Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

macross1984 t1_j6gp60k wrote

Supplies will be sent but in no way at a speed Ukraine want and need. Ukraine will have to hold on and if possible push Russians back with what western weapons and supplies it has on hand.

12

ASD_Detector_Array t1_j6hn4ye wrote

This could have been foreseen. The west has been drip-feeding equipment to maximize Russian losses, at the cost of Ukrainian lives, and at the risk of falling behind, as we now see.

−5

Katana_sized_banana t1_j6hsw2h wrote

What an absurd comment. The west gains nothing from maximizing Russian losses unless they wanted to invade, which isn't the case. The EU has also nothing to gain from a longer war as it's economically taxing. You also make it sound like the West is causing casualties, while Russia is the actual invader here.

3

lollypatrolly t1_j6i5cwz wrote

The core point is true though, this current drip-feeding is strategically unsound if the goal is for Ukraine to win and Russia to lose. It makes no sense from a military perspective. The only thing we achieve by pussyfooting around is drawing out the conflict, so we should commit fully and provide everything they need.

2

bombmk t1_j6kaf1l wrote

> It makes no sense from a military perspective.

Given that the reason is political pussyfooting that can be very true while offering no explanatory power for the question at hand.

I could understand holding back while the things where still on a jittery scale at the start of the conflict (don't want your gear picked up by the other side the the day after it arrives).

But since the Ukrainians started pushing them back, I have very little respect or patience for the tempo of the material help they have been given.

They have been trying to boil the mythical nuclear frog without making it jump out of the pot. And as long is it is only Ukrainians dying, a slower boil is of course the safer choice...

1

ASD_Detector_Array t1_j6i9sci wrote

I don't suppose you can offer an alternative explanation for the slow drip-feed of support?

I'm not seeing any absurdity to comment on, sorry. What do you mean?

Didn't say anything about who's doing the killing - that's not really disputable...

−2

Katana_sized_banana t1_j6idj5d wrote

>I don't suppose you can offer an alternative explanation for the slow drip-feed of support?

At least 3.

  1. You can't send equipment without training. There's no point in sending NATO equipment if they are used to Russian.

  2. The more equipment Ukraine has, the more could technically be stolen by Russians. And you don't want that.

  3. Own interests and there are quite a few. Like every country's own defense, money for replacement, caution to prevent escalation, secrets to not make military strategies too obvious.

>I'm not seeing any absurdity to comment on, sorry. What do you mean?

Oh please, you know exactly how you worded it and I already explained in the comment above.

>Didn't say anything about who's doing the killing - that's not really disputable...

Reread what you wrote. You sure there's zero blame in it? "Drip feeding"means neglected, for example. "At the cost of Ukraine life" so who is at fault if you bring it up? Subliminal message in my eyes.

3

bombmk t1_j6kawrp wrote

Political pussyfooting.
There is SOME logic to stepping it up slowly to avoid giving Putin a single big issue to use as grounds for a truly horrible decision. Slow boiling the nuclear/biological weapons issue basically.

They have in my opinion just been WAY too careful. Which is politically safe as long as it is not their citizens dying.

2

ASD_Detector_Array t1_j6m9unp wrote

Yeah that's a good point. I like the slow boil analogy around the nuclear issue.

I still think that the wearing down of an adversary can't easily be discounted as a motive.

1

bombmk t1_j6mco0c wrote

Sure, that argument does not disprove that there are other motives.

But I have yet to see someone make a convincing argument supporting the idea that Russia losing slowly is more effective than them losing fast. A retreat would be a political nightmare for Putin.

2