' own specific needs. France is much this way. Europe doesn't don't need to buy US, but I'm sure they'll buy up US stockpiles if they believe they can use them, and for the right price. The F-35 is a notable example.

Italy has so much trust in their tank producing capabilities they are going to buy leopards while likely providing the recently approved upgraded ariete to second line troops from the look of it.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 06:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 07:22

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

Nenonen posted:

Yep, it's just shameful when Bundeswehr doesn't even have reliable rifles.

Huh?

The Bundeswehr has plenty of good reliable small arms. It's not reliability that's the problem, some of the models are just old. The MG3 is a wee bit heavy, the G36 has a weirdo scope that has been surpassed by modern scopes, etc., but they all shoot fine and are fairly well regarded.

The problem is, as always, in procurement. The MG3 was supposed to be replaced by the MG5, and now it's in a half-half state. The G36 was supposed to eventually be replaced but replacement got mired in lawsuits and some really shady manoeuvring so it took ages for a decision to be reached to procure the HK416.

# ? Jul 21, 2023 07:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

«‹›483 »