Btw, France and it's 3000 shells monthly... it's a joke. 100 pcs a day... like garage company, not one of the biggest NATO states... When NATO is saying "it's our war too," do they really mean it. The west needs to wake up!
Said it before and I'll say it again - if NATO stocks are truly exhausted, the entire alliance has always been a sick bluff.
Time to stop clinging to kit and send it all to Ukraine. Who knows, maybe Ukraine can retrofit A-10s with remote controls and transform them into giant attack drones. Better to absorb another orc missile than decay in a boneyard.
Same goes for M1A1s and Bradleys. Better to sit as a rusting hulk to draw a lancet or two in Ukraine than a warehouse someplace. A fella might start to wonder if NATO leaders don't actually want Ukraine to win...
I suppose that NATO countries (especially USA) are also worried about other countries attempts to upset the status quo (eg Iran or China), so they try to keep as much hardware as possible in storage.
Ammunition is also a victim of this approach, since there's not a steady usage of artillery rounds etc to keep a production line open all year round, they are building high precision, artisanal rounds which can be stored for decades. It takes a lot of effort and money to change into a mass production system.
The US plans to enough capability to fight in a certain number of conflicts in the world. That accounts for their equipment and ammo. I think it's safe to say no one possible could have forseen the 2022 invasion after Chechnya, Georgia and the 2014 invasion.
For three decades, NATO has had enough shells for asynchronous conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraine fires more in a day than NATO did in a month in those locations. The days of near-peer conventional wars were supposedly over, so the US defense industries were told to consolidate, reserve production capability was not maintained and stockpiles were not big enough to maintain sufficient rates of fire until production could be increased.
A-10s are not going to Ukraine. I've already explained why more Bradleys aren't going. In fact, the US will need to produce a few more just to meet their needs. The CV-90 will do just fine for Ukraine.
The M1s were only sent so that other nations would send tanks. The M1s have more logistical needs and it's not likely that Ukraine could maintain a thousand of them. Besides, Poland is receiving them as fast as they can be refurbished and they won't be able to get their quota until 2026.
Ammo production is the most pressing need now. It's not just a question of building machines, the supply chain for the raw materials must also be expanded and all the allies all need the same materials. That has to be coordinated. One source of US explosives is now under Russian occupation. New ones need to be developed.
You do realize that I wasn't using A-10s as an example of a platform that ought to be in regular service, right? It's about flowing everything Ukraine can use in any fashion.
Unfortunately, western paternalism and faux expertise - just because a bunch of experts agree on something doesn't mean they're not brutally mistaken - gets in the way of being a real ally.
Great update, I like the news on weapons innovations. The use of small drones for ELINT is quite smart by Ukraine. Have to make do with what they can and stretch the Russians. Why wait for Western aid to strike Russian Systems when it can be done locally to some extent.
Can anyone interprate "sending rockets is an escalation" to non-western European?
They definitelly means something else then "escalation", because its already a war, Ukraine is bombed. What else can they do to "escalate"? They used all types of weapons.
The western European countries are always worried about a possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia, so they are quite hesitant to give Ukraine everything on the conventional weaponry
There is a very small chance Russia would initiate nuclear strikes in retaliation for any weapons given to Ukraine, especially small since it would be the end of Putin, and Putin is Russia. But if it theoretically happened, it would have a huge impact. It seems that Biden believes that not providing any weapons that can be used in Russia would mitigate even that very small chance.
So they basically care aboit themself on the West, not about Ukrainians. Because journalusts even asked Zelensky if he is not afraid of escalation. And he also was confuced, as any ukrainian : "they already attacked, what can they do more".
But it should be "we dont care about ukrainians, only about us on the west, so we dont give you weapons because we are afraid"
There's not just black and white in the answers, but all sorts of gray. Russia's army is in Ukraine. It cannot project a threat anywhere else. The only other escalation it can manage is nuclear war. The odds of a nuclear war is some small fraction of 1%. From Zelensky/Ukraine's point of view, one that I also hold, it is an easy risk to assume. In return for assuming the risk, Ukraine can receive weapons to destroy the Kerch road and rail bridges and attack targets deep inside Russia.
But it's not as simple as even that. Germany has concerns about an unexploded Taurus missile falling in the hands of Russia, giving them, and possibly China, the insight into how to protect themselves from it or reverse engineer it. Also, there are elements in the US that admire Hungary's government and absolutely do not support Ukraine. Given the very narrow Republican advantage in the House, their small numbers have a big impact. They wouldn't have their influence if the Republicans had a huge advantage in the House or if the Democrats controlled it.
But it's been clear for years that while western Europe and the US support Ukraine, it isn't their top priority. They didn't react to Chechnya. They barely reacted to Georgia. A few more sanctions after the 2014 invasion. But the oil and gas from Russia kept flowing. Compare that to, say, the US industrial reaction after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Domestic power is always more important to politicians than the international world order.
I am an expat, but I am ashamed for who Slovakians have voted in as their leader. It is a sad combination of Russian propaganda being very effective (sadly that says a lot about the state of the society) and previous government performing poorly (and unable to put together parties that can offer a vision to the country). Sigh.
There are a lot of people want power. There are a lot of voters that will give it to them in return for a social order that is elevated in their favor.
Уже есть заявление украинской стороны, кратко: безопасность пленных должна обеспечивать удерживающая сторона, тут этого не было сделано, поэтому имеем, то что имеем... А что имеем-то?
Судя по видео с места, там только два тела, но не как 65.
1.How effective is FHSS in drone comms at countering Russian EW? 2.For a country considering ramping up lethal support, what would be good ways to do that? Would following Estonia ' s %-of-GDP long term pledge be a good way?
3. What are the most effective ways individuals can donate for the military effort? I was thinking drones and survivability of the troops.
Thanks Don again!!
Thank you very much for your work.
Btw, France and it's 3000 shells monthly... it's a joke. 100 pcs a day... like garage company, not one of the biggest NATO states... When NATO is saying "it's our war too," do they really mean it. The west needs to wake up!
3 000 per month is the objective for 2024. Right now it stand at 2 000. It used to be 1 000.
So get ready to hear a lot of self-congratulating talk on how France raised its production by 200% ^^
I think you're misunderstanding the French, Lukas: their 3000 shells are all made by Cartier...
I see, so these will be the most elegant shells on the battlefield. POOF! Russians will die of envy, clever!
....or, they'll try to buy themselves some...
Thank you. This is a wonderful, concise summary of the war.
Said it before and I'll say it again - if NATO stocks are truly exhausted, the entire alliance has always been a sick bluff.
Time to stop clinging to kit and send it all to Ukraine. Who knows, maybe Ukraine can retrofit A-10s with remote controls and transform them into giant attack drones. Better to absorb another orc missile than decay in a boneyard.
Same goes for M1A1s and Bradleys. Better to sit as a rusting hulk to draw a lancet or two in Ukraine than a warehouse someplace. A fella might start to wonder if NATO leaders don't actually want Ukraine to win...
I suppose that NATO countries (especially USA) are also worried about other countries attempts to upset the status quo (eg Iran or China), so they try to keep as much hardware as possible in storage.
Ammunition is also a victim of this approach, since there's not a steady usage of artillery rounds etc to keep a production line open all year round, they are building high precision, artisanal rounds which can be stored for decades. It takes a lot of effort and money to change into a mass production system.
The US plans to enough capability to fight in a certain number of conflicts in the world. That accounts for their equipment and ammo. I think it's safe to say no one possible could have forseen the 2022 invasion after Chechnya, Georgia and the 2014 invasion.
For three decades, NATO has had enough shells for asynchronous conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraine fires more in a day than NATO did in a month in those locations. The days of near-peer conventional wars were supposedly over, so the US defense industries were told to consolidate, reserve production capability was not maintained and stockpiles were not big enough to maintain sufficient rates of fire until production could be increased.
A-10s are not going to Ukraine. I've already explained why more Bradleys aren't going. In fact, the US will need to produce a few more just to meet their needs. The CV-90 will do just fine for Ukraine.
The M1s were only sent so that other nations would send tanks. The M1s have more logistical needs and it's not likely that Ukraine could maintain a thousand of them. Besides, Poland is receiving them as fast as they can be refurbished and they won't be able to get their quota until 2026.
Ammo production is the most pressing need now. It's not just a question of building machines, the supply chain for the raw materials must also be expanded and all the allies all need the same materials. That has to be coordinated. One source of US explosives is now under Russian occupation. New ones need to be developed.
You do realize that I wasn't using A-10s as an example of a platform that ought to be in regular service, right? It's about flowing everything Ukraine can use in any fashion.
Unfortunately, western paternalism and faux expertise - just because a bunch of experts agree on something doesn't mean they're not brutally mistaken - gets in the way of being a real ally.
Big officer energy all the way.
Great update, I like the news on weapons innovations. The use of small drones for ELINT is quite smart by Ukraine. Have to make do with what they can and stretch the Russians. Why wait for Western aid to strike Russian Systems when it can be done locally to some extent.
For all the help they're receiving, it's not enough. Local production will definitely help but it is being targeted by Russian missiles and drones.
Another benefit of local production is that there won't be any restrictions on how they're used.
To be fair, Ukraine was a big weapon producer 30 years ago.
It was stupid to think "noone will attack us".
Even now, 2 years in the war, russia built trenches and increased weapon production.
Ukraine does not built defences and decreased weapon production.
So its not only west to blame.
1100 nukes in Ukraine in 1991 would prevent any attack.
What are your sources about Ukraine's decreasing its weapon production during the war?
Can anyone interprate "sending rockets is an escalation" to non-western European?
They definitelly means something else then "escalation", because its already a war, Ukraine is bombed. What else can they do to "escalate"? They used all types of weapons.
I cant do that myself and I am western European... but the problem is that you need to argue with the West Europeans.
The western European countries are always worried about a possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia, so they are quite hesitant to give Ukraine everything on the conventional weaponry
There is a very small chance Russia would initiate nuclear strikes in retaliation for any weapons given to Ukraine, especially small since it would be the end of Putin, and Putin is Russia. But if it theoretically happened, it would have a huge impact. It seems that Biden believes that not providing any weapons that can be used in Russia would mitigate even that very small chance.
So they basically care aboit themself on the West, not about Ukrainians. Because journalusts even asked Zelensky if he is not afraid of escalation. And he also was confuced, as any ukrainian : "they already attacked, what can they do more".
But it should be "we dont care about ukrainians, only about us on the west, so we dont give you weapons because we are afraid"
There's not just black and white in the answers, but all sorts of gray. Russia's army is in Ukraine. It cannot project a threat anywhere else. The only other escalation it can manage is nuclear war. The odds of a nuclear war is some small fraction of 1%. From Zelensky/Ukraine's point of view, one that I also hold, it is an easy risk to assume. In return for assuming the risk, Ukraine can receive weapons to destroy the Kerch road and rail bridges and attack targets deep inside Russia.
But it's not as simple as even that. Germany has concerns about an unexploded Taurus missile falling in the hands of Russia, giving them, and possibly China, the insight into how to protect themselves from it or reverse engineer it. Also, there are elements in the US that admire Hungary's government and absolutely do not support Ukraine. Given the very narrow Republican advantage in the House, their small numbers have a big impact. They wouldn't have their influence if the Republicans had a huge advantage in the House or if the Democrats controlled it.
But it's been clear for years that while western Europe and the US support Ukraine, it isn't their top priority. They didn't react to Chechnya. They barely reacted to Georgia. A few more sanctions after the 2014 invasion. But the oil and gas from Russia kept flowing. Compare that to, say, the US industrial reaction after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Domestic power is always more important to politicians than the international world order.
I am an expat, but I am ashamed for who Slovakians have voted in as their leader. It is a sad combination of Russian propaganda being very effective (sadly that says a lot about the state of the society) and previous government performing poorly (and unable to put together parties that can offer a vision to the country). Sigh.
It's a real problem in other countries, too, not only USA.
There are a lot of people want power. There are a lot of voters that will give it to them in return for a social order that is elevated in their favor.
They say he is very agile, saying whatever people want to hear, but does not really support Putin https://meduza.io/feature/2024/01/26/premier-slovakii-populist-robert-fitso-postoyanno-kritikuet-ukrainu-i-prizyvaet-ee-otkazatsya-ot-zahvachennyh-rf-territoriy-on-podderzhivaet-putina-ne-sovsem
Спасибо, Том.
Что скажешь про упавший Ил в Белгороде?
What to say: orcs are doing orcish things: lie, try to cause harm on the west and Ukraine, try to shake morale
https://24tv.ua/il-76-vpav-byelgorodskiy-oblasti-ekspoloneniy-poyasniv-chomu_n2480068
Уже есть заявление украинской стороны, кратко: безопасность пленных должна обеспечивать удерживающая сторона, тут этого не было сделано, поэтому имеем, то что имеем... А что имеем-то?
Судя по видео с места, там только два тела, но не как 65.
Thanks Don! If I may:
1.How effective is FHSS in drone comms at countering Russian EW? 2.For a country considering ramping up lethal support, what would be good ways to do that? Would following Estonia ' s %-of-GDP long term pledge be a good way?
3. What are the most effective ways individuals can donate for the military effort? I was thinking drones and survivability of the troops.