Of course, and in other news, Microsoft thinks Microsoft software is the best solution to any problem.
What worries me more though is the lack of weapons. Here's why:
It's clear Russia isn't going to stop. Putin would find it extremely embarrassing and politically harmful to just stop without getting anything out of it. All those sanctions, all that money, all those lives lost would be all for nothing.
It's equally clear Ukraine isn't going to stop. They see it (in my opinion very correctly) as a very existential fight to preserve their country and culture. Surrendering a good chunk of your country to an enemy that's been killing your people for a year is also politically nonviable and maybe even impossible.
So obviously this is only ending when one side becomes unwilling or unable to keep fighting.
If giving weapons to Ukraine is a good thing at all then the most moral option to me is giving Ukraine the means to achieve a swift, decisive win. Keeping things even has no legitimate purpose to it, it only gets more people killed on both sides.
I stand with Ukraine, and I support foreign aid to help them repel the Russian invasion. However, even if they eventually win the war the sad reality is that Ukraine is probably doomed as a distinct nation and culture. Even before the current war their demographics were collapsing. Now they are suffering heavy casualties on the battlefield, and millions of young people have fled the country as refugees to avoid violence and conscription. Realistically most of those people are never coming home.
In 30 years I expect the population of Ukraine to look vastly different with a lot more immigrants from Africa and the Middle East working in agriculture and resource extraction. And to be clear I'm not claiming that this is a good thing or a bad thing, just that it seems inevitable based on demographics and geography.
The demographics of Ukraine spells economic stagnation however ~25-30 million is more than enough for linguistic and cultural sustainability. My country, Denmark, only has 5 million people and Iceland only has 300,000 people.
I don't know if you're American but immigrants in Europe assimilate slower and keep their linguistic and cultural identity alive for generations. Young 3rd generation Turkish and Pakistani people in Denmark (whose grandparents arrived in the 1970s) are still able to speak Turkish and Urdu/Punjabi.
Russia will not take any single oblast.
In fact, it has retreated from two oblasts in the past 6 months.
And now retreating from part of Belgorod.
Good luck contradicting reality, bro.
The million dollar question is why not give Ukraine the means to switfly end the war?
One might say it's in order to prevent excessive escalation and slowly bleed out Russia, but, aside from the fact that "slowly bleeding out" Russia means sacrificing tens of thousands of Ukrainians and further destroying Ukraine along the way, does anyone really think that Russia won't escalate things anyway once they realize they are slowly losing?
Since I don't believe it's to prevent escalation, I must conclude it's because more death and destruction bring more business. The longer the conflict goes on the more weapons and ammo are sold, the more Ukrainian cities are destroyed the more money is to be made out of reconstruction.
At the very least the incentive is there, and if you ask me any system where death and destruction are incentivized is by definition antihuman.
There are enough weapons available, ammo might become tight one day so. Those weapons, from tanks rifles to planes, are modern so. That means that Ukrainian operators need training, that takes time. Logistics have to be set-up for everything from spares to consumables, that takes time. Not to forget that some of the stuff wasn't properly maintained for quite some time by the donor nations, so they need repairs, maintenance and overhaul. That takes time.
As long as NATO is willing to support Ukraine, a lack of weapons and gear shouldn't be a problem.
There's all sorts of hangups with things like ATACMS.
All I'm saying is that I find this gradual escalation very unpleasant. If we side with Ukraine then let's end this as quickly and decisively as possible. Stretching this out to years of gradual escalation where during a given month we decide "Okay, maybe Ukraine now can have HIMARS, or better tanks, or better missiles" seems like the worst way to do things.
I think long term the current strategy means more money, more dead people, less clear politics and worse PR.
If we side with Ukraine then let's end this as quickly and decisively as possible.
And how exactly are you going to achieve that? The thing about war is that you can’t just decide to win, you actually have to do it.
Stretching this out to years of gradual escalation
This gradual escalation is at least as much to the “benefit” of Western audiences as it is to Russia. Just imagine telling people (Germans in particular) about German tanks in Ukraine against Russia at the beginning of 2022…
Another psyop targeting Western audiences: the notion that Russia is losing[0], can’t or won’t retaliate, even that its strategic nuclear weapons won’t work, and in any case “MAD” will protect us. All these things are very wrong, no matter how mad that makes people here and elsewhere.
[0]: Open your favourite satellite image service, visit an Ukrainian city, count the fresh graves, do the math. Kharkov alone easily has 13k KIAs buried or whatever’s the official count.
Meanwhile: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/04/14/bbc-news-russian... I‘d say it’s something like 50k total but point is: not even close to what Ukraine has lost. And even if it were, that’s not how you win an existential conflict against a country five times your size.
Nice of the Russians to support the "Western psyop" by loudly infighting over the losses suffered and struggles to hold the only bit of territory they've managed to capture since their latest conscription waves, following the mass retreats of the autumn, presumably because their numerical advantage left them without any Ukranians to shoot at.
Nice of the Russians to support the "Western psyop"
Yes, but unironically. Decisions Were Made after the US and UK attacked (via Ukraine but fooling nobody) sites of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces at the beginning of December last year.[0][1] They got an immediate answer[2], and a couple more such messages later on, but what the Russians would have realized then (if not earlier) is that you most likely cannot reason with the ruling elites of the dying empire and its rabid little attack Beagle. Let’s hope they find a way still.
following the mass retreats of the autumn
Every drug peddler knows: Getting high on your own supply is the most dangerous thing.
numerical advantage left them without any Ukranians to shoot at.
Pretty bad taste, in light of the footage coming in from Zaporozhye rn.
> Yes, but unironically. Decisions Were Made after the US and UK attacked (via Ukraine but fooling nobody) sites of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces at the beginning of December last year.[0][1] They got an immediate answer[2], and a couple more such messages later on, but what the Russians would have realized then (if not earlier) is that you most likely cannot reason with the ruling elites of the dying empire and its rabid little attack Beagle. Let’s hope they find a way still.
Cutting edge stealth drones which have never been seen anywhere before (particularly the marine ones) are being handcrafted by the US & UK, for ops planned using data from US/UK satellites, then guided in with US & UK C2, to hit Crimea, then we act like we are not at war.
> Every drug peddler knows: Getting high on your own supply is the most dangerous thing.
Well at least one thing you said was true. Say what you like about the Russian propaganda, it's a whole lot less deluded than the people that think it's insufficiently clear about how Russia was only defending itself and how well their military is performing.
I dunno, stanning for Russian performance in this war at this stage feels a bit more like the contrarian holdout insisting that both Mac and Windows fans are wrong and GUIs will never catch on :)
Cute that you've gone from Ukraine's capitulation within weeks being inevitable to pretending to count bodies though.
I’d tread carefully on a day where I’ve burned half a brigade in a fruitless, hare-brained probing/screening effort. But then, treading carefully isn’t something Ukies (and the fandom) are generally known for exactly.
Cute that you've gone from Ukraine's capitulation within weeks
Have I? (Remember: “Kiew within 72 hours” were Gen. Milley’s words.) But let’s assume I did; it certainly would have been the prudent thing to do for them. Must have underestimated their ability to waste hundreds of men day after day after day and just pretend it wasn’t so. And the willingness of Western media to carry their water. And, in fact, the sheer magnitude and shamelessness of the whole propaganda effort. War is peace, baby. And anyway, as Borrell (just recently), Austin and others have observed, the Ukrainian effort would collapse within days if Western were to end. Another one of those facts pro-Ukies just love to ignore.
pretending to count bodies
It’s very easy to become an authority on Ukrainian losses in the West because you’re pretty much the only one showing up for the job. Half a dozen guys, tops. Truly the least interesting question conceivable by man.
I understand that you, as a Brit, are congenitally bound to hate Russia and to desire to stir the European pot but remember: there’s nukes in the mix this time. Should be glad that Russia isn’t in fact losing.
Yes, unless you're a different person from the person that possessed the rainworld account in March 2022. Or perhaps that was a Western psyop too!
I'd tread carefully if I'd had to go from being certain about that outcome to being certain the only reason Russia had lost more territory than it gained over the past six months was because "they're not in a rush" and that the flattened ruins of Bakhmut are somehow more valuable than the former Kherson oblast of the Russian Federation. Kudos for keeping the faith though. If only those representing Russia's front line troop factions shared your rosy picture of how things are going.
It would, indeed, be relatively straightforward to become an expert on Ukraine casualties, but we both know that isn't you. And there are indeed nukes in the mix, but remember: sides that are winning a conventional war aren't idly threatening the other nuclear states with them on a weekly basis because that's a more convincing illusion of strength than anything happening on the front line. I mean, even the US in Vietnam (or USSR in Aghanistan, or the US in Afghanistan, I guess) didn't feel so inept on the battlefield they had to bring their ICBM count into discussions.
> I understand that you, as a Brit, are congenitally bound to hate Russia and to desire to stir the European pot but remember: there’s nukes in the mix this time. Should be glad that Russia isn’t in fact losing.
They aren’t losing so bad that they took close to 100k causalities to take a city that is 41 square kilometres.
They aren’t losing so bad that we have seen T54s in use by Russia.
Russia won’t ever use nukes in Ukraine and even if they do it won’t change the war in anyway except for increasing support for Ukraine and decreasing support for Russia
This is why Russian propaganda shouts about nukes and red lines but doesn’t actually do anything.
Much like how some people on here are doing the same nuclear doomerism all it is meant to do is increase fear in the west to actually ending this war.
Whether or not you think gradual escalation prevented nuclear escalation, it's pretty much done now. Given the US policy of not announcing shipments until they've been used in the field, I bet that ATACMS is currently en route to Ukraine. Storm Shadow and ATACMS are roughly equivalent and they already have Storm Shadow.
F-16 and ATACMS were pretty much the last things on the Ukraine wish list, and they're now (probably) getting both.
America's war goal is war. If Ukraine 'won' quickly, the next war may not be easy to find quickly. Better for everyone to keep this one going as long as possible.
Not sure why this was down voted. The incentives for our politicians to create wars are very strong. They can convince themselves and others of the verocity of their reasons but war is a benefit to them. All they have to do is signal a desire for conflict (or a response to conflict) and the campaign dollars pour in.
Part because I don't think Putin is suicidal, or that stupid. He was counting on reaping benefits from this. Nuclear doesn't lead to any kind of benefit.
But besides that there are plenty weapons that aren't all that fancy and would have made a huge difference if they were there sooner. Think about the mess HIMARS would have made of that tank column stuck on the way to Kyiv.
> Part because I don't think Putin is suicidal, or that stupid.
I would have agreed with this at the start of the war..but I have no idea what gain he can ever get here short of riding it out to 2025 and hoping that a change in politics in America will change the game for him. Even then, I would not be shocked to see the EU step up in their place. If Russia will overrun Ukraine, they will overrun anyone.
They are not gaining meaningful ground and the west is further uniting; NATO is at their doorstop in Finland now, a massive failure, any surrender in Ukraine ends with Ukraine joining NATO. The EU needs Russia to know that the buck stops there.
Rumors state Putin is surrounded by yes men and terrified. Media keeps hearing reports of cancer; he may be dying already. He has portrayed himself as brute and strong, gaining ground still has his legacy trashed for the cost, then goes out on that memory. Might I add that nobody actually knows his mental state. I would not be shocked to see a WMD outcome. There are rumors of chemical weapons being prepped. The only way Russia changes the tides is to cut Ukraine off at the top with Zelenskyy, there's only two ways they bring the fight to Kyiv.
> Logistics have to be set-up for everything from spares to consumables, that takes time. Not to forget that some of the stuff wasn't properly maintained for quite some time by the donor nations, so they need repairs, maintenance and overhaul. That takes time.
This is not representative of what is actually going on.
The Russians for the most part have a fairly clean logistics system based on their weapon systems they are employing. Nonstop convoys of Trains and trucks.
The Ukrainian logistics system is a debacle because it is a mishmash of Old Soviet and a smorgasboard of Western donations, and many things are being repaired in Poland then shipped back.
Becuase the Ukrainian tactics are effectively Russian tactics still, they are using Western vehicles in ways they are not intended to be used (e.g. using a tank as a mobile artillery platform shooting at max range with max charges, wearing out barrels early).
Given the tooth to nail ratio (Warfighter to logistics) and given losses already, Ukraine is pretty close to losing generations of men, and a wide depopulation of the country.
One thing that Ukraine is not doing is using Russian tactics. A lot of the successes they've had came with using western style C&C. Had Russia invaded for proper in 2014 then yes, but Ukraine undertook an extensive restructure and rebuild since then, obviously limited by their capacity and external support.
Well, you did talk more specifically about how they use tanks. Some of their army have had western training. If they are doing that there might be a more contextual reason that applies to Russia too - lack of air support. Western tactics rely a lot on good available air support and air suppression. Russia has more air support than Ukraine but it's still very limited.
But yet, the war is a slaughterhouse for Russia. It seems like the Russian issue is that they lack any modern weapons systems or skilled labor. They have playbooks for logistics but no way to actually move the line they send men to.
If the Russians have such a good logistics system why did there convoy just stop like 30km outside Kyiv in the initial phase of the war proceed to be bombed into dust?.
There was some serious underestimation of the Western Ukrainian resolve.
I’m very surprised they attempted an airfield seizure with such a small force. The airfield seizure debacle led to many others, such as convoy bombings.
That strikes me as gross miscalculation, not really logistics
I don't know if you are characterizing this correctly. I've spent a good amount of time in uniform focused on Russian tactics & Russian Order of Battle, and how to counter it, so I'll chime in some.
> It's clear Russia isn't going to stop. Putin would find it extremely embarrassing and politically harmful to just stop without getting anything out of it.
If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow (Think Cuban Missile Crisis but worse). There are no true geographical barriers from driving tank divisions from Ukraine into Russia proper.
US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country.
For the Russians, this is an existential crisis.
> All those sanctions, all that money, all those lives lost would be all for nothing.
The current Administration and their allies in Congress will fight to the last Ukrainian.
They are attempting to weaken Russian through a proxy war (Think Afghanistan or Vietnam). They are not defending Ukraine.
If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out.
But having Ukraine become Switzerland would not benefit the US' current warlike ambitions, nor would it assist the plundering of the incredibly valuable resources of Ukraine. Zelensky's platform for peace, when he was elected, was destroyed by the Banderistas in Western Ukraine who have been prepping for war, or executingi
> If giving weapons to Ukraine is a good thing at all then the most moral option to me is giving Ukraine the means to achieve a swift, decisive win. Keeping things even has no legitimate purpose to it, it only gets more people killed on both sides.
Because this is an existential crisis to the Russians, they will continue ramping up their warmachine to support this war.
The Russian army is really designed for this type of combat, and they won't have a better chance. Now, they might have misjudged the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the Western support, but now they are just rubbling cities and targeting everything. The worst of WW1 & WW2 is back.
Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die.
> If the US has Eastern Ukraine, we can place missiles inside the Russian's early warning threshhold aimed at Moscow (Think Cuban Missile Crisis but worse). There are no true geographical barriers from driving tank divisions from Ukraine into Russia proper.
I don't buy this.
First, tech changed a lot since the old days. ICBMs can strike anywhere on the globe. Physical proximity to Moscow isn't really necessary.
Second, Finland joined and is within HIMARS range of St Petersburg. That plus Sweden blocks the Baltic Sea. That somehow doesn't seem to have caused a crisis.
Third, there's Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. There's really no lack of existing options.
> The current Administration and their allies in Congress will fight to the last Ukrainian.
That is silly. You have to consider that Russia's willingness to sacrifice its own people can't be infinite either.
> If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out.
I see no reason why such an agreement would be advantageous to anyone.
> Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die.
Easy answer. Give them enough stuff to push Russia back to the border.
> ICBMs can strike anywhere on the globe. Physical proximity to Moscow isn't really necessary.
I am talking about getting inside an early warning window and preventing a Russian response.
> Second, Finland joined and is within HIMARS range of St Petersburg
HIMARS are not strategic nuclear weapons
> That is silly. You have to consider that Russia's willingness to sacrifice its own people can't be infinite either.
Russian has between a 7 to 1, and a 10 to 1 advantage in artillery, and this advantage is growing.
> I see no reason why such an agreement would be advantageous to anyone.
If Ukraine had agreed to be neutral (non-NATO) the war and all this bloodshed would have been avoided.
I'm sad so many people had to die. This would have been greatly advantageous for some of those dead people not to have died in vain because we want Russia to have a quagmire.
> Easy answer. Give them enough stuff to push Russia back to the border.
Won't happen. The Russians are likely going for all the ethnically Russian Oblasts in Ukraine.
> If Ukraine had agreed to be neutral (non-NATO) the war and all this bloodshed would have been avoided.
This was already offered by Germany, turns out it's not really what Russia wants.
> I'm sad so many people had to die. This would have been greatly advantageous for some of those dead people not to have died in vain because we want Russia to have a quagmire.
Be great if Russia just decided not to invade instead.
> Won't happen. The Russians are likely going for all the ethnically Russian Oblasts in Ukraine.
Yes because Russia has an infinite number of soldiers, vehicles and weapons and isn't running out of all three of those things.
> I am talking about getting inside an early warning window and preventing a Russian response.
Okay, so they can be in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania which are around the same distance.
> HIMARS are not strategic nuclear weapons
The point is that Finland is close enough to strike St Petersburg with something old, cheap and commonly available. Can always go fancier than that.
No reason why Finland couldn't host nuclear weapons.
> Russian has between a 7 to 1, and a 10 to 1 advantage in artillery, and this advantage is growing.
Guess will see what happens, but the likelihood of Russia winning this seems very low.
> If Ukraine had agreed to be neutral (non-NATO) the war and all this bloodshed would have been avoided.
If Russia had agreed to be neutral (stop panicking about NATO) the war and all this bloodshed would have been avoided. Mind you NATO was nearly dead until Russia started this nonsense. It's thanks to them that it's been greatly revitalized.
> Won't happen. The Russians are likely going for all the ethnically Russian Oblasts in Ukraine.
There won't be ethnically Russian Oblasts in Ukraine soon.
War already created a huge loss of population, and if Ukraine manages to regain them they'll use the war as a reason to systematically remove any Russian remains from them.
And I think thanks to the war this will be largely non-controversial.
Russia may have more artillery tubes, but they have a shortage of precision guided ammunition and are having trouble manufacturing more. They're basically using it as fast as they can make it just to hold the current lines and have been unable to build up the stockpiles that would be needed for another offensive. Meanwhile PGM deliveries to Ukraine have been accelerating.
> Russia may have more artillery tubes, but they have a shortage of precision guided ammunition and are having trouble manufacturing more.
This is incorrect, and the Russians have easier logistics than the Western Ukrainians, because the Russians are only fielding Russian arty systems, and the Western Ukrainians have a mishmash of polish, soviet, US, French, and others.
To quote someone from the US Defense establishment, Thomas A. Callaghan Jr., “Quantity has a Quality All Its Own". This is doubly true with area of effect weaponry like massed artillery fires.
> They're basically using it as fast as they can make it just to hold the current lines
They are currently winning a war of attrition. The Russian army is specifically designed for this type of warfare.
> and have been unable to build up the stockpiles that would be needed for another offensive.
If you are attriting an enemy at good odds, there is no need for an offensive. Key defensive points like Mariupol and Bakhmut have been taken.
Given the artillery supremacy, there is little chance the Western Ukrainians will be able to break out, and the Russian defensive lines are prepped just in case.
> Meanwhile PGM deliveries to Ukraine have been accelerating.
Precision guided munitions (HIMAR launched Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (all variants), Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) (80% GPS guided) , Storm Shadows, as well as Precision guided bombs like JDAMs) are inaccurate when they encounter the wide GPS jamming which is now happening across much of Ukraine. Given how much of the HIMAR launched missiles are GPS guided in a GPS jammed environment, they are not very accurate.
Furthermore, the Russians have S400 and S500 air defense, the very best AD system in the world, and they regularly are shooting down PGMs.
If we think strategically about this war
Surveillance: equal (assumes access to US Spy satellites assisting Western Ukrainians)
Intelligence: equal (assumes full access to Western capabilities)
Battle Management: favors Western Ukrainians due to full access to US systems & fusion capabilities
Logistics: favors Russians heavily due to simplified support/maintenance
Artillery: Between 6:1 and 10:1 favoring of Russians
Air Defense: favors Russians
Infantry: favors Russians due to massive reserves
Armor: favors Russians, latest MBTs employed on Russian side
Drones: favors Russians, DJI directly supporting Russians, latest & greatest in Russian stockpile, Iranian support
Aeronautics: favors Russians, regularly dropping FAB500 and greater PGMs
Missiles: favors Russians due to hypersonic missiles and greater missile supply
Electronic Warfare: favors Russians due to full access to Russian EW systems, GPS jammed environment
No one wants to attempt an ICBM launch. Very unreliable. They have never been tested and are just as likely to blow up in the silo and cause an unintended nuclear detonation.
Don't move the goalposts. You made claims about US wanting Eastern Ukraine for short missile distance, yet have apparently never looked at a map and realized that Latvia is closer to Moscow.
Curious if you really think there are people in the US Gov and military so callous as to be wasting Ukranian lives. I'm very removed from those circles, but it's so hard for me to imagine that there really are people like that and they really call the shots in our country / military.
> US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country.
I have certainly seen assertions by US policymakers that Russia (and the world) would be better off without Putin, but this wording makes it sound like there is a non-fringe group calling for the assassination of Putin. Do you have a source for this?
I would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia.
> would also be interested in a source where policymakers have called for the break-up of (post-Soviet) Russia.
Not counting our fomenting via NGOs...
Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick (Cheney) wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.”
I think we're talking past each other here: I said "but this wording makes it sound like there is a non-fringe group calling for the assassination of Putin. Do you have a source for this?" What I'm seeing from your links is a call for a war crimes trial. Maybe the mistake was mine initially for assuming "removing" a foreign leader had more ominous connotations, but I don't think I'm alone in interpreting it this way (considering what the US has done in other places).
The Gates quote is more interesting, albeit a second-hand source (instead of directly from Cheney) and about something that had occurred more than 20 years prior.
>US policymakers have repeatedly stated their aim is to remove Putin, and they have plans to break up the country.
>
> For the Russians, this is an existential crisis.
Russia decided to invade Ukraine, you seem to imply that was partly due them needing Ukraine as buffer. That bit was a Russian talking point, until Putin said it was an excuse.
When asked for some evidence you give articles where Biden states that the war is a reason for a regime change in Russia. So Russia invaded and started a war in Ukraine. Then US said the war is a reason for a regime change. But Russia started the war for a reason that the US gave as a consequence of Russia attacking Ukraine.
> They are attempting to weaken Russian through a proxy war (Think Afghanistan or Vietnam). They are not defending Ukraine.
Wow, if only Russia had a way to stop the wests devious plan of forcing them to fight in Ukraine and decimate their military. I guess they could leave right?.
> If the US administrations truly wanted peace they would have signed up for permanent no-NATO agreements as Dr. Mearsheimer has pointed out.
Dr Mearsheimer has gotten nearly everything about this war incorrect, no one should be listening to him.
> But having Ukraine become Switzerland would not benefit the US' current warlike ambitions, nor would it assist the plundering of the incredibly valuable resources of Ukraine. Zelensky's platform for peace, when he was elected, was destroyed by the Banderistas in Western Ukraine who have been prepping for war, or executingi
Damn those Banderistas and there control of the Russian government, if only Putin had the power to not do what the west and the Banderists wanted he would of been able to stay out of this mess and to invaded Ukraine, but those mind control geniuses forced him to do it.
> The Russian army is really designed for this type of combat, and they won't have a better chance. Now, they might have misjudged the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the Western support, but now they are just rubbling cities and targeting everything. The worst of WW1 & WW2 is back.
The Russian army is already resorting to using T62's and are mad maxing vehicles, I don't think they are designed for this, unless 'this' is being slaughtered by western weaponry.
> Each time we give the Ukrainians weapons we stall the inevitable, and we ensure that more Ukrainians will die.
Conversely, each time we give Ukrainians weapons, we stop another Bucha massacre, we stop more women, children and men being tortured and raped, we stop more teenagers being summarily executed.
Why do you think letting the Russian army that has already ground cities to dust, implemented there 'filtration' (read torture) camps and committed war crime after war crime, do more of that is going to help?.
If you wanna really complain about weapons deliveries to Ukraine complain to Russia, they still are likely the biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine, and if they aren't they are a close second.
What worries me more though is the lack of weapons. Here's why:
It's clear Russia isn't going to stop. Putin would find it extremely embarrassing and politically harmful to just stop without getting anything out of it. All those sanctions, all that money, all those lives lost would be all for nothing.
It's equally clear Ukraine isn't going to stop. They see it (in my opinion very correctly) as a very existential fight to preserve their country and culture. Surrendering a good chunk of your country to an enemy that's been killing your people for a year is also politically nonviable and maybe even impossible.
So obviously this is only ending when one side becomes unwilling or unable to keep fighting.
If giving weapons to Ukraine is a good thing at all then the most moral option to me is giving Ukraine the means to achieve a swift, decisive win. Keeping things even has no legitimate purpose to it, it only gets more people killed on both sides.