Дуже дорого. А українці дешеві. І земля наша дешева, її можна вибухівкою нашпигувати на 10 метрів вглиб. А найбільш дешево було наїбати українців і забрати ядерну зброю (скільки вона коштувала?) в обмін на голий цинізм.
Ukraine has - massively - re-armed itself since 2014. It just hasn't had the money to re-arm 'perfectly'. And, in some cases, it was little else but corruption, incompetence, subversion and sabotage.
....otherwise, there would be no Ukraine left to talk about since around mid-March 2022.
Not "massively". It was massively disarming up until 2014, esp. during Yushchenko and Yanukovych's reign. And it didn't produce in any discernible quantities the missile systems it developed since 2014, or the Bohdana howitzers. Too little (if any), too late. If not for the ruskie abject incompetence, it would've been much more tragic now. God has mysterious ways.
Name me any heavy weapon systems Ukraine has been re-armed with after 2014. Shoulder-launched Javelins and NLAWs saved the day, and Polish shoulder-launch grenades. And Molotov cocktails in Kyiv.
Sorry mate, but: neither ATGMs nor Molotov cocktails (no matter what a nice morale booster and a great means to keep people busy) - have saved Kyiv. Again, sorry but check the book: it's explained there.
Інша справа Україна, згадайте краще як ми підтримували Молдову у Придністров'ї. Згадали? Як ви думаєте через яку країну їхали іхтамнєти та їх зброя? Чи "ето другоє"?
I completely agree. It is obvious for me that the reason why West helps Ukraine now isn't defense of democracy, freedom, etc,. The reason is that West clearly realizes in 3-5 years russian missiles will hit Poland and Baltic countries. Therefore, it is thousands times cheaper to support Ukraine now than fight total war in 5 years.
I agree and disagree. Russia will not launch "2 or 3 missiles" on Poland or the Baltics, because Russians want to restore the Great Russian Empire: if Poland or Finland are inside this imaginary "Empire", why nuke Russian land? And if it is outside, why nuke them at all? The game is very different. If Ukraine falls to Russia, Taiwan is much, much closer to be attacked by China, and this would be a genuine WWIII. Also, if Ukraine falls to Russia, the whole international order falls too. Even the most dumb Tzar, King or democratically elected president will understand that the only argument that can save him from aggression is to have its own nukes. Thus, the USA does not fight FOR the Ukrainians or Ukraine, surely not. Neither are Finland, The Baltics, Poland, Romania. We all support Ukraine because we can see that letting it down would make the WORLD far more unstable and we would soon be back to the times where everyone have to invest in their military astronomical budgets. How to do this without cutting the social or developmental spendings?
Хто у вас забрав зброю? Ви самі її віддали агресору руками своїх комуністів. Крім того задарма віддали всю свою стратегічну авіацію з ракетним озброєнням. На завершення знову ж таки руками своїх комуністів підсунули для підписання зовнішнім партнерам так званий Будапештський меморандум. Вимагайте тепер у агресора повернути вартість переданого озброєння за порушення цього меморандуму.
Я очень хорошо помню какое давление оказывали США на Украину ,требуя ядерного разоружения. Трагическая ошибка Украины заключается в том, что она поверила в гарантии партнеров, которые были не соблюдены также как и в случае с Польшей в 1939 году. Видимо поэтому примерно 70 процентов населения Южной Кореи поддерживают идею создания собственного ядерного оружия.
I dont think you're a nuclear expert, engineer or even have Financial expertise to say this. Especially considering Ukraine had already started repurposing just enough nuclear warheads for their domestic delivery systems in case Russia hadn't agreed to Budapest memorandum
I'm not going to check what he said to confirm its content, but no, it doesn't matter - your secretary of national security has no competence above actual experts on the subject matter. The suggestion itself is laughable and embarrassing.
Let me explain what would have happened had Ukraine decided, during the economic collapse of the 1990s, to commit to nuclear status, against the wishes of every other country in the world.
It would have had to spend billions a year, likely more than the entire 2021 military budget ($6 billion) per year just to keep the arsenal in working condition. It moreover would have cost more than that in the first years in order to establish the full infrastructure for keeping and controlling nuclear weapons that previously existed spread across Russia and the other republics but not in Ukraine. This would have meant that the combined military-nuclear budget in the 1990s would have been similar to or larger as a proportion of GDP than the Soviet Union was spending on its own military-nuclear budget. At its worst point at the end of the 90s, Ukraine's GDP was no more than $30 billion, and much less than that in your scenario. A nuclear investment would have been a crippling one.
To do all that moreover, Ukraine would have had to forego billions in American, European, and Russian aid, loans, and investment. Everything that it got, even if you think it wasn't much, was exactly a reward in exchange for relinquishing its arsenal. In other words, by the 2000s Ukraine would have been just another North Korea, a pariah state, a desperately-poor country with an economy that had nothing much to offer besides missiles, bombs, and nuclear threats. It would have existed under American sanctions to say the least. It would have been poorer than Moldova.
How hard do you think it would have been for Putin in the 2000s to simply seize this entire weakened Ukrainian state, and nuclear arsenal, through corruption and subterfuge of its impoverished elite and discontented citizens living worse than they had under the USSR? He would have advertised himself as a savior from prosperous Russia here to rescue the oppressed Ukrainian nation from its militaristic regime, and most Ukrainians would have welcomed it at first. Then Ukraine would have absolutely nothing to defend itself, neither a nuclear arsenal nor foreign friends nor even what economy it had managed to build in 30 years of actual history - and Putin would have steadily reengineered it as a Belarus clone under Yanukovych or someone else like him. The EU and the US would have approved, or at least stood aside, glad to have this problem of a rogue Ukraine removed. The nuclear weapons would have slowly left Ukraine and returned to Russia.
By 2022 the world would have watched Russia peacefully annex both Belarus and Ukraine with little internal opposition.
Congratulations, you just played yourself. Anyone who tries to sell you on a nuclear Ukraine is worse than a traitor, he is a fool.
Here is a brief overview of some of the events in the process of disarmament:
Для обеспечения безопасности Украины достаточно было сохранить не более 10 процентов имеющегося ядерного потенциала, соответственно расходы на его содержание были бы на порядок меньше.
Секретарь Совета национальной безопасности Украины г. Данилов вполне компетентен по данному вопросу.
While the lesser costs imputed would not have left Ukraine in North Korea's position in that case, it would still have been worse off during a time of social collapse, and all other economic and diplomatic considerations I listed would have applied. Becoming a nuclear state would have made Ukraine an unfriendly nation in the eyes of Europe and the US and made it easier for Russia to conquer Ukraine without firing a shot.
"облегчило бы России завоевание Украиныв без единого выстрела". Вы это серъезно? Да Россия никогда не рискнет напасть на страну, обладающую ядерным оружием. А что, после ядерного разоружения Украина стала "дружественнеой страной"? Поэтому администрация Обамы в 2014 году настойчиво рекомендовала Украине "не провоцировать русских в Крыму", что привело к сдаче Крыма и привело к сегоднешней войне. Однако странные представления у Вас о дружбе.
I'm sorry but you are forgetting one thing. No matter the price it is cheaper than one more year's worth of war. It's cheaper than a Russian victory.
As far as the support needed to effectively operate the aircraft... that's what NATO/US is for. We are providing the intel anyway. The aircraft are already flying sorties everyday anyway. That money is already spent.
You missed this one. You are normally spot on. But you did not weigh the opportunity cost of NOT giving the f16s to Ukraine. Which is significantly LESS than the figures you posted.
Sorry... you might need to edit this post to include "opportunity cost."
The only risk to WWIII is to allow Putin/Xi to think that they can win. Allowing Russia to take Ukraine will result in exactly that.
NATO has been supporting Ukraine since 2014. So that's not a real "red line". Russia doesn't have any red lines in Ukraine. He's played his cards. He lost. He just doesn't want to admit it yet.
I can only answer the same I answered to a certain Ukrainian journo, back in early February, when she explained me that I'm wrong and Ukraine is going to launch a counteroffensive in a matter of days: your opinion is fine with me, but wait and see.
That's a different topic. How the west works and the actual cost of providing f16s are two different (but connected) topics.
Your premise was that it's too expensive to provide f16s. That's a flawed premise because you did not consider opportunity costs. The cost of NOT providing effective long range precision weapons. This cost has the real potential of being in the Trillions. That's not hyperbole.
You also tried to compare the cost of M777 systems and ammo. That's a super flawed comparison. M777 are not long range.
Maybe compare GLSDBs. The problem there is it is only comparable in a few missions. An f16 is multi-role. The GLSDB is not.
BTW... I just want to say I am honored that you are responding. Because it's not bullshit that I think a lot your analysis. I do.
I just think you didn't include the opportunity cost of NOT providing long range precision fire in the form of F16s. Because to a soldier on the front, a person living in Ukraine... that cost is extremely real. (It's also real to US/NATO taxpayers that will be paying for an elongated conflict that could actually already be over if ATACMS in effective numbers had been provided Summer of 2022.)
Again: all nice and fine. To a certain degree, I'm even in agreement with you. 'But'....
....the system here is such that it's 'good' if there is a long and expensive war and taxpayers continue paying into pockets of private- and corporation interests. For years.
No, not 'good'. That's the best news there can be.
Or, what do you think, for what other reasons were wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali etc. fought for decades?
I don't think these wars lasted for years/decades only because of money (Military Industrial Complex). But that was certainly a huge factor. The other big factor is a failure to define what Victory is. What line to gain, what objective to accomplish? That is the same mistake the US is making with the war in Ukraine. And, btw, the mistake some in our congress are trying to fix by requiring our goals to be stated. And that goal to be VICTORY for Ukraine and defeat for Russia.
Austin said it once in Germany. And no one from the Biden admin has said it since. Only "as long as it takes".
I think it is important to say here that while I don't like feeding the military industrial complex, I'm not willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to starve the military industrial complex. Keeping Lockheed Martin and Raytheon executives rich and happy is sad but necessary side effect of Ukrainian victory.
You must consider that the west may be looking at another goal and seeing an very favorable opportunity cost. A long war going on outside it’s borders, that has helped to make NATO countries pump up their military expenditure ( lots of them were not even close to the figures they should spend ), got new countries joining the alliance and, most important, is depleting Russians equipment, ressources, money. This will keep Russia away for a long time.
All this at a really small cost for west. Ukraine has no option but to fight, accept the help it’s getting and wait until everything is “ok” for the west to do something to finish this war.
I hope Ukraine can find solutions to it by itself before that.
Ukrainians die, not western folks. So they look only on profits. For americans ... ukrainians the same as papuasus - and WHO CARE ABOUT PAPUASUS, or inhabitans of atoll Bikini, or Moldova? WHAT did ukrainians to help Moldova?
For the military complex and Western governments the war in a foreign territory is a profit opportunity: that’s why they fight wars to begin with. Sure enough, it is extremely costly for normal people, be in Ukraine, Russia or the USA, but since when governments cared. They extract resources by coercion, and pay their bills with others’ stuff. Different incentive structure, different results.
I have very little knowledge around this, but have this feeling that armies in Europe like shiny things, and feeling important when they buy planes and ammo for them, and these look good in the news so politicians like these too (unlike artillery ammo that is definitely not sexy) so I have this picture that they overordered everything related to planes, so they have more than they need in th near future. But all of this is based on my knowledge of political decisionmaking and corruption, not about planes themselves, so I admit it can be wrong.
Oh nope: you're not wrong at all. On the contrary: you're starting to get the actual idea.
We're 'comfortable'. We haven't fought any comparable wars for 70 years, are not even under direct threat - and our oligarchy remains horny about getting 'back to business as usual' with Pudding...
So my train of thoughts goes, that Zelenskij will have to ask for them, as they seem important, and the West have to give them, as everybody (who don't get what you said in the post) thinks they are important and if countries and politicians that have them can get lucrative contracts to replace them, for me it follows, that the most likely outcome is that they will send these planes, probably the ones that are in the worst shape and the oldest planes, with the most outdated ammo they can find and Ukraine will have to act grateful about it as the facade is more important and what else they could do and the planes will end up in warehouses or as parts for actually useful planes Ukraine will get after the war when its military can be systematically rebuilt to be NATO compatible.
They count money all the time, but a miser pays twice. See that your soldiers do not have to fight later. Maniacs will get a taste. It will be even more expensive.
I agree completely when discussing about the current war.
But anyway, if we look at the future (2-5-10 years) it will be mandatory for Ucraine to switch to a 100% Nato compliant weapon systems. From Fighter Jets to guns.
Their current "Soviet" equipment will never be replaced except for something self produced in Ukraine.
I perfectly understand that loosing a modern NATO equipment in russian hands it's something unpleasant and embarrassing. And, as of now, unuseful too.
But let's say in 2030 Ukraine will have western equipment (american of french or swedish or south korean....) or Ukraine will no longer exist. And every effort made before would have been wasted.
Although the points you outlined make a lot of sense, how does it solve the problem you outlined in the previous reports - specifically, the lack of air defence for Ukraine? Because the primary reason Ukraine wants the F-16 is not to use them as a fighter-bomber, but to boost the air defence system.
Especially in spite of the expected counter-offense, Ukraine needs to protect the advancing ground troops. In the meanwhile, as mentioned in your reports for the last 1-2 months, russian air force is getting bolder, because the air defence capacities Ukraine has has been exhausted, and can't cover the entire frontline. Sure, sending more air defence systems could help - but they're not quite cheap and easy to use as well, they often use the same expensive missiles as the fighter jets, and the stocks of these are not dramatically larger than the stocks of F-16 or similar-class jets. And unless the West wants to see the whole packs of tanks, APCs and all the other equipment they're sending being bombed to a ground in a failed counter-offensive, this problem needs to be solved somehow.
So wouldn't it be better to proceed with F-16 then? Even if not used to a 100% of their strengths, they will be much more capable than MiG-29.
Good question - since you're asking for 'solutions'.
My assessment is that the same is valid for a 'counteroffensive' like for the defence of urban centres and economy. That is: ground based air defences. Mobile, ground based air defences.
....and much, much, much more artillery ammunition. That's the key in this case too: currently, Ukraine doesn't have even for the defence. How should it run any kind of counteroffensives, then?
Doesn't this solution have the same limitations as the F-16 plan has? It seems that any western-made SAM is quite pricey, the rockets are pricy, the stocks are low, and it takes ages to train the crews. How come it's a better-working solution than F-16?
There are thousands of AMRAAM and PAC-2/3 missiles available in the west for NASAMS and Patriot batteries, more than the S-300 and Buk rounds Ukraine had at the start of the war. Training took only a couple of months even for the Patriot. Anything is more expensive than inherited Soviet stocks, and there is no alternative.
But either way, an airforce of non-Soviet/Russian origin will be the way to go for Ukraine in the next couple of years. Even if the counteroffensive (or counteroffensives, plural) is (are) successful and Russian retreats behind 2022/2014 borders with it without Crimea, UA will need this to make post-Putin Russian leaders think twice about pulling something like this again in the next few decades. In order for that to happen in years, work has to start right away.
Hi Tom.I agree with your arguments but exist one problem. Imagine that West gives a few hundreds more artillery and dozens millions of shells every few month. But does it make sense if Russia has gluided bombs. If they can bomb frontline from napalm and heavy FAB-3000 can artillery change it if will be destroyed by it? F16 needed to keep Russian planes further from frontline, flight close to ground. Maybe, defensive role is main for Ukranian planes, because West can’t get hundreds of planes to reach superiority. In my opinion, dozen of Gripens with meteors can help Ukraine to reduce aviation activity close frontline how mig-31 of Russia miss Ukranian planes. Or meteors can help to hit A-50 or mig-31 in first time due surprise effect. I can be wrong, so I would be glad to read your answer. Thank you
But just Patriots and Samp-T have enough big range to intercept Su-34/35. But Mig-31 will be beyond range. Personally, I think that the best way to stop bombardment is burning all Russian based in at least 300km range with using misses or drones. But it stays unknown what missile hitter Feodosian aviabase in August? Do you have any assumptions?
Now that you ask.... Feodosia AB in August.... can't remember.
Re. MiG-31s: they're not shooting R-37Ms from '200+km' range. Simply because - under combat conditions - their radar can't see that far. Most often, it's less than 50% of that.
Thus, the point would be keep them - plus Su-34s with their PGMs, and Su-35s with their R-37Ms - outside their effective range (80-120km).
Sorry you are wrong. Ukraine NOT has lot of western weapons. For example as many as 0 Abrams, 0 Strikers, 0 normal anti ship weapon, 0 ATACMS, 0 normal jets, as many as 1 Patriot need 50, as many as 2 Nasams need 100, as many as 1 IRIS need200, list to long. Nothing with range 85+ km. 0 normal western UAVs. I can continue hour long
technically, you are right, not many. In this case it's even more strange that West cannot produce 10 times more ammo for this, to make sure russia is outgunned at least in the areas where Ukraine has western weapons.
Example: 28 HIMARS in Ukraine. About 1000 of them in the world. And they say they run out of ammo in 6 month.
1) so they had ammo only for 5 days of using 1000 launchers?
2) they cannot produce new ammo after 14 month?
same with 155 mm artillery.
Ukraine got maybe 1% of all NATO artillery and they run out of ammo in 6 month ( you can correct my numbers, maybe 0.5% and 8 month or something, but you got my idea ).
1) did they have ammo only for 2 days of using all their 155 mm guns?
2) they cannot produce any new artillery and ammo?
I can't confirm Ukraine has western anti ship weapons... but Russia sure thinks it does.
At the start of the war you could stand on Primorsky Blvd in Odesa and see the Russian navy. That ain't the case no more. And boat drones didn't become a thing in this conflict until long after the RU navy went back the "safety" of its ports.
It would be much cheaper for West to either intimidate russia or provide Ukraine with enough weapons to finish the war.
For instance, 1 year ago West would say: "we are going to give Ukraine 1000 tanks and 2000 artillery right now and 1 trillion of other weapons. production has already started". This would show russia they have no chance.
But West does completely opposite: "we will not give Ukraine more weapons then 10 artillery pieces" . So russia always has a chance to win and they continue
West destroyed 2400 ukrainian thermonuclear bombs. And huge amount of other weapons. What kind of weapon do Ukraine most need now?
0. Thermonuclear bombs. IF Ukraine would get 1% of former stock - war will stop immediately. West is a business partner with russian fascists - so this variant impossible.
1. The best possible IF Ukraine would get UAVs like Shakhed, Orlan and Lancets. Orlan is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. Lancet is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. If you not agree - write what better. Orlan and Lancet are cheap and functional. Shahed better the ANY western UAV AT ALL! Cheap, easy production, 1000+ km range, 40+ kg explosive. West is partner to Moscow maniacs - so sent to Ukraine ONLY trash, sometimes even shit UAVs. Switchblade 300 - complete shit. - Ukrainians produce UAVs 5-10 times cheaper and BETTER than Switchblade 300. Not 50 F-16, but 100 000 Shaheds cost the same money. Can we compare result of using 100 000 Shaheds and 50 F-16? (1 engine easily shoot down).
GMLRS needs GPS, which russians easily disturb.
2. Ukraine army needs 20 000 pickups every 3 month, because losses. This is not weapon. Does West have 80 000 pickups? WEst not want win for Ukraine, so only look at PROFITS. West NOT sees profits in delivering pickups to Ukraine, so How many pickups has West sent during 9 years of this war?
3. West delivered as many as 1 Patriot during 9 years. Rus army can eliminate 10-30 Patriot radars/year. Ukraine needs 200+ IRIS, got 1.
4. Dogs bite the stick, which man use to hit the dog. Dog think it smart. Russian army in Ukraine - is the STICK, the hand - is the russian economic and other IN the Moscow empire territory. West and russian fascists are business partners => West banned to hit/damage the hand - in Russia. So ALL this is a well planned genocide of ukrainians. West gave 2.4 trillions $ to Moscow during this war, and provided russian military and other industries with ALL they need. Do it hard to burn oil refinery in Russia? Without refineries war will stop shortly. Burn ALL refineries in Russia not difficult, but West strongly BANNED such activity. War ONLY on Ukraine territory and casualties and economic disaster. West has shares in Rosneft Lukoil and so on. In Sberbank - totally western investments in Russia 600+ billions $. And burning oil refineries - not good for western pockets.
More ukrainians will be killed => more millions children and girls rut to West - they are the most precious what exist in this World. So West has huge profits in ukrainian genocide. West sold ukrainians tears and blood to russian fascists during 9 years. The SAME for sirians or chechens or Georgia or Moldova.
China can produce 1 million Shaheds, range 1000+ km. And ALL Great american weapone in Taiwan will become the piles of shit. IF 1 mil not enough, China can produse 10 millions Shaheds. WHY do West not give weapon against Shaheds to Ukraine?
Where is China going to get the food to feed the workers? Where is china going to get the money to retool factories? If it's an advanced drone, where will the get the micro processors.
China can run a $20 toy from Amazon. But there are NO high end chips made in China. China can't pay its bills now. What navy is China going to use to insure its shipping outside the China Sea? And it produces a FRACTION of what it needs. And they don't have the world's reserve currency to fall back on.
The best way China can help Russia is to continue doing what it is doing now. Be that unknown quantity that is nearly impossible to plan for.
I think Ukraine is focusing on long range strike capabilities. IE... for the Kerch bridge and Russian operations centers.
Also the Shaheed is too inaccurate for Ukraine to use near its own civilians. Remember that Ukraine is fighting on its own territory.
If Ukraine wanted to bomb the docks in Sevastopol (and it should) then yes you are right. Why isn't Ukraine making cheap moped drones also? That's a good question.
Because the Shaheed style drone is just barely accurate enough for a target that large.
Дуже дорого. А українці дешеві. І земля наша дешева, її можна вибухівкою нашпигувати на 10 метрів вглиб. А найбільш дешево було наїбати українців і забрати ядерну зброю (скільки вона коштувала?) в обмін на голий цинізм.
go away, kastap
я там все читав : адміни -- кацапська аґєнтура, що ти мені тут баки забиваєш, "адєсіт"?
рєзіновая жопа, тебе майор призначив головним по коментарям на substack? До чого ці коментарі з "інсайдамі" тут де англомовні дописи? Ну ти йобнувся?
Ложь
Уже и сюда добрались путинские боты.
та це призничали цю різнову жопу робити перепости всякої хуйні
plenty of separs rotting in SBU jails now because of that channel, keep it up mate
you will unite with Ukraine too soon
the soil and the dogs are very welcoming
Sadly, yes - or at least 'something along such lines'...
...and they couldn't be bothered to arm themselves in all those years where people like Arestovych saw it coming 20 years ago.
Sorry to answer 'in this fashion', but: think you might find it worth checking War in Ukraine, Volume 2: https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/war-in-ukraine-volume-2-russian-invasion-february-2022.php?sid=fa335c3699e2e145be9929dffffc5c40
Ukraine has - massively - re-armed itself since 2014. It just hasn't had the money to re-arm 'perfectly'. And, in some cases, it was little else but corruption, incompetence, subversion and sabotage.
....otherwise, there would be no Ukraine left to talk about since around mid-March 2022.
Not "massively". It was massively disarming up until 2014, esp. during Yushchenko and Yanukovych's reign. And it didn't produce in any discernible quantities the missile systems it developed since 2014, or the Bohdana howitzers. Too little (if any), too late. If not for the ruskie abject incompetence, it would've been much more tragic now. God has mysterious ways.
Name me any heavy weapon systems Ukraine has been re-armed with after 2014. Shoulder-launched Javelins and NLAWs saved the day, and Polish shoulder-launch grenades. And Molotov cocktails in Kyiv.
Sorry mate, but: neither ATGMs nor Molotov cocktails (no matter what a nice morale booster and a great means to keep people busy) - have saved Kyiv. Again, sorry but check the book: it's explained there.
Інша справа Україна, згадайте краще як ми підтримували Молдову у Придністров'ї. Згадали? Як ви думаєте через яку країну їхали іхтамнєти та їх зброя? Чи "ето другоє"?
Sorry, but if you think anybody in the West cares about whom did Ukraine support sometimes in the past.... that's a big illusion.
I completely agree. It is obvious for me that the reason why West helps Ukraine now isn't defense of democracy, freedom, etc,. The reason is that West clearly realizes in 3-5 years russian missiles will hit Poland and Baltic countries. Therefore, it is thousands times cheaper to support Ukraine now than fight total war in 5 years.
I agree and disagree. Russia will not launch "2 or 3 missiles" on Poland or the Baltics, because Russians want to restore the Great Russian Empire: if Poland or Finland are inside this imaginary "Empire", why nuke Russian land? And if it is outside, why nuke them at all? The game is very different. If Ukraine falls to Russia, Taiwan is much, much closer to be attacked by China, and this would be a genuine WWIII. Also, if Ukraine falls to Russia, the whole international order falls too. Even the most dumb Tzar, King or democratically elected president will understand that the only argument that can save him from aggression is to have its own nukes. Thus, the USA does not fight FOR the Ukrainians or Ukraine, surely not. Neither are Finland, The Baltics, Poland, Romania. We all support Ukraine because we can see that letting it down would make the WORLD far more unstable and we would soon be back to the times where everyone have to invest in their military astronomical budgets. How to do this without cutting the social or developmental spendings?
Хто у вас забрав зброю? Ви самі її віддали агресору руками своїх комуністів. Крім того задарма віддали всю свою стратегічну авіацію з ракетним озброєнням. На завершення знову ж таки руками своїх комуністів підсунули для підписання зовнішнім партнерам так званий Будапештський меморандум. Вимагайте тепер у агресора повернути вартість переданого озброєння за порушення цього меморандуму.
Russins lie as usual. USA and others threated Ukraine
Брехня те, що пише цей московський троль.
Тут правда.
http://nrcu.gov.ua/news.html?newsID=100039
Брехня. Клінтон зізнався, що на Україну тисли з усіх боків. І він - теж.
Я очень хорошо помню какое давление оказывали США на Украину ,требуя ядерного разоружения. Трагическая ошибка Украины заключается в том, что она поверила в гарантии партнеров, которые были не соблюдены также как и в случае с Польшей в 1939 году. Видимо поэтому примерно 70 процентов населения Южной Кореи поддерживают идею создания собственного ядерного оружия.
2400 thermonuclear bombs + 1000 bombs + Tu-160 + 600+ cruise missiles + ... costs several trillions $.
Just like in Brave Heart.
"Send Irish, arrows cost money, Irish cost nothing when they are dead"
Ukraine could never have afforded its nuclear weapons. Forget about them.
It could have afforded the tactical nuclear weapons
I dont think you're a nuclear expert, engineer or even have Financial expertise to say this. Especially considering Ukraine had already started repurposing just enough nuclear warheads for their domestic delivery systems in case Russia hadn't agreed to Budapest memorandum
I think the people with nuclear, engineering, and financial expertise have weighed in plenty.
А вот секрктарь СНБО Украины г. Данилов другого мнения. Или он недостаточно компетентен?
I'm not going to check what he said to confirm its content, but no, it doesn't matter - your secretary of national security has no competence above actual experts on the subject matter. The suggestion itself is laughable and embarrassing.
Let me explain what would have happened had Ukraine decided, during the economic collapse of the 1990s, to commit to nuclear status, against the wishes of every other country in the world.
It would have had to spend billions a year, likely more than the entire 2021 military budget ($6 billion) per year just to keep the arsenal in working condition. It moreover would have cost more than that in the first years in order to establish the full infrastructure for keeping and controlling nuclear weapons that previously existed spread across Russia and the other republics but not in Ukraine. This would have meant that the combined military-nuclear budget in the 1990s would have been similar to or larger as a proportion of GDP than the Soviet Union was spending on its own military-nuclear budget. At its worst point at the end of the 90s, Ukraine's GDP was no more than $30 billion, and much less than that in your scenario. A nuclear investment would have been a crippling one.
To do all that moreover, Ukraine would have had to forego billions in American, European, and Russian aid, loans, and investment. Everything that it got, even if you think it wasn't much, was exactly a reward in exchange for relinquishing its arsenal. In other words, by the 2000s Ukraine would have been just another North Korea, a pariah state, a desperately-poor country with an economy that had nothing much to offer besides missiles, bombs, and nuclear threats. It would have existed under American sanctions to say the least. It would have been poorer than Moldova.
How hard do you think it would have been for Putin in the 2000s to simply seize this entire weakened Ukrainian state, and nuclear arsenal, through corruption and subterfuge of its impoverished elite and discontented citizens living worse than they had under the USSR? He would have advertised himself as a savior from prosperous Russia here to rescue the oppressed Ukrainian nation from its militaristic regime, and most Ukrainians would have welcomed it at first. Then Ukraine would have absolutely nothing to defend itself, neither a nuclear arsenal nor foreign friends nor even what economy it had managed to build in 30 years of actual history - and Putin would have steadily reengineered it as a Belarus clone under Yanukovych or someone else like him. The EU and the US would have approved, or at least stood aside, glad to have this problem of a rogue Ukraine removed. The nuclear weapons would have slowly left Ukraine and returned to Russia.
By 2022 the world would have watched Russia peacefully annex both Belarus and Ukraine with little internal opposition.
Congratulations, you just played yourself. Anyone who tries to sell you on a nuclear Ukraine is worse than a traitor, he is a fool.
Here is a brief overview of some of the events in the process of disarmament:
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/ukraine/
https://www.cato.org/blog/soviet-nukes-ukraine-bargaining-chip-not-deterrent
Для обеспечения безопасности Украины достаточно было сохранить не более 10 процентов имеющегося ядерного потенциала, соответственно расходы на его содержание были бы на порядок меньше.
Секретарь Совета национальной безопасности Украины г. Данилов вполне компетентен по данному вопросу.
While the lesser costs imputed would not have left Ukraine in North Korea's position in that case, it would still have been worse off during a time of social collapse, and all other economic and diplomatic considerations I listed would have applied. Becoming a nuclear state would have made Ukraine an unfriendly nation in the eyes of Europe and the US and made it easier for Russia to conquer Ukraine without firing a shot.
"облегчило бы России завоевание Украиныв без единого выстрела". Вы это серъезно? Да Россия никогда не рискнет напасть на страну, обладающую ядерным оружием. А что, после ядерного разоружения Украина стала "дружественнеой страной"? Поэтому администрация Обамы в 2014 году настойчиво рекомендовала Украине "не провоцировать русских в Крыму", что привело к сдаче Крыма и привело к сегоднешней войне. Однако странные представления у Вас о дружбе.
A cамі українці ніколи не збирались озброюватися - бог подасть?
I'm sorry but you are forgetting one thing. No matter the price it is cheaper than one more year's worth of war. It's cheaper than a Russian victory.
As far as the support needed to effectively operate the aircraft... that's what NATO/US is for. We are providing the intel anyway. The aircraft are already flying sorties everyday anyway. That money is already spent.
You missed this one. You are normally spot on. But you did not weigh the opportunity cost of NOT giving the f16s to Ukraine. Which is significantly LESS than the figures you posted.
Sorry... you might need to edit this post to include "opportunity cost."
The only risk to WWIII is to allow Putin/Xi to think that they can win. Allowing Russia to take Ukraine will result in exactly that.
NATO has been supporting Ukraine since 2014. So that's not a real "red line". Russia doesn't have any red lines in Ukraine. He's played his cards. He lost. He just doesn't want to admit it yet.
I can only answer the same I answered to a certain Ukrainian journo, back in early February, when she explained me that I'm wrong and Ukraine is going to launch a counteroffensive in a matter of days: your opinion is fine with me, but wait and see.
Oh... you and I agree that the US is going to point to all the reasons you listed.
I am just pointing out those reasons are flawed. And all of us will continue to spend more and suffer more because of this flawed logic.
Ask any 101 econ professor. If you don't consider opportunity costs you have not accurately built a usable economic model.
Mate, by best will and without having a trace of doubt about your qualification: sorry, you still do not understand how the 'West' works.
The reasons might be flawed, but who cares? All that matters is profit.
That's a different topic. How the west works and the actual cost of providing f16s are two different (but connected) topics.
Your premise was that it's too expensive to provide f16s. That's a flawed premise because you did not consider opportunity costs. The cost of NOT providing effective long range precision weapons. This cost has the real potential of being in the Trillions. That's not hyperbole.
You also tried to compare the cost of M777 systems and ammo. That's a super flawed comparison. M777 are not long range.
Maybe compare GLSDBs. The problem there is it is only comparable in a few missions. An f16 is multi-role. The GLSDB is not.
BTW... I just want to say I am honored that you are responding. Because it's not bullshit that I think a lot your analysis. I do.
I just think you didn't include the opportunity cost of NOT providing long range precision fire in the form of F16s. Because to a soldier on the front, a person living in Ukraine... that cost is extremely real. (It's also real to US/NATO taxpayers that will be paying for an elongated conflict that could actually already be over if ATACMS in effective numbers had been provided Summer of 2022.)
Again: all nice and fine. To a certain degree, I'm even in agreement with you. 'But'....
....the system here is such that it's 'good' if there is a long and expensive war and taxpayers continue paying into pockets of private- and corporation interests. For years.
No, not 'good'. That's the best news there can be.
Or, what do you think, for what other reasons were wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali etc. fought for decades?
I don't think these wars lasted for years/decades only because of money (Military Industrial Complex). But that was certainly a huge factor. The other big factor is a failure to define what Victory is. What line to gain, what objective to accomplish? That is the same mistake the US is making with the war in Ukraine. And, btw, the mistake some in our congress are trying to fix by requiring our goals to be stated. And that goal to be VICTORY for Ukraine and defeat for Russia.
Austin said it once in Germany. And no one from the Biden admin has said it since. Only "as long as it takes".
I think it is important to say here that while I don't like feeding the military industrial complex, I'm not willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to starve the military industrial complex. Keeping Lockheed Martin and Raytheon executives rich and happy is sad but necessary side effect of Ukrainian victory.
You must consider that the west may be looking at another goal and seeing an very favorable opportunity cost. A long war going on outside it’s borders, that has helped to make NATO countries pump up their military expenditure ( lots of them were not even close to the figures they should spend ), got new countries joining the alliance and, most important, is depleting Russians equipment, ressources, money. This will keep Russia away for a long time.
All this at a really small cost for west. Ukraine has no option but to fight, accept the help it’s getting and wait until everything is “ok” for the west to do something to finish this war.
I hope Ukraine can find solutions to it by itself before that.
Ukrainians die, not western folks. So they look only on profits. For americans ... ukrainians the same as papuasus - and WHO CARE ABOUT PAPUASUS, or inhabitans of atoll Bikini, or Moldova? WHAT did ukrainians to help Moldova?
For the military complex and Western governments the war in a foreign territory is a profit opportunity: that’s why they fight wars to begin with. Sure enough, it is extremely costly for normal people, be in Ukraine, Russia or the USA, but since when governments cared. They extract resources by coercion, and pay their bills with others’ stuff. Different incentive structure, different results.
I have very little knowledge around this, but have this feeling that armies in Europe like shiny things, and feeling important when they buy planes and ammo for them, and these look good in the news so politicians like these too (unlike artillery ammo that is definitely not sexy) so I have this picture that they overordered everything related to planes, so they have more than they need in th near future. But all of this is based on my knowledge of political decisionmaking and corruption, not about planes themselves, so I admit it can be wrong.
Oh nope: you're not wrong at all. On the contrary: you're starting to get the actual idea.
We're 'comfortable'. We haven't fought any comparable wars for 70 years, are not even under direct threat - and our oligarchy remains horny about getting 'back to business as usual' with Pudding...
So my train of thoughts goes, that Zelenskij will have to ask for them, as they seem important, and the West have to give them, as everybody (who don't get what you said in the post) thinks they are important and if countries and politicians that have them can get lucrative contracts to replace them, for me it follows, that the most likely outcome is that they will send these planes, probably the ones that are in the worst shape and the oldest planes, with the most outdated ammo they can find and Ukraine will have to act grateful about it as the facade is more important and what else they could do and the planes will end up in warehouses or as parts for actually useful planes Ukraine will get after the war when its military can be systematically rebuilt to be NATO compatible.
Do I get something wrong?
Jets good in wars against mountaine tribes, or papuasos, or Iraq. Do i need write more?
F-16 for example were NOT produced for war against USSR. Which has ENOUGH anti air weapons
But Ukraine fight against USSR.
They count money all the time, but a miser pays twice. See that your soldiers do not have to fight later. Maniacs will get a taste. It will be even more expensive.
nur NATO über alles.
Ohne NATO - gibts keinen Sieg. Leider.
Das Imperium des Bösen 2.0 muss vernichtet werden.
Je früher, desto -sorry- billiger für die Zivilisation.
Das ist die bittere Wahrheit.
I agree completely when discussing about the current war.
But anyway, if we look at the future (2-5-10 years) it will be mandatory for Ucraine to switch to a 100% Nato compliant weapon systems. From Fighter Jets to guns.
Their current "Soviet" equipment will never be replaced except for something self produced in Ukraine.
Oh yes, 'in a few years from now'.
But, right now, 'no way'.
At least not before there's a certainty that no 'Ukrainian F-16' might end as wreckage on the Russian soil. Just think about possible repercusssions.
I perfectly understand that loosing a modern NATO equipment in russian hands it's something unpleasant and embarrassing. And, as of now, unuseful too.
But let's say in 2030 Ukraine will have western equipment (american of french or swedish or south korean....) or Ukraine will no longer exist. And every effort made before would have been wasted.
Although the points you outlined make a lot of sense, how does it solve the problem you outlined in the previous reports - specifically, the lack of air defence for Ukraine? Because the primary reason Ukraine wants the F-16 is not to use them as a fighter-bomber, but to boost the air defence system.
Especially in spite of the expected counter-offense, Ukraine needs to protect the advancing ground troops. In the meanwhile, as mentioned in your reports for the last 1-2 months, russian air force is getting bolder, because the air defence capacities Ukraine has has been exhausted, and can't cover the entire frontline. Sure, sending more air defence systems could help - but they're not quite cheap and easy to use as well, they often use the same expensive missiles as the fighter jets, and the stocks of these are not dramatically larger than the stocks of F-16 or similar-class jets. And unless the West wants to see the whole packs of tanks, APCs and all the other equipment they're sending being bombed to a ground in a failed counter-offensive, this problem needs to be solved somehow.
So wouldn't it be better to proceed with F-16 then? Even if not used to a 100% of their strengths, they will be much more capable than MiG-29.
Good question - since you're asking for 'solutions'.
My assessment is that the same is valid for a 'counteroffensive' like for the defence of urban centres and economy. That is: ground based air defences. Mobile, ground based air defences.
....and much, much, much more artillery ammunition. That's the key in this case too: currently, Ukraine doesn't have even for the defence. How should it run any kind of counteroffensives, then?
Doesn't this solution have the same limitations as the F-16 plan has? It seems that any western-made SAM is quite pricey, the rockets are pricy, the stocks are low, and it takes ages to train the crews. How come it's a better-working solution than F-16?
There are thousands of AMRAAM and PAC-2/3 missiles available in the west for NASAMS and Patriot batteries, more than the S-300 and Buk rounds Ukraine had at the start of the war. Training took only a couple of months even for the Patriot. Anything is more expensive than inherited Soviet stocks, and there is no alternative.
It was the same when Balakleya-Kupyansk breakthrough was made, yet it was made indeed.
But either way, an airforce of non-Soviet/Russian origin will be the way to go for Ukraine in the next couple of years. Even if the counteroffensive (or counteroffensives, plural) is (are) successful and Russian retreats behind 2022/2014 borders with it without Crimea, UA will need this to make post-Putin Russian leaders think twice about pulling something like this again in the next few decades. In order for that to happen in years, work has to start right away.
Yes, seems like ZSU wants F-16 for air defense.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1652340511552811008
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1652336730933010434
Hi Tom.I agree with your arguments but exist one problem. Imagine that West gives a few hundreds more artillery and dozens millions of shells every few month. But does it make sense if Russia has gluided bombs. If they can bomb frontline from napalm and heavy FAB-3000 can artillery change it if will be destroyed by it? F16 needed to keep Russian planes further from frontline, flight close to ground. Maybe, defensive role is main for Ukranian planes, because West can’t get hundreds of planes to reach superiority. In my opinion, dozen of Gripens with meteors can help Ukraine to reduce aviation activity close frontline how mig-31 of Russia miss Ukranian planes. Or meteors can help to hit A-50 or mig-31 in first time due surprise effect. I can be wrong, so I would be glad to read your answer. Thank you
Artillery pieces and shells alone - nope. They are not making sense.
They are making a helluva lots of sense if delivered in company with air defence systems.
But just Patriots and Samp-T have enough big range to intercept Su-34/35. But Mig-31 will be beyond range. Personally, I think that the best way to stop bombardment is burning all Russian based in at least 300km range with using misses or drones. But it stays unknown what missile hitter Feodosian aviabase in August? Do you have any assumptions?
Now that you ask.... Feodosia AB in August.... can't remember.
Re. MiG-31s: they're not shooting R-37Ms from '200+km' range. Simply because - under combat conditions - their radar can't see that far. Most often, it's less than 50% of that.
Thus, the point would be keep them - plus Su-34s with their PGMs, and Su-35s with their R-37Ms - outside their effective range (80-120km).
Ukraine has a lot of western weapons. As far as I understand, the problem is with ammo:
artillery, but also Anti-Aircraft, even normal bullets.
How would the West run out of ammo for artillery after 14 month of war?
They could easily provide Ukraine with 10 times more ammo then Russians have.
And anti-aircraft systems which will dominate Russian planes
Sorry you are wrong. Ukraine NOT has lot of western weapons. For example as many as 0 Abrams, 0 Strikers, 0 normal anti ship weapon, 0 ATACMS, 0 normal jets, as many as 1 Patriot need 50, as many as 2 Nasams need 100, as many as 1 IRIS need200, list to long. Nothing with range 85+ km. 0 normal western UAVs. I can continue hour long
technically, you are right, not many. In this case it's even more strange that West cannot produce 10 times more ammo for this, to make sure russia is outgunned at least in the areas where Ukraine has western weapons.
Example: 28 HIMARS in Ukraine. About 1000 of them in the world. And they say they run out of ammo in 6 month.
1) so they had ammo only for 5 days of using 1000 launchers?
2) they cannot produce new ammo after 14 month?
same with 155 mm artillery.
Ukraine got maybe 1% of all NATO artillery and they run out of ammo in 6 month ( you can correct my numbers, maybe 0.5% and 8 month or something, but you got my idea ).
1) did they have ammo only for 2 days of using all their 155 mm guns?
2) they cannot produce any new artillery and ammo?
I can't confirm Ukraine has western anti ship weapons... but Russia sure thinks it does.
At the start of the war you could stand on Primorsky Blvd in Odesa and see the Russian navy. That ain't the case no more. And boat drones didn't become a thing in this conflict until long after the RU navy went back the "safety" of its ports.
what is your version: why West cannot produce super typical ammo like 155 mm and HIMARS after 14 month of conflict?
technically, West produces more cars per day then 155 mm ammo. So they definitely has capacity
It would be much cheaper for West to either intimidate russia or provide Ukraine with enough weapons to finish the war.
For instance, 1 year ago West would say: "we are going to give Ukraine 1000 tanks and 2000 artillery right now and 1 trillion of other weapons. production has already started". This would show russia they have no chance.
But West does completely opposite: "we will not give Ukraine more weapons then 10 artillery pieces" . So russia always has a chance to win and they continue
Fragt eigentlich irgendjemand mal einen Analysten wie Sie von den Herren:innen in Berlin, Paris, NY oder Brüssel?
Realism. Nice one. Thanks for that.
West destroyed 2400 ukrainian thermonuclear bombs. And huge amount of other weapons. What kind of weapon do Ukraine most need now?
0. Thermonuclear bombs. IF Ukraine would get 1% of former stock - war will stop immediately. West is a business partner with russian fascists - so this variant impossible.
1. The best possible IF Ukraine would get UAVs like Shakhed, Orlan and Lancets. Orlan is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. Lancet is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. If you not agree - write what better. Orlan and Lancet are cheap and functional. Shahed better the ANY western UAV AT ALL! Cheap, easy production, 1000+ km range, 40+ kg explosive. West is partner to Moscow maniacs - so sent to Ukraine ONLY trash, sometimes even shit UAVs. Switchblade 300 - complete shit. - Ukrainians produce UAVs 5-10 times cheaper and BETTER than Switchblade 300. Not 50 F-16, but 100 000 Shaheds cost the same money. Can we compare result of using 100 000 Shaheds and 50 F-16? (1 engine easily shoot down).
GMLRS needs GPS, which russians easily disturb.
2. Ukraine army needs 20 000 pickups every 3 month, because losses. This is not weapon. Does West have 80 000 pickups? WEst not want win for Ukraine, so only look at PROFITS. West NOT sees profits in delivering pickups to Ukraine, so How many pickups has West sent during 9 years of this war?
3. West delivered as many as 1 Patriot during 9 years. Rus army can eliminate 10-30 Patriot radars/year. Ukraine needs 200+ IRIS, got 1.
4. Dogs bite the stick, which man use to hit the dog. Dog think it smart. Russian army in Ukraine - is the STICK, the hand - is the russian economic and other IN the Moscow empire territory. West and russian fascists are business partners => West banned to hit/damage the hand - in Russia. So ALL this is a well planned genocide of ukrainians. West gave 2.4 trillions $ to Moscow during this war, and provided russian military and other industries with ALL they need. Do it hard to burn oil refinery in Russia? Without refineries war will stop shortly. Burn ALL refineries in Russia not difficult, but West strongly BANNED such activity. War ONLY on Ukraine territory and casualties and economic disaster. West has shares in Rosneft Lukoil and so on. In Sberbank - totally western investments in Russia 600+ billions $. And burning oil refineries - not good for western pockets.
More ukrainians will be killed => more millions children and girls rut to West - they are the most precious what exist in this World. So West has huge profits in ukrainian genocide. West sold ukrainians tears and blood to russian fascists during 9 years. The SAME for sirians or chechens or Georgia or Moldova.
Excellent piece thanks Tom.
One detail is missing - what does that 40 kg 155mm round cost ?
That will enable the complete comparison of the cost to deliver munitions by jet or gun barrel.
2000-3000 bucks.
Thanks Tom
Probably less nowadays, when production numbers are much higher.
China can produce 1 million Shaheds, range 1000+ km. And ALL Great american weapone in Taiwan will become the piles of shit. IF 1 mil not enough, China can produse 10 millions Shaheds. WHY do West not give weapon against Shaheds to Ukraine?
Where is China going to get the food to feed the workers? Where is china going to get the money to retool factories? If it's an advanced drone, where will the get the micro processors.
China can run a $20 toy from Amazon. But there are NO high end chips made in China. China can't pay its bills now. What navy is China going to use to insure its shipping outside the China Sea? And it produces a FRACTION of what it needs. And they don't have the world's reserve currency to fall back on.
The best way China can help Russia is to continue doing what it is doing now. Be that unknown quantity that is nearly impossible to plan for.
Shahed does not have any high end staff. Just a 50 kg bomb with wings, running on moped 2 cylinder engine and a GPS navigation.
The only complex is GPS navigation, which can be taken from your uber driver phone.
What surprise me is why Ukraine does not produce a lot of such easy bombs in big numbers.
I think Ukraine is focusing on long range strike capabilities. IE... for the Kerch bridge and Russian operations centers.
Also the Shaheed is too inaccurate for Ukraine to use near its own civilians. Remember that Ukraine is fighting on its own territory.
If Ukraine wanted to bomb the docks in Sevastopol (and it should) then yes you are right. Why isn't Ukraine making cheap moped drones also? That's a good question.
Because the Shaheed style drone is just barely accurate enough for a target that large.
Here we go.
https://t.me/pilotblog/3740
My idea is following:
West gave Ukraine just as little as possible because Ukraine cannot surrender and now is hoocked to fight.
So you can give them as little as you wish, just enough to stay in the fight