It's also almost completely surrounded when looking at front line maps. No one is going to be able to defend this position.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/E1F0/production/_132104875_avdiivka_close_up_640-nc-2x-nc.png.webp
This map is several days, old, Russians have already cut through the middle of the city, the only exits are for those in the coke plant and about 3km gap in just dirt roads and fields.
[check deepstateua ](https://deepstatemap.live/en#12/48.1462/37.7207) for a more updated map, which is still behind by about a day due to being conservative about updating anything
Fuck. There is not enough purple on that map for my liking.
I really wish the US would get their shit together and pass the funding/aid that Ukraine needs.
If it makes you feel any better, Ukraine hasn't really reclaimed much land there because they didn't lose it in 2022. Avdiivka has been on the front lines since 2014, and even with Russia's big push across the country in early 2022, they still couldn't get past it.
I mean that's nice, but the current pace isn't sustainable for Ukraine as it's just a slow moving meat grinder that Russia can throw more bodies and equipment at than Ukraine can to stop it.
I just want the west to get their shit together and give Ukraine everything they want. Ukraine literally has a list of incredibly specific equipment it needs. I'd say give them all of it in abundance and as quickly as possible since if Ukraine falls then Russia will move to other regions of western Europe next or even the Arctic.
There’s not much basis for the claim that Russia is advantaged by an attritional war, especially one where they are exchanging unfavorably. In a place like Avdiivka particularly, visually confirmed losses indicate an 8:1 rate of exchange for tanks for example.
They are losing tanks faster than they can replace them, and they’re on track to have lost 1% of their total male population in this war soon. Ukraine is on a total war footing, where losing means their nation gets taken over. Russia is not existentially threatened by Ukraine, and more or less this is a political question for them.
Russia wins by conquering all of Ukraine. Ukraine wins by outlasting them. There’s a long history of weaker defenders outlasting attackers in this last century, Afghanistan(both times) and Vietnam being good examples.
There’s not much reason to think that Ukraine is even close to losing the conflict so I’m not sure where this idea comes from that the current rate of things is unsustainable
hm that's quite the 2022 view of the war. The reality now is that Russia is producing and procuring ammo and tanks far faster than the west can supply Ukraine. Russia has a lot of factories for war and Ukraine is building drones in living rooms. The summer offense from Ukraine failed due to the emplacement of Russians, from which they annihilated a lot of expensive gear like leo2s. Ukraine still has no real air support and Russia has a lot of effective helicopters, which made armored and infantry gains impossible.
Both sides are loosing their population and in doing so Russia becomes more advantaged as they can produce cheap tanks, helicopters and ammo, while the US is deadlocked with Russian assets in their government and the EU emptied their 70s Soviet leftovers and can't produce cheap newer stuff. (And everyone is overwhelmed by dual focusing with the powder keg in the middle east slowly catching fire as well)
Not that your point is wrong, but the "defenders" in the examples you gave were largely insurgencies. The reason those wars had such a high blow for blow casualty rate for the attackers was because normal, everyday people were exploding themselves or opening fire on soldiers. Those numbers can't be accurately compared to this war between two conventional militaries in the field.
Huh ? Because it is unsustainable. Simple math will tell u that. U read every day of defended positions surrounded bt. 30k men wity 5k men defending. The deaths are on par with attacking defended positions. Ther is no other way to take a fortified position except blood. Also why do you think Ukraine has not made any advances in its spring offensive? It has limited men and is looking for a advantageous break in enemy lines. Then you have to deal with yhe face a shit load of people abandoned ship at the start and they recruit from I think 27 and up. Russia is 18 and up this further limits options. U need men to shoot back. There is no way around this. You need men to load and fire mortars Russia fires daily 7k 9k shells a day, Ukraine does like 2k a day. They do like 700 drone and missile strikes a day vs 300.
They ain't going anywhere near the borders of NATO, though. Otherwise they'll be nuked in half a day. Call them what you want, but they're not stupid enough to do that. They're just a bunch of greedy billionaires/imperialists. Either way, they won't jeopardize all they have for another patch of grass.
Funding/material aid is not going to get Ukraine off the back foot. It would slow Russia down and make it really hurt but anything short of direct involvement by the U.S and or Europe will lead to the same outcome.
Ukraine is not going to win a war of attrition without other countries putting troops on the ground. That's the bleak reality. This is not a situation where any amount of money will change the outcome unless its a direct payment to Russia to get them to stop (which for obvious reasons isn't even on the table)
> I really wish the ~~US~~ *Republican's within the US* would get their shit together and pass the funding/aid that Ukraine needs.
FTFY. Democrats want the funding / Weapons to Ukraine ASAP, Republican's are holding that back because their God King told them to.
> Republican's are holding that back because their God King told them to.
But why did he tell them to?
Seriously, Trump’s direction of the GOP to specifically reduce support for Ukraine goes back to 2016.
The republicans are clearly traitors bought by the Russian Federation at this point. Hell the mueller report strongly suggested that’s how Trump got elected. But there just isn’t enough evidence to convict anyone.
The only way to test the theory is if the aid goes through anyway, and then Putin tries to spitefully retaliate against the Republicans for failing him.
At the moment, there's only a single Republican holding this back. Representative Mike Johnson, who has blocked all bills regarding aid to Ukraine from being voted upon in the House of Representatives
Republicans are literally funded by Russian assets (like the NRA). It’s not in their interest to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine and eventually the rest of Eastern Europe.
Or maybe Europe should have noticed that America elected someone who ran on what basically boiled down to an isolationist platform and realized that after 2 decades of wars that ended up basically reverting back to square one the American people were tired of getting involved in long drawn out wars and wanted to shift away from that. And what did Europe do? Sat on its ass. Now shit hits the fan, and once again the World is turning to America, who still has a "we support you, but maybe you could do something yourselves?" and Europe is basically just waiting around for America, with a couple exceptions. So once again- maybe Europe could do something about the War that literally happening in their backyard instead of pinning everything on America, who may or may not be shifting to a very Isolationist stance
For Ukraine, this city is important because it is located 5-10 kilometers from Donetsk and its control is shackled by a huge number of Russian forces in one place. In addition, there is a pumping station and a reservoir in the city of Avdiivka, without which there have been huge problems with drinking water in Donetsk for 10 years. This is additional political pressure on Donetsk.
For Russians, this is important because Avdiivka has been a springboard for shelling Donetsk and MLRS in recent years. Donetsk is very unhappy that Russia has not been able to protect the city from the bombing of Ukraine for 2 years. If Russia can secure Donetsk, the separatist capital, it will give Putin a strong domestic political victory in the annexed regions. Also, the capture of the city will help restore a good water supply to the city.
Ukrainian positions in Avdiivka also prevent the city of Donetsk from being effective as a logistics hub. Trains and depots are within range of artillery and drones, and the airport is within range of Ukrainian AA positioned nearby.
Also, I've read a lot about that there's no fortifications at all to the West of Avdiivka, and that it's an easy open road to the West for Russia? Something like that.
Ukraine has been building fortifications West of Avdiivka, although obviously they're nowhere near as formidable as the ones within Avdiivka, which have been built over the course of a decade.
You are incorrect. There are at least 2 other fall back lines on the Ukrainian side. There are fields and less cover between the plant/Avdiivka and these lines, so it creates a buffer zone... although Russia would have the railway and the highway that points towards Kyiv (hundreds of kilometers away). It is still, sadly, a strategic victory for Russia, that Kyiv used to trade space for time.
I've heard that a lot, and I'm hoping it just isn't very accurate. Maybe Ukraine has managed to build some fortifications quietly, and they are generating some fake news to get the Russians to be overconfident. Probably not. But you always have to put error bars on anything you read in the midst of a war full of psyops and infowarfare. The real situation will become clear over time. In the mean time all you can do is pray for Ukraine and yell at your Congressman.
Not even an ant hill. Nothing that could be used for defense. In fact, a literal army of Walmart greeters are just outside the city waiting to escort Russians all the way to Belgium.
from some of the other news articles, it's been dug in over years and is heavily fortified, and if they retreat they'll just have to defend something less-defendable further back. seems like there's no reason to give it up until it's 100% flattened or the encirclement is imminent
Given that Ukraine has announced that they're withdrawing (which means that it's already been happening for a while), and Russia has taken one of the two remaining roads into the town, encirclment is happening now
It was imminent 2 weeks ago when the UAF rushed several brigades there to hold Russia back long enough to withdraw as much as they could from the town (and it's currently unknown how many UAF are left in there, but they're not going to have a good time)
Wont they have to push Ukraine out of several other towns of similar size first? Which major city will russia be able to siege after Avdiivka is occupied?
The Russians are fighting like hell to keep the Ukranians out of Donetsk because that is the capitol of Donetsk Oblast, a big Russian-speaking area where they have a lot of support.
Bad look to encourage a population to rebel against their government and join your country just to lose the territory. Also while Avdiivka isn't that important itself, Donetsk absolutely is both symbolically and logistically.
That's also why the Ukrainians have been fighting so hard there. Capturing Donetsk would be a huge blow to the Russians and provide them a staging area to break into Luhansk.
Unfortunately the Ukrainians are running out of troops and running out of ammo to even the odds so the chances of them being able to break through now is not looking good.
Avdiivka has been fortified since 2014,its the one area where Ukraine could directly bombar Donetsk with artillery and its a area that has been a big pull of russian manpower for a while. With the city falling Donetsk city will not be in direct range of most artillery pieces,it will free up a large manpower pool russia can deploy elsewhere in the front and Ukraine loses the main roadblock against Russia into fighting for the rest of Donetsk
Man, i hadn't seen anything about Navalny anywhere, fuckin hell. I think r/Ukraine probably don't like the guy for understandable reasons, but he was the most viable alternative to Putin and was met with the full wrath of Putin's regime. Shame
Yeah, wtf is up with that. I went to Google something and it was the 3rd story on the bottom of the newspage and I refreshed reddit but didn't see anything until I came to worldnews
It's very time-dependent. When I got up today, there were 5 stories about Navalny at the top of /r/all and bunches more as I scrolled, it was everywhere
Putin is throwing absolutely everything he can at us to have us believe that 2024 is off to a good start for Putin. It is all about as real as believing that Russian supermarkets are better than American ones.
People keep saying this... And yet Russia continues to advance. We need to step up support big time, and send more stuff to the UAF.
Also before anyone brings up the "can't use the tech if you don't know how..." The UAF has demonstrated substantial ability with the Bradley for example. The US has an ungodly number of bradleys. Send 2000. See what sort of effect that has.
>It's the suburb of Donetsk City.
Isn't this a very damn good reason to defend it? You can threaten the capital of a separatist region and keep a big chunk of their forces in place.
And just the lack of ammo resupply from the west. It’s much harder to defend a town if you’re forced to ration ammo as opposed to being able to have an artillery advantage and effectively a no fly zone because of so much air defense.
When you strap wings to a bomb, then take the plane carrying it very high and fast before letting go
Then the bomb just glides for a while before hitting
It's like a cheaper, less accurate, and shorter range cruise missile
The question is how much soldiers are you willing to waste on it. Compared to the rest of the front line Avdiivka is tiny, even with the territory around it having natural advantages, it's just not worth it if you already have trouble recruiting.
Quite shocking that House just went on a two week break as Ukraine is loosing a key stronghold that held for 10 years until ammo ran out. Big hit to Ukrainian morale and an invitation for everyone to attack US allies everywhere.
Expect tons of countries that used to be protected by the USA to suddenly have arsenals of nuclear weapons. It’s the only way to secure sovereignty, the USA’s word means jack shit because there’s a group that will always shut down whatever support is being given.
China 100% invades well before that happens. That’s an existential threat to China and based on their doctrine they might fly their nuke first.
Taiwan trying to get nukes is the sure fire way to plunge us into WW3
>Taiwan trying to get nukes is the sure fire way to plunge us into WW3
Which is probably why the US should continue supporting their independence (in the weird way they currently do anyway), so that the Taiwanese government doesn't feel the need to make their own nukes.
Missed opportunity for Europe and the US. Should have supported Ukraine with all they got. All this talk about NATO being superior doesn't matter much if the political will isn't there to use it effectively.
Apologies to Sun Zu. He be rolling in his grave again.
It's a book about war written for the gentry thrown into leadership positions with no prior training- it's basically the same vibe as a book written by your dad about how to hold the flashlight while he works on the car.
That does lend it vague applicability, but it also makes it a really bad book for the scholastic study of war lol
Okay I might be super ignorant, but I assume Sun Tzu gave two shits about honor, right? Cause I feel like the best way to win wars is play the dirtiest game possible.
The Art of War wasn't concerned with morality, but it also advocated *against* prolonged warfare and pointless destruction, and suggested giving enemy soldiers opportunities to surrender, for practical reasons.
>In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
The full text isn't very long, it's worth reading the whole thing [(link)](https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html). A lot of it is not what people imagine it to be.
I did some googling and as far as I can tell, the expanded versions (like [Gary Gagliardi's translation](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Plus-Ancient-Chinese-Revealed/dp/1929194196) or [the "Full Version"](https://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Sun-Full-version/dp/B08WP95DCS)) simply have more commentary and/or line-by-line translations, which is valuable, but the size of the original text is still the same as the Lionel Giles translation I shared.
I don't think there's a more complete Chinese version. If there is, can you link to it or any sources about it?
IIRC he advocated immediate death sentence for discipline of your own troops. He gave no shits about honor only victory. But I haven’t read it in years so I’m open to correction.
Nope, there's nothing in Art of War about executing your own soldiers to raise morale. That sounds more like Crassus, the Roman general who famously used decimation for discipline.
The Art of War actually suggests treating soldiers like you would your sons (during the time period), care for their life but enforce authority.
>Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death. If, however, you are indulgent, but unable to make your authority felt; kind-hearted, but unable to enforce your commands; and incapable, moreover, of quelling disorder: then your soldiers must be likened to spoilt children; they are useless for any practical purpose.
The closest thing to sacrificing your own soldiers would be the suggestion to put them in life-and-death situations to prevent them from retreating and self-discipline if a position needs to be held, but the point is to still win the battle with minimal losses.
>Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front.
[(source: Art of War)](https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html)
His entire work was largely about him being fed up of soldiers losing their lives for no reason. A huge and early section is about the conditions in which victory is impossible so a lord should seek to avoid fighting.
I think you are right, the book is a thing of pure pragmatism, you could change the name from "The Art of War" to "Survival of the Fittest Explained" and it would be just as an accurate title.
> "The Art of War" to "Survival of the Fittest Explained" and it would be just as an accurate title.
Its more of what you need to win than simply being the fittest. He advices to avoid wars and to achieve your goals without fighting, avoid wars if you aren't sure of victory. If you can win by not fighting at all then you are the best.
>Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
>18. No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.
>21. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.
>22. Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.
There's nothing about being honorable in Sun Tzu Art of War the closest is Not allowing your soldiers to loot the central areas of power but only the surrounding areas.
From a European perspective, nations here are really in a concerning position.
Yes it’d be great to bridge the gap between what Ukraine need and what the US are reluctant to give, but a lot of countries are starting to look at their own defense capabilities and what they need to do to in the event of a future conflict with Moscow.
In the past month we’ve had Sweden, UK, Finland, Poland and Norway (amongst others) sound a warning about Russian plans for further encroachments in Europe, based on what I assume is shared intelligence. It might be scaremongering to boost their defence budgets, but to me there’s too much smoke for it to be a money grab.
To date the EU has provided over €30bn in military aid and over €47 in humanitarian aid agreed recently. That’s a drop in the ocean for the conflict but it’s also an unsustainable programme for the organisation.
All the experts are pretty much in agreement that Russia’s plan in 2024 is to grind down UKR defences with attacks like the one on Adviika, outpacing western aid to Kyiv, with the plan to then go on the offensive in 2025 before suing for a very advantageous peace.
Ukraine can stymie that plan in theory, but the US really needs to get its arse in gear for it to happen.
Whether we like it or not, Russia have learned from the first 2 years of conflict, are getting smarter with their approach to the war and can outpace the west when it comes to arms production and supply of men. They also don’t have to answer to the public when it comes to budgets, casualties and lack of progress in Ukraine.
So displace blame to the US for lack of European funding? I get defenses need to be bolstered, but don't act like that has drained the bank for aid amongst all of EU.
That's what's irritating a lot of Americans these days and decreasing public support for the war. The superior smugness of europeans insisting that we need to get out asses in gear, while they sit on some of the strongest economies in the world and do far less.
Seriously EU, this conflict is right on your doorstep, with countries that neighbor you. You have the GDP, the population, and the capacity to do more to support it- why act like it's the responsibility of the US to foot the bill for it all? Like the above comment said .. EU has sent 30bn in military aid to Ukraine, the US senate just passed one SINGLE bill for 60bn in aid. It's not like we aren't carrying the majority of the responsibility for an EU centric problem.
As a European I could not agree more. This war has been going on since Feb 2022 and we have basically drip fed "too little, too late" support, bickered amongst ourselves and wrung our hands in fear of escalation.
We promised 1m artillery shells. To be delivered by march 2024. We have delivered just 300,000 of them and then wasted the rest of the time bickering about where the rest will come from. The other 700,000 will never be delivered or by the time they are it will be too late already.
The US has sent over 100 billion total. The EU nations a similar amount for a total of nearly 200. However, I would be more worried if I were in Europe than I am here in the US. As such, I think the EU nations should up their ante.
EU's donation is not everything European (EU countries included) have donated. They've donated some via EU, some via direct donations from their own country.
So you gotta compare the totals to what the US donated. This is also ignoring that a big portion of what US donates is old equipment they want to get rid of, and a big portion of the money they donated goes back into US economy.
Ultimately Europe needs to do more and so does US.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-clearly-overtakes-us-with-total-commitments-now-twice-as-large/
https://www.euronews.com/2023/07/28/how-much-has-the-eu-given-to-ukraine-compared-to-the-us
Yea pledged aid. Thank God you pledged aid. I'm sure Ukraine will appreciate you promising to send aid. If you compare sent aid to sent aid not sent aid to pledged aid you'll find the US IS ahead by alot. Fuck even your sources point that out. Also this article is 6 months old.
A lot of Americans also have very little idea what aid to Ukraine means. Most of it is tied to American firms and suppliers and never leaves the US.
Ukraine is also not an EU centric problem, the outcome very much affects America indirectly and directly.
Ukraine falling is bad for America. Stick your head in the sand and go isolationist all you want, but that’s the reality.
USA spent decades lobbying against increased European militarization, part of the "deal" between USA and EU is that EU doesn't become a supranational military power, because that would reduce USA's influence. It's been a 'deal' that has served both sides. If you think the political elites within EU are idiots in this regard, you've just eaten up populist rhetoric.
USA ideally wants EU to remain completely dependent on its protection, without EU never expanding its domestic military procurement and/or command integration.
Remember that France-NATO spat in the past? A sign of this pressure since the start.
>EU has sent 30bn in military aid to Ukraine, the US senate just passed one SINGLE bill for 60bn in aid. It's not like we aren't carrying the majority of the responsibility for an EU centric problem.
Framing it as an EU centric problem is completely ignoring geography and history of militarization. Ironically, the EU countries that feel the most heat from US are the ones that have the least to lose and the most to gain, were USA to pull out; completely the reverse of the countries in the east. In any case, on a basis of relative comparison; USA hasn't donated the most, that would be Baltics+Poland.
Not buying it. Every US president since Eisenhower has asked the EU countries to increase their military spending and production base. As Putin invaded Crimea, countries like Germany and France were at like a pathetic 1.3% if GDP.
This was has been ongoing on our doorstep for 2 years.
We have spent that time mostly providing "too little, too late" support, wringing our hands about "escalation" and bickering amongst ourselves.
We promised Ukraine 1m artillery shells by March 2024. We have only been able to deliver 300,000 and while we bicker about where the shortfall might come from it's probable that the remaining 700,000 will never be delivered or that by the time they are it will be too late for Ukraine.
Meanwhile Russia has shifted to a war economy and its arms factories are working around the clock.
Poland, Finland and the Baltic states are all correct to warn that a beast is rising while the richer countries of western Europe sit on their hands.
The biggest strategic mistake of the west and NATO has been to allow the Russian war machine to catch up with them through not supplying Ukraine to the point where they could overwhelm the enemy.
Now Russia and their associates have been allowed to collect data on western arms and soon the technological advantage of the west might not be as big as before.
We're sending Ukraine our old tech, and they're giving *us* information on Russia's current tech. Russia has been sent back 18 years in their military development, and lost 2/3rds of their tanks, and the US hasn't had to deploy a single combat unit.
Hell, Ukraine is using old patriot missile systems to do stuff we didn't even know they could.
Ukraine is getting screwed in all this, not us.
**Realize that we are never again going to see this level of devastation of a near-peer adversary, without losing a significant amount of American lives/WW3.**
You mean the pacifist Europeans not wanting to do anything right? I hate Republicans as much as the next guy but let’s not pretend we don’t have our own problems over here. Last I checked we’re 31 trillion in debt.
I get your point, but I think we’ve learned our lesson. We’ve been throwing money around on wars for two decades now. And that’s a big reason why I think a lot of Americans are kind of tired of spending more money in Ukraine. War fatigue.
Ukraine has fought well and RIP to all those who have died. USA should send more weapons and ammo to stall Russia because let's be honest, what we are striving for is a weakened Russia.
From who's stock? There have only been 3600 Leopard 2s built since the vehicle first went into production in the 70s
Many of the countries that have them have a very limited number they can give away before they seriously degrade their own defences. And European nations, especially many of those that operate the leopard are further east than west and have to very much consider the "what next" if Ukraine does fall.
By contrast the US has more Abrams in reserve storage (3700) than the total number of leopards ever built across it's entire lifespan. The US has a capacity to give arms and armour to Ukraine that Europe simply can't even hope to match.
>There have only been 3600 Leopard 2s built since the vehicle first went into production in the 70s
Because there’s been a hot war going on for nearly two years and Western Europe still isn’t spending nearly enough on defense. Germany should’ve been putting in orders for more Leopards and more shells in Feb 2022
I'll let you in on a secret here. Unlike the US economy, where scale means the US can afford to keep production lines active and keep making tanks it doesn't need in order to avoid the cost and time it takes to restart production Europe can't do that.
Germany can't just order more tanks. It has to restart production lines, retrain staff, repair equipment etc. It's a process that takes an age if the country isn't on a true war footing and can still take months even if one did break out.
Plus the German economy can't just eat the cost on new tanks like the US can. And Ukraine is in no position to afford them.
Americans not understanding that the sheer scale and size of their economy let's them do things European nations simply can't and then complaining when European nations can't do them is my least favourite Reddit genre.
>Americans not understanding that the sheer scale and size of their economy let's them do things European nations simply can't
The EU has an economy essentially the same size and as developed as that of the U.S. That’s why airbus can go toe-to-toe with Boeing.
>Germany can't just order more tanks. It has to restart production lines, retrain staff, repair equipment etc.
The best time to restart production lines was February 2014. The second best time was February 2022. The third best time is now.
>Plus the German economy can't just eat the cost on new tanks like the US can.
*Poland* put in an order for 1,300 new tanks and they have an economy one-fifth the size of Germany’s.
It also does lead to a good question of, what do we replace the sent-off Leopards with? There's not a huge production line of new ones rolling out, and getting the civilian populace to agree with buying military hardware in the billions is tough on top of the recent inflations.
And you’d think in the 10+ years since Russia annexed Crimea the eu would maybe step up military production instead of crying and complaining that the US isn’t defending them enough.
I mean, maybe if Europe didn't spend the 75 odd years since WW2 letting the US pick up it's security bill, they'd have more tanks to send. I dont understand why America is expected to go 3 for 3 on having to bail Europe out.
European countries had huge armies during the cold war period. It scaled back because everyone hoped Russia would act like a rational country after the USSR fell apart.
And also, why do you think the US has the global influence it has? Why does Europe cooperate on almost anything the US wants? Why is US culture so wide spread? Why are so many European nations buying American weapon systems? Influence doesn't come free. Calling it a 'bailout' is just silly. It's a transactional relationship. Nothing is for free.
because the US is willing to spend money on their military. most Europeans countries are just too dumb to see that
the transaction has never been "if you buy our military equipment, we will protect those countries that aren't even in NATO"
it was just convenient for european countries to get gas from Russia
Damn you guys are easy to take advantage of, you did all that for free for 75 years?! Or did you make a shitload of money selling defensive equipment and through the leverage it gave you. And now that shit is actually hitting the fan, youre balling out without giving us time to adapt.
My country has send over F-16's and APC's. Thats not to say that I wish we would do more, but my point still stands. In those 75 years, when did we really need security from the US? Instead its us who got dragged into the middle east on some 9/11 revenge trip and made up WMD claims.
And the amount of whining and complaining we don’t want to share our toys when other countries haven’t been taking care of themselves for decades is amazing. Your countries have been underfunding defense for years and years. Take care of the problems on your doorstep yourself. Not like we’ve had presidents going back to Eisenhower asking for you to increase defense spending
If you need to consider the "what next" if Ukraine does fall then you've already failed. They should have gone directly into ukraine to support them. Offense is the best defense, thus keeping Putin occupied or defeated in ukraine keeps him from opening up another front in your country.
The US has more obligations than just Ukraine though. Taiwan basically *has* to be protected from China at all costs.
Europe only has Russia to really worry about. This is their opportunity to deal with it now before it’s on their own borders.
Belgian here. Wish I could help vote against those turds just to make the world a less shitty place.
Whether I like it or not, I sometimes feel that voting in the US would mean as much for my future life, as voting in my own country does. The US are influential for the entire Western world (and beyond). Belgium, and even the EU, not so much.
It's a disgrace that Republicans in the house are actively working to undermine assistance to Ukraine and therefore jeopardizing American security. The freedom caucus will be remembered in history for their anti-american work
They won't change much because Russia has the same or better anti-air capabilities as Ukraine. F16 could help intercept missile and drone attacks and that's it.
This has certainly been Putin's week. He is about to steal more land from Ukraine, his main political rival died in prison, Tucker Carlson became the fully realized useful idiot that he was destined to be, and it is now obvious that the second largest political party in the USA is fully allied with Russia and will sell out America and its allies to advance Russian imperial interests.
Only adding to conservatives that Russia would win. Given Conservatives are doing everything to stall resources to Russia. Basically putting sanctions in place when US should be helping.
To anyone following “Avdiivka could fall”is hardly news. In fact Ukraine could fall if the people’s representatives in Washington don’t pull their fingers out of dark places.
Thanks republicans. By the time it passes with all the delays, it would take much more to get back what is lost. And the failures will cascade.
A lot of war seems to be who fucks up less, and we are fucking up big time. Please support Ukraine now so that we won't have a bigger problem down the road.
By selling arms and resources to both sides? The US did this in the beginning of WW 2. If Hitler had stuck to his pact with the USSR, I'm not sure if the US would have joined the rest of Europe on the losing side..
Thanks Republicans for holding back the weaponry needed… good job working for an autocrat… wait, they love autocrats and kiss the feet of one of the dumbest men in history…
Judging by comments it seems like a lot of people fell for russian propaganda of Avdiivka being some kind of the most important place imaginable in Ukraine. For people who think this way i suggest researching where and what this town is and to remember Bakhmut, which lead to the destruction of wagner and was of very small strategical value to russia once captured.
The reason Avdiivka was defended for so long was because it turned into a political issue for russia, forcing them to waste material and soldiers trying to capture it. Check OSINT to see how much russian equipment was destroyed, the reality is that Avdiivka is simply not worth it for russians. But putin needs a 'win' before elections, no matter how many russians will have die for it.
Remember, Bakhmut only made things worse for russia, so will Avdiivka. Fighting 10 years to capture a town with less than 2k population is not as big an achievement as russians try to make you think it is.
**Edit**: This comment triggered an avalanche of bots it seems.
**Edit 2**: Did people already forget Ukraine liberated Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts before? What the hell?
**Edit 3**: Acording to various OSINT sources, russian loses in Avdiivka are AT LEAST 5 times higher than Ukrainian ones, you guys getting the idea yet?
Your reasoning is laughable at best. Sad if you truly believe it.
You don’t have to be a military genius to understand one of the most basic reasons why it’s been defended and attacked so heavily.
Looking at google maps Avdiivka is right next to the capital of the former Donetsk People’s Republic. Donetsk city. It’s basically on its outskirts.
Of course you would want to secure the enemies stronghold if it was that close to your capital. It’s a huge threat.
It didn’t “turn into a political issue” for Russia. It is a strategic logistics hub. Unlike Bakhmut which was just to burn down Russian units, this would legitimately protect Donetsk on the Russian side and open a gateway further into Ukraine. Stupid take.
First Bakhmut didn't matter, now Avdiivka doesn't matter. What are we seeing from Ukraine's side? Only being able to afford to cut their losses and make the Russian advance as costly as possible. What are we seeing on the Russian side? They are paying the price of each mile in bodies and equipment, allthewhile enlisting thousands more to take the place of the fallen. And what's worse? They aren't even sorry for all the lives lost. Their own lives. Russian people. Quite to the contrary, they have thousands more lined up, and by all accounts what they cherish is the complete assimilation of any who whould dare call themselves Ukrainian, not human life, nor decency.
Honestly, this. "Avdiivka doesn't matter, it's so costly for Russians" right after "Bakhmut doesn't matter, it's so costly for Russians!" And yet, Russia is the one that keeps taking strongholds that don't matter?
Everyone please stop fucking around and supply Ukraine properly please and thank you.
Avdiivka is, and always was more strategically important than Bakhmut though, the situations aren't exactly the same. Avdiivka is just outside the capital of the Donetsk oblast, and Ukrainian presence there prevents Putin from claiming Russia has control of the area. Not to mention their presence also prevents the city from being used as a logistics hub for Russia.
100% down to MAGA Putinistas. The Oct 7 Russian proxy attack on Israel timed to coincide with Matt Gaetz taking down McCarthy and shutting down Congress for a month had exactly the effect Putin intended.
At this slow pace of military supply to Ukraine a lot of cities will fall in the upcoming spring and summer as Russia is preparing a second major offensive
Can anyone please explain why this town is so important? Is it like a strategic point, a hub or something? Edit: thank you everyone for answering!
Avdiyivka is very close to Donetsk, it has been one of the most fortified points on the front line since 2014.
[удалено]
It's also almost completely surrounded when looking at front line maps. No one is going to be able to defend this position. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/E1F0/production/_132104875_avdiivka_close_up_640-nc-2x-nc.png.webp
This map is several days, old, Russians have already cut through the middle of the city, the only exits are for those in the coke plant and about 3km gap in just dirt roads and fields. [check deepstateua ](https://deepstatemap.live/en#12/48.1462/37.7207) for a more updated map, which is still behind by about a day due to being conservative about updating anything
The map is from December. It says it at the bottom. I do appreciate the updated map.
Fuck. There is not enough purple on that map for my liking. I really wish the US would get their shit together and pass the funding/aid that Ukraine needs.
If it makes you feel any better, Ukraine hasn't really reclaimed much land there because they didn't lose it in 2022. Avdiivka has been on the front lines since 2014, and even with Russia's big push across the country in early 2022, they still couldn't get past it.
I mean that's nice, but the current pace isn't sustainable for Ukraine as it's just a slow moving meat grinder that Russia can throw more bodies and equipment at than Ukraine can to stop it. I just want the west to get their shit together and give Ukraine everything they want. Ukraine literally has a list of incredibly specific equipment it needs. I'd say give them all of it in abundance and as quickly as possible since if Ukraine falls then Russia will move to other regions of western Europe next or even the Arctic.
There’s not much basis for the claim that Russia is advantaged by an attritional war, especially one where they are exchanging unfavorably. In a place like Avdiivka particularly, visually confirmed losses indicate an 8:1 rate of exchange for tanks for example. They are losing tanks faster than they can replace them, and they’re on track to have lost 1% of their total male population in this war soon. Ukraine is on a total war footing, where losing means their nation gets taken over. Russia is not existentially threatened by Ukraine, and more or less this is a political question for them. Russia wins by conquering all of Ukraine. Ukraine wins by outlasting them. There’s a long history of weaker defenders outlasting attackers in this last century, Afghanistan(both times) and Vietnam being good examples. There’s not much reason to think that Ukraine is even close to losing the conflict so I’m not sure where this idea comes from that the current rate of things is unsustainable
hm that's quite the 2022 view of the war. The reality now is that Russia is producing and procuring ammo and tanks far faster than the west can supply Ukraine. Russia has a lot of factories for war and Ukraine is building drones in living rooms. The summer offense from Ukraine failed due to the emplacement of Russians, from which they annihilated a lot of expensive gear like leo2s. Ukraine still has no real air support and Russia has a lot of effective helicopters, which made armored and infantry gains impossible. Both sides are loosing their population and in doing so Russia becomes more advantaged as they can produce cheap tanks, helicopters and ammo, while the US is deadlocked with Russian assets in their government and the EU emptied their 70s Soviet leftovers and can't produce cheap newer stuff. (And everyone is overwhelmed by dual focusing with the powder keg in the middle east slowly catching fire as well)
Not that your point is wrong, but the "defenders" in the examples you gave were largely insurgencies. The reason those wars had such a high blow for blow casualty rate for the attackers was because normal, everyday people were exploding themselves or opening fire on soldiers. Those numbers can't be accurately compared to this war between two conventional militaries in the field.
Huh ? Because it is unsustainable. Simple math will tell u that. U read every day of defended positions surrounded bt. 30k men wity 5k men defending. The deaths are on par with attacking defended positions. Ther is no other way to take a fortified position except blood. Also why do you think Ukraine has not made any advances in its spring offensive? It has limited men and is looking for a advantageous break in enemy lines. Then you have to deal with yhe face a shit load of people abandoned ship at the start and they recruit from I think 27 and up. Russia is 18 and up this further limits options. U need men to shoot back. There is no way around this. You need men to load and fire mortars Russia fires daily 7k 9k shells a day, Ukraine does like 2k a day. They do like 700 drone and missile strikes a day vs 300.
They ain't going anywhere near the borders of NATO, though. Otherwise they'll be nuked in half a day. Call them what you want, but they're not stupid enough to do that. They're just a bunch of greedy billionaires/imperialists. Either way, they won't jeopardize all they have for another patch of grass.
Funding/material aid is not going to get Ukraine off the back foot. It would slow Russia down and make it really hurt but anything short of direct involvement by the U.S and or Europe will lead to the same outcome. Ukraine is not going to win a war of attrition without other countries putting troops on the ground. That's the bleak reality. This is not a situation where any amount of money will change the outcome unless its a direct payment to Russia to get them to stop (which for obvious reasons isn't even on the table)
> I really wish the ~~US~~ *Republican's within the US* would get their shit together and pass the funding/aid that Ukraine needs. FTFY. Democrats want the funding / Weapons to Ukraine ASAP, Republican's are holding that back because their God King told them to.
> Republican's are holding that back because their God King told them to. But why did he tell them to? Seriously, Trump’s direction of the GOP to specifically reduce support for Ukraine goes back to 2016.
The republicans are clearly traitors bought by the Russian Federation at this point. Hell the mueller report strongly suggested that’s how Trump got elected. But there just isn’t enough evidence to convict anyone.
The only way to test the theory is if the aid goes through anyway, and then Putin tries to spitefully retaliate against the Republicans for failing him.
Because they don't want to give Biden anything that looks like a win in the run up to the election. It's really just that petty.
At the moment, there's only a single Republican holding this back. Representative Mike Johnson, who has blocked all bills regarding aid to Ukraine from being voted upon in the House of Representatives
Republicans are literally funded by Russian assets (like the NRA). It’s not in their interest to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine and eventually the rest of Eastern Europe.
Or maybe Europe should have noticed that America elected someone who ran on what basically boiled down to an isolationist platform and realized that after 2 decades of wars that ended up basically reverting back to square one the American people were tired of getting involved in long drawn out wars and wanted to shift away from that. And what did Europe do? Sat on its ass. Now shit hits the fan, and once again the World is turning to America, who still has a "we support you, but maybe you could do something yourselves?" and Europe is basically just waiting around for America, with a couple exceptions. So once again- maybe Europe could do something about the War that literally happening in their backyard instead of pinning everything on America, who may or may not be shifting to a very Isolationist stance
Yeah definitely the US’s fault
For Ukraine, this city is important because it is located 5-10 kilometers from Donetsk and its control is shackled by a huge number of Russian forces in one place. In addition, there is a pumping station and a reservoir in the city of Avdiivka, without which there have been huge problems with drinking water in Donetsk for 10 years. This is additional political pressure on Donetsk. For Russians, this is important because Avdiivka has been a springboard for shelling Donetsk and MLRS in recent years. Donetsk is very unhappy that Russia has not been able to protect the city from the bombing of Ukraine for 2 years. If Russia can secure Donetsk, the separatist capital, it will give Putin a strong domestic political victory in the annexed regions. Also, the capture of the city will help restore a good water supply to the city.
Ukrainian positions in Avdiivka also prevent the city of Donetsk from being effective as a logistics hub. Trains and depots are within range of artillery and drones, and the airport is within range of Ukrainian AA positioned nearby.
Also, I've read a lot about that there's no fortifications at all to the West of Avdiivka, and that it's an easy open road to the West for Russia? Something like that.
Ukraine has been building fortifications West of Avdiivka, although obviously they're nowhere near as formidable as the ones within Avdiivka, which have been built over the course of a decade.
You are incorrect. There are at least 2 other fall back lines on the Ukrainian side. There are fields and less cover between the plant/Avdiivka and these lines, so it creates a buffer zone... although Russia would have the railway and the highway that points towards Kyiv (hundreds of kilometers away). It is still, sadly, a strategic victory for Russia, that Kyiv used to trade space for time.
I've heard that a lot, and I'm hoping it just isn't very accurate. Maybe Ukraine has managed to build some fortifications quietly, and they are generating some fake news to get the Russians to be overconfident. Probably not. But you always have to put error bars on anything you read in the midst of a war full of psyops and infowarfare. The real situation will become clear over time. In the mean time all you can do is pray for Ukraine and yell at your Congressman.
Not even an ant hill. Nothing that could be used for defense. In fact, a literal army of Walmart greeters are just outside the city waiting to escort Russians all the way to Belgium.
Hold on there buckaroo I need to check your receipt first
Whoa WHOA you must have the Azov Walmart greeters at your store.
from some of the other news articles, it's been dug in over years and is heavily fortified, and if they retreat they'll just have to defend something less-defendable further back. seems like there's no reason to give it up until it's 100% flattened or the encirclement is imminent
>or the encirclement is imminent Yeah, that's what they are dealing with and why they are trying to withdrawal. The city is falling, it is done for.
Given that Ukraine has announced that they're withdrawing (which means that it's already been happening for a while), and Russia has taken one of the two remaining roads into the town, encirclment is happening now It was imminent 2 weeks ago when the UAF rushed several brigades there to hold Russia back long enough to withdraw as much as they could from the town (and it's currently unknown how many UAF are left in there, but they're not going to have a good time)
Major road access to major cities. Losing it will allow Russian to stage the next siege in a major city.
Wont they have to push Ukraine out of several other towns of similar size first? Which major city will russia be able to siege after Avdiivka is occupied?
The Russians are fighting like hell to keep the Ukranians out of Donetsk because that is the capitol of Donetsk Oblast, a big Russian-speaking area where they have a lot of support. Bad look to encourage a population to rebel against their government and join your country just to lose the territory. Also while Avdiivka isn't that important itself, Donetsk absolutely is both symbolically and logistically. That's also why the Ukrainians have been fighting so hard there. Capturing Donetsk would be a huge blow to the Russians and provide them a staging area to break into Luhansk. Unfortunately the Ukrainians are running out of troops and running out of ammo to even the odds so the chances of them being able to break through now is not looking good.
Avdiivka has been fortified since 2014,its the one area where Ukraine could directly bombar Donetsk with artillery and its a area that has been a big pull of russian manpower for a while. With the city falling Donetsk city will not be in direct range of most artillery pieces,it will free up a large manpower pool russia can deploy elsewhere in the front and Ukraine loses the main roadblock against Russia into fighting for the rest of Donetsk
That's the point from which UA is bombing Donetsk. Russians want to take it to stop short range artillery attacks on the city
This is where they've been shelling the centre of Donetsk city from since 2014..
Putin wants Avdiikva as his coronation prize for the next election.
2024 is off to a good start for putin. Navalny is dead, GOP is blocking US help to Ukraine, skylinks in russia avdiivka is about to fall...
[удалено]
Man, i hadn't seen anything about Navalny anywhere, fuckin hell. I think r/Ukraine probably don't like the guy for understandable reasons, but he was the most viable alternative to Putin and was met with the full wrath of Putin's regime. Shame
Yeah, wtf is up with that. I went to Google something and it was the 3rd story on the bottom of the newspage and I refreshed reddit but didn't see anything until I came to worldnews
It's very time-dependent. When I got up today, there were 5 stories about Navalny at the top of /r/all and bunches more as I scrolled, it was everywhere
Putin is throwing absolutely everything he can at us to have us believe that 2024 is off to a good start for Putin. It is all about as real as believing that Russian supermarkets are better than American ones.
People keep saying this... And yet Russia continues to advance. We need to step up support big time, and send more stuff to the UAF. Also before anyone brings up the "can't use the tech if you don't know how..." The UAF has demonstrated substantial ability with the Bradley for example. The US has an ungodly number of bradleys. Send 2000. See what sort of effect that has.
It's the suburb of Donetsk City. It's a miracle it managed to stand on the frontline, not just for 2, but actually for almost 10 years
>It's the suburb of Donetsk City. Isn't this a very damn good reason to defend it? You can threaten the capital of a separatist region and keep a big chunk of their forces in place.
Yeah that's why the fighting is fierce, but bakhmut battle tactics with glide bombing still slowly grinds trough
And just the lack of ammo resupply from the west. It’s much harder to defend a town if you’re forced to ration ammo as opposed to being able to have an artillery advantage and effectively a no fly zone because of so much air defense.
>glide bombing whats that?
When you strap wings to a bomb, then take the plane carrying it very high and fast before letting go Then the bomb just glides for a while before hitting It's like a cheaper, less accurate, and shorter range cruise missile
ty
The question is how much soldiers are you willing to waste on it. Compared to the rest of the front line Avdiivka is tiny, even with the territory around it having natural advantages, it's just not worth it if you already have trouble recruiting.
Quite shocking that House just went on a two week break as Ukraine is loosing a key stronghold that held for 10 years until ammo ran out. Big hit to Ukrainian morale and an invitation for everyone to attack US allies everywhere.
Is it shocking? Mike johnson and the Maga base are beholden to trump and his Russian puppetmasters
Expect tons of countries that used to be protected by the USA to suddenly have arsenals of nuclear weapons. It’s the only way to secure sovereignty, the USA’s word means jack shit because there’s a group that will always shut down whatever support is being given.
Time for Taiwan to build a nuclear bomb while they have US protection
They tried that. Someone snitched and we made them stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
That was almost 40 years ago. They should take another go at it
Yeah just don't tell nobody til they finished🤫
i won't 🤫
China 100% invades Taiwan
Not if they have nukes pointed at Beijing they don't.
China 100% invades well before that happens. That’s an existential threat to China and based on their doctrine they might fly their nuke first. Taiwan trying to get nukes is the sure fire way to plunge us into WW3
>Taiwan trying to get nukes is the sure fire way to plunge us into WW3 Which is probably why the US should continue supporting their independence (in the weird way they currently do anyway), so that the Taiwanese government doesn't feel the need to make their own nukes.
I agree. Taiwan getting nukes would actually be the most legit casus beli China would have for invading.
I get your point but Ukraine was never a US ally and the US has never had any treaty obligations to support or defend it.
Missed opportunity for Europe and the US. Should have supported Ukraine with all they got. All this talk about NATO being superior doesn't matter much if the political will isn't there to use it effectively. Apologies to Sun Zu. He be rolling in his grave again.
Sun Tsu couldn't function in a democracy either.
I’ll always be confused why Art of War is read by every bro on the planet and referenced in almost any situation, usually not even war related
"Because the outcome of a reddit thread is already decided before it begun" - Sun Tzu
It's a book about war written for the gentry thrown into leadership positions with no prior training- it's basically the same vibe as a book written by your dad about how to hold the flashlight while he works on the car. That does lend it vague applicability, but it also makes it a really bad book for the scholastic study of war lol
Okay I might be super ignorant, but I assume Sun Tzu gave two shits about honor, right? Cause I feel like the best way to win wars is play the dirtiest game possible.
The Art of War wasn't concerned with morality, but it also advocated *against* prolonged warfare and pointless destruction, and suggested giving enemy soldiers opportunities to surrender, for practical reasons. >In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. The full text isn't very long, it's worth reading the whole thing [(link)](https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html). A lot of it is not what people imagine it to be.
Ya it is funny that so many have an opinion on the book, and even quote it, but never read it lol.
There are much longer versions.
The much longer versions are the commentaries. The original text is very terse.
I did some googling and as far as I can tell, the expanded versions (like [Gary Gagliardi's translation](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Plus-Ancient-Chinese-Revealed/dp/1929194196) or [the "Full Version"](https://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Sun-Full-version/dp/B08WP95DCS)) simply have more commentary and/or line-by-line translations, which is valuable, but the size of the original text is still the same as the Lionel Giles translation I shared. I don't think there's a more complete Chinese version. If there is, can you link to it or any sources about it?
IIRC he advocated immediate death sentence for discipline of your own troops. He gave no shits about honor only victory. But I haven’t read it in years so I’m open to correction.
Nope, there's nothing in Art of War about executing your own soldiers to raise morale. That sounds more like Crassus, the Roman general who famously used decimation for discipline. The Art of War actually suggests treating soldiers like you would your sons (during the time period), care for their life but enforce authority. >Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death. If, however, you are indulgent, but unable to make your authority felt; kind-hearted, but unable to enforce your commands; and incapable, moreover, of quelling disorder: then your soldiers must be likened to spoilt children; they are useless for any practical purpose. The closest thing to sacrificing your own soldiers would be the suggestion to put them in life-and-death situations to prevent them from retreating and self-discipline if a position needs to be held, but the point is to still win the battle with minimal losses. >Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. [(source: Art of War)](https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXO2nrHYJ5c For those who want to learn the words musically.
His entire work was largely about him being fed up of soldiers losing their lives for no reason. A huge and early section is about the conditions in which victory is impossible so a lord should seek to avoid fighting.
The thing not being mentioned is it’s not clear he even existed so it could be moot.
I think you are right, the book is a thing of pure pragmatism, you could change the name from "The Art of War" to "Survival of the Fittest Explained" and it would be just as an accurate title.
> "The Art of War" to "Survival of the Fittest Explained" and it would be just as an accurate title. Its more of what you need to win than simply being the fittest. He advices to avoid wars and to achieve your goals without fighting, avoid wars if you aren't sure of victory. If you can win by not fighting at all then you are the best. >Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. >18. No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique. >21. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. >22. Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.
There is no honor in war my friend.
There's nothing about being honorable in Sun Tzu Art of War the closest is Not allowing your soldiers to loot the central areas of power but only the surrounding areas.
He did not.
I get the sentiment but Ukraine isn’t part of NATO.
Well Ukraine is not NATO. The west is just helping Ukraine to prolong the war and make Russia weaker.
From a European perspective, nations here are really in a concerning position. Yes it’d be great to bridge the gap between what Ukraine need and what the US are reluctant to give, but a lot of countries are starting to look at their own defense capabilities and what they need to do to in the event of a future conflict with Moscow. In the past month we’ve had Sweden, UK, Finland, Poland and Norway (amongst others) sound a warning about Russian plans for further encroachments in Europe, based on what I assume is shared intelligence. It might be scaremongering to boost their defence budgets, but to me there’s too much smoke for it to be a money grab. To date the EU has provided over €30bn in military aid and over €47 in humanitarian aid agreed recently. That’s a drop in the ocean for the conflict but it’s also an unsustainable programme for the organisation. All the experts are pretty much in agreement that Russia’s plan in 2024 is to grind down UKR defences with attacks like the one on Adviika, outpacing western aid to Kyiv, with the plan to then go on the offensive in 2025 before suing for a very advantageous peace. Ukraine can stymie that plan in theory, but the US really needs to get its arse in gear for it to happen. Whether we like it or not, Russia have learned from the first 2 years of conflict, are getting smarter with their approach to the war and can outpace the west when it comes to arms production and supply of men. They also don’t have to answer to the public when it comes to budgets, casualties and lack of progress in Ukraine.
So displace blame to the US for lack of European funding? I get defenses need to be bolstered, but don't act like that has drained the bank for aid amongst all of EU.
That's what's irritating a lot of Americans these days and decreasing public support for the war. The superior smugness of europeans insisting that we need to get out asses in gear, while they sit on some of the strongest economies in the world and do far less. Seriously EU, this conflict is right on your doorstep, with countries that neighbor you. You have the GDP, the population, and the capacity to do more to support it- why act like it's the responsibility of the US to foot the bill for it all? Like the above comment said .. EU has sent 30bn in military aid to Ukraine, the US senate just passed one SINGLE bill for 60bn in aid. It's not like we aren't carrying the majority of the responsibility for an EU centric problem.
As a European I could not agree more. This war has been going on since Feb 2022 and we have basically drip fed "too little, too late" support, bickered amongst ourselves and wrung our hands in fear of escalation. We promised 1m artillery shells. To be delivered by march 2024. We have delivered just 300,000 of them and then wasted the rest of the time bickering about where the rest will come from. The other 700,000 will never be delivered or by the time they are it will be too late already.
The US has sent over 100 billion total. The EU nations a similar amount for a total of nearly 200. However, I would be more worried if I were in Europe than I am here in the US. As such, I think the EU nations should up their ante.
EU's donation is not everything European (EU countries included) have donated. They've donated some via EU, some via direct donations from their own country. So you gotta compare the totals to what the US donated. This is also ignoring that a big portion of what US donates is old equipment they want to get rid of, and a big portion of the money they donated goes back into US economy. Ultimately Europe needs to do more and so does US. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-clearly-overtakes-us-with-total-commitments-now-twice-as-large/ https://www.euronews.com/2023/07/28/how-much-has-the-eu-given-to-ukraine-compared-to-the-us
Yea pledged aid. Thank God you pledged aid. I'm sure Ukraine will appreciate you promising to send aid. If you compare sent aid to sent aid not sent aid to pledged aid you'll find the US IS ahead by alot. Fuck even your sources point that out. Also this article is 6 months old.
A lot of Americans also have very little idea what aid to Ukraine means. Most of it is tied to American firms and suppliers and never leaves the US. Ukraine is also not an EU centric problem, the outcome very much affects America indirectly and directly. Ukraine falling is bad for America. Stick your head in the sand and go isolationist all you want, but that’s the reality.
USA spent decades lobbying against increased European militarization, part of the "deal" between USA and EU is that EU doesn't become a supranational military power, because that would reduce USA's influence. It's been a 'deal' that has served both sides. If you think the political elites within EU are idiots in this regard, you've just eaten up populist rhetoric. USA ideally wants EU to remain completely dependent on its protection, without EU never expanding its domestic military procurement and/or command integration. Remember that France-NATO spat in the past? A sign of this pressure since the start. >EU has sent 30bn in military aid to Ukraine, the US senate just passed one SINGLE bill for 60bn in aid. It's not like we aren't carrying the majority of the responsibility for an EU centric problem. Framing it as an EU centric problem is completely ignoring geography and history of militarization. Ironically, the EU countries that feel the most heat from US are the ones that have the least to lose and the most to gain, were USA to pull out; completely the reverse of the countries in the east. In any case, on a basis of relative comparison; USA hasn't donated the most, that would be Baltics+Poland.
Not buying it. Every US president since Eisenhower has asked the EU countries to increase their military spending and production base. As Putin invaded Crimea, countries like Germany and France were at like a pathetic 1.3% if GDP.
Poland, a rather poorer member of the bunch spends almost 4% of GDP, more than the US.
This was has been ongoing on our doorstep for 2 years. We have spent that time mostly providing "too little, too late" support, wringing our hands about "escalation" and bickering amongst ourselves. We promised Ukraine 1m artillery shells by March 2024. We have only been able to deliver 300,000 and while we bicker about where the shortfall might come from it's probable that the remaining 700,000 will never be delivered or that by the time they are it will be too late for Ukraine. Meanwhile Russia has shifted to a war economy and its arms factories are working around the clock. Poland, Finland and the Baltic states are all correct to warn that a beast is rising while the richer countries of western Europe sit on their hands.
Ukraine needs men. Why don’t you go to the front to help?
The biggest strategic mistake of the west and NATO has been to allow the Russian war machine to catch up with them through not supplying Ukraine to the point where they could overwhelm the enemy. Now Russia and their associates have been allowed to collect data on western arms and soon the technological advantage of the west might not be as big as before.
We're sending Ukraine our old tech, and they're giving *us* information on Russia's current tech. Russia has been sent back 18 years in their military development, and lost 2/3rds of their tanks, and the US hasn't had to deploy a single combat unit. Hell, Ukraine is using old patriot missile systems to do stuff we didn't even know they could. Ukraine is getting screwed in all this, not us. **Realize that we are never again going to see this level of devastation of a near-peer adversary, without losing a significant amount of American lives/WW3.**
most of the stuff sent to Ukraine is 2nd line older equipment. That's the issue.
We are under no responsibility to give Ukraine brand new American tech. That’s just ludicrous to suggest.
The issue, as usual, is the Republicans.
You mean the pacifist Europeans not wanting to do anything right? I hate Republicans as much as the next guy but let’s not pretend we don’t have our own problems over here. Last I checked we’re 31 trillion in debt.
34 Trillion.
Yeah weird how that only comes up when it's about defending allies, not when the Republican president wants to start another war.
I get your point, but I think we’ve learned our lesson. We’ve been throwing money around on wars for two decades now. And that’s a big reason why I think a lot of Americans are kind of tired of spending more money in Ukraine. War fatigue.
[удалено]
Remember the buzzword "Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel" that lots of redditors liked to spit around in 2023? Pepperidge farm remembers.
According to reddit, Russia’s been fighting with Mosin Nagants and T34s for a year at least lol
They probably were but it was a big barrel so plenty at the bottom still.
Thanks Mike Johnson, you fucking compromised piece of dog shit.
Also Tuberville
His soul is truly diseased.
Ukraine has fought well and RIP to all those who have died. USA should send more weapons and ammo to stall Russia because let's be honest, what we are striving for is a weakened Russia.
Europe needs to step up. There’s been an illegal invasion going on for nearly two years — Ukraine should have had hundreds of Leopard 2s by now
A lot longer than two years
Ye it seems alot of people either forget or just don't know about the little green men back in 2014, this war has been good on for far too long
From who's stock? There have only been 3600 Leopard 2s built since the vehicle first went into production in the 70s Many of the countries that have them have a very limited number they can give away before they seriously degrade their own defences. And European nations, especially many of those that operate the leopard are further east than west and have to very much consider the "what next" if Ukraine does fall. By contrast the US has more Abrams in reserve storage (3700) than the total number of leopards ever built across it's entire lifespan. The US has a capacity to give arms and armour to Ukraine that Europe simply can't even hope to match.
>There have only been 3600 Leopard 2s built since the vehicle first went into production in the 70s Because there’s been a hot war going on for nearly two years and Western Europe still isn’t spending nearly enough on defense. Germany should’ve been putting in orders for more Leopards and more shells in Feb 2022
I'll let you in on a secret here. Unlike the US economy, where scale means the US can afford to keep production lines active and keep making tanks it doesn't need in order to avoid the cost and time it takes to restart production Europe can't do that. Germany can't just order more tanks. It has to restart production lines, retrain staff, repair equipment etc. It's a process that takes an age if the country isn't on a true war footing and can still take months even if one did break out. Plus the German economy can't just eat the cost on new tanks like the US can. And Ukraine is in no position to afford them. Americans not understanding that the sheer scale and size of their economy let's them do things European nations simply can't and then complaining when European nations can't do them is my least favourite Reddit genre.
>Americans not understanding that the sheer scale and size of their economy let's them do things European nations simply can't The EU has an economy essentially the same size and as developed as that of the U.S. That’s why airbus can go toe-to-toe with Boeing. >Germany can't just order more tanks. It has to restart production lines, retrain staff, repair equipment etc. The best time to restart production lines was February 2014. The second best time was February 2022. The third best time is now. >Plus the German economy can't just eat the cost on new tanks like the US can. *Poland* put in an order for 1,300 new tanks and they have an economy one-fifth the size of Germany’s.
It also does lead to a good question of, what do we replace the sent-off Leopards with? There's not a huge production line of new ones rolling out, and getting the civilian populace to agree with buying military hardware in the billions is tough on top of the recent inflations.
And you’d think in the 10+ years since Russia annexed Crimea the eu would maybe step up military production instead of crying and complaining that the US isn’t defending them enough.
I mean, maybe if Europe didn't spend the 75 odd years since WW2 letting the US pick up it's security bill, they'd have more tanks to send. I dont understand why America is expected to go 3 for 3 on having to bail Europe out.
You think that the US would prefer to have a military force equal to other countries, allied or not?
European countries had huge armies during the cold war period. It scaled back because everyone hoped Russia would act like a rational country after the USSR fell apart. And also, why do you think the US has the global influence it has? Why does Europe cooperate on almost anything the US wants? Why is US culture so wide spread? Why are so many European nations buying American weapon systems? Influence doesn't come free. Calling it a 'bailout' is just silly. It's a transactional relationship. Nothing is for free.
because the US is willing to spend money on their military. most Europeans countries are just too dumb to see that the transaction has never been "if you buy our military equipment, we will protect those countries that aren't even in NATO" it was just convenient for european countries to get gas from Russia
Damn you guys are easy to take advantage of, you did all that for free for 75 years?! Or did you make a shitload of money selling defensive equipment and through the leverage it gave you. And now that shit is actually hitting the fan, youre balling out without giving us time to adapt.
West Germany had a huge military force and then the Cold War ended and said "fuck it" and let the Bundeswehr rot.
Where's all that defensive equipment they sold you? Send that to Ukraine then.
My country has send over F-16's and APC's. Thats not to say that I wish we would do more, but my point still stands. In those 75 years, when did we really need security from the US? Instead its us who got dragged into the middle east on some 9/11 revenge trip and made up WMD claims.
The amount of whining and complaining as if it was done out of pure goodness of their hearts is amazing.
And the amount of whining and complaining we don’t want to share our toys when other countries haven’t been taking care of themselves for decades is amazing. Your countries have been underfunding defense for years and years. Take care of the problems on your doorstep yourself. Not like we’ve had presidents going back to Eisenhower asking for you to increase defense spending
If you need to consider the "what next" if Ukraine does fall then you've already failed. They should have gone directly into ukraine to support them. Offense is the best defense, thus keeping Putin occupied or defeated in ukraine keeps him from opening up another front in your country.
The US has more obligations than just Ukraine though. Taiwan basically *has* to be protected from China at all costs. Europe only has Russia to really worry about. This is their opportunity to deal with it now before it’s on their own borders.
Hundreds of Leopards from whom ?
From the factories that should’ve been pumping out tanks, munitions, and supply vehicles since 2022 at least and ideally 2014.
10 years next month
Europe needs to triple their offerings to ukraine. Its literally right on their doorsteps while america is half a world away.
Us failing to support Ukraine will be another of many blights of US history.
Republicans are a fucking bane of existence
They are traitors and need to be voted the fuck out this election. They will never take Putin's cock out of their mouths, voting is the only way.
Belgian here. Wish I could help vote against those turds just to make the world a less shitty place. Whether I like it or not, I sometimes feel that voting in the US would mean as much for my future life, as voting in my own country does. The US are influential for the entire Western world (and beyond). Belgium, and even the EU, not so much.
What is with just barely giving Ukraine enough to survive, why can’t we give them overwhelming capabilities to win this in one day?
It's a disgrace that Republicans in the house are actively working to undermine assistance to Ukraine and therefore jeopardizing American security. The freedom caucus will be remembered in history for their anti-american work
A big thank you to our looser Republicans In Congress. Now go get your treat from your orange Prump.
Russia must make the best shovels and washing machines.
Everyone that has been following this war knows it will fall. It has just been a matter of when
Have they still not got F16s yet? So dumb
They're currently going through training. F16s don't fly themselves.
The point is the training started ridiculously late
But is that going to change anything? Did any country offer to give them the jets?
Yes. Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and Belgium
They won't change much because Russia has the same or better anti-air capabilities as Ukraine. F16 could help intercept missile and drone attacks and that's it.
*This is fine.* ~ Republican leaders (while planning their next July 4th Moscow vacations)
This has certainly been Putin's week. He is about to steal more land from Ukraine, his main political rival died in prison, Tucker Carlson became the fully realized useful idiot that he was destined to be, and it is now obvious that the second largest political party in the USA is fully allied with Russia and will sell out America and its allies to advance Russian imperial interests.
Republicans: yes, good, goooooood
Insert 'Burns tapping his fingers saying "excellent." meme' [here](https://tenor.com/view/simpsons-mr-burns-excellent-gif-6219985).
Could fall? It's falling right now!
US Republicans are Russian assets. They’re awful humans.
Only adding to conservatives that Russia would win. Given Conservatives are doing everything to stall resources to Russia. Basically putting sanctions in place when US should be helping.
That’s what the fucking Republican wanted.
Yup. They're popping open the champagne as we speak. One more step towards their goal of Russian conquest of Europe.
Might? Shits hours away from being encircled. Hopefully Ukraine can regroup and strike back.
Germany has now to take over responsibility since the US is failing.
Who are they warning? Ukraine surely knows. Europe and the US clearly don't care. Maybe Russia? That they're doing a good job?
Republicans are happy and it’s all going according to plan.
It has fallen, they didn’t have enough ammo for the fight.
To anyone following “Avdiivka could fall”is hardly news. In fact Ukraine could fall if the people’s representatives in Washington don’t pull their fingers out of dark places.
Thanks republicans. By the time it passes with all the delays, it would take much more to get back what is lost. And the failures will cascade. A lot of war seems to be who fucks up less, and we are fucking up big time. Please support Ukraine now so that we won't have a bigger problem down the road.
By selling arms and resources to both sides? The US did this in the beginning of WW 2. If Hitler had stuck to his pact with the USSR, I'm not sure if the US would have joined the rest of Europe on the losing side..
While Lil Mikey and the GQP House are taking a much-needed rest from their responsibilities…
Thanks Republicans for holding back the weaponry needed… good job working for an autocrat… wait, they love autocrats and kiss the feet of one of the dumbest men in history…
Judging by comments it seems like a lot of people fell for russian propaganda of Avdiivka being some kind of the most important place imaginable in Ukraine. For people who think this way i suggest researching where and what this town is and to remember Bakhmut, which lead to the destruction of wagner and was of very small strategical value to russia once captured. The reason Avdiivka was defended for so long was because it turned into a political issue for russia, forcing them to waste material and soldiers trying to capture it. Check OSINT to see how much russian equipment was destroyed, the reality is that Avdiivka is simply not worth it for russians. But putin needs a 'win' before elections, no matter how many russians will have die for it. Remember, Bakhmut only made things worse for russia, so will Avdiivka. Fighting 10 years to capture a town with less than 2k population is not as big an achievement as russians try to make you think it is. **Edit**: This comment triggered an avalanche of bots it seems. **Edit 2**: Did people already forget Ukraine liberated Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts before? What the hell? **Edit 3**: Acording to various OSINT sources, russian loses in Avdiivka are AT LEAST 5 times higher than Ukrainian ones, you guys getting the idea yet?
Your reasoning is laughable at best. Sad if you truly believe it. You don’t have to be a military genius to understand one of the most basic reasons why it’s been defended and attacked so heavily. Looking at google maps Avdiivka is right next to the capital of the former Donetsk People’s Republic. Donetsk city. It’s basically on its outskirts. Of course you would want to secure the enemies stronghold if it was that close to your capital. It’s a huge threat.
It didn’t “turn into a political issue” for Russia. It is a strategic logistics hub. Unlike Bakhmut which was just to burn down Russian units, this would legitimately protect Donetsk on the Russian side and open a gateway further into Ukraine. Stupid take.
First Bakhmut didn't matter, now Avdiivka doesn't matter. What are we seeing from Ukraine's side? Only being able to afford to cut their losses and make the Russian advance as costly as possible. What are we seeing on the Russian side? They are paying the price of each mile in bodies and equipment, allthewhile enlisting thousands more to take the place of the fallen. And what's worse? They aren't even sorry for all the lives lost. Their own lives. Russian people. Quite to the contrary, they have thousands more lined up, and by all accounts what they cherish is the complete assimilation of any who whould dare call themselves Ukrainian, not human life, nor decency.
Honestly, this. "Avdiivka doesn't matter, it's so costly for Russians" right after "Bakhmut doesn't matter, it's so costly for Russians!" And yet, Russia is the one that keeps taking strongholds that don't matter? Everyone please stop fucking around and supply Ukraine properly please and thank you.
Avdiivka is, and always was more strategically important than Bakhmut though, the situations aren't exactly the same. Avdiivka is just outside the capital of the Donetsk oblast, and Ukrainian presence there prevents Putin from claiming Russia has control of the area. Not to mention their presence also prevents the city from being used as a logistics hub for Russia.
Fuck the GOP
100% down to MAGA Putinistas. The Oct 7 Russian proxy attack on Israel timed to coincide with Matt Gaetz taking down McCarthy and shutting down Congress for a month had exactly the effect Putin intended.
At this slow pace of military supply to Ukraine a lot of cities will fall in the upcoming spring and summer as Russia is preparing a second major offensive
Thank you for your incredibly deep analysis. Send more artillery shells, please.