"Ukraine war why are we bothering about bit part players?" Topic

Lets face it its becoming emberassing. Putin is a bit part players, without China and its solvent mate North Korea the war would be over.

On our side why are we over bothered by what the US think. The US are not providing any where neat as much stuff to Ukraine then Europe and the rest of the world a bit part player. Putin pretends he is running asn the US which has lacked backbone in this war also pretends they are running it even though they are just a contributor, by no means a big player.

Is it not time Europe took its rightful lead and talked to China to get this stopped.

By all means- please do, your idea has my enthusiastic support.

Current POTUS is rushing to send over the stuff he can that is already appropriated and approved, before the POTUS-elect takes over.
POTUS-elect has vowed he can "settle this in 24 hours". 🙄
He thinks Putin is his friend, but it's a very one-sided bromance, as he will find.

Current POTUS has been operating on the time honored American tradition of "give them enough to keep them fighting, but God Forbid, never enough to actually win."

There are some problems with your way of thinking UshCha.

Technology is one thing. Sweden have pledged quite a lot of gear but the US has forbidden the transfer as the aircraft contains US tech.

Same with the Gripen fighters, also blocked by the US.

Until Europe has ramped up its weapons manufacturing with only European tech it will be a big problem.

Second problem is that Europe has run out of gear to give away. Europe disarmed and destroyed all that it disarmed. There just is not that much left to give…

The US have thousand of tanks in storage. So like it or not US is the only one capable of giving help NOW. And NOW is what matters not what can be given in tre or four years.

Face it, Europe goofed big time three decades ago when the Soviet Union collapsed. Europe decided that there would never again be a war and gutted its armed forces and decided to parasite off the US. Now we have to pay for that delusion.

Until Europe gets its together US will be a key player and Europe will not.

And there's the thing too, with the schizophrenic attitude that current POTUS has. HE has been freezing out Europe from contributing more because…. Why exactly?
Yet he's unfreezing American products before future POTUS takes over.
If his intent is to lock out future POTUS, why not go all the way? If Britain, France, Sweden and Germany are capable of standing up to Putin and braving his nuclear bravado, let them.
Hell, his nukes probably don't work anyway. 🙄
Let it be THEIR choice, instead of delaying with "measured response" cockamamie excuses.
It's Europe's war. "Allow" Europe to win it.

UshCha this is the adult conversation if you care to join…

TMP link

The second Youtube video I linked to was made by a European grounded in reality…

HE has been freezing out Europe from contributing more because…. Why exactly?

Might be concern that (1) Russia might capture the technology if Ukraine falls, and (2) Russian agents might get the tech in Ukraine through their traitors/spies.

On our side why are we over bothered by what the US think.

Well the USA is still the biggest meanest Dog of War in NATO.

Everybody in the world likes US aid and assistance.

the US which has lacked backbone in this war also pretends they are running it even though they are just a contributor,

Well again the USA's failings in this conflict are based on the risk adverse and fear of escalation elected and appointed leaders in the WH/DC. This serious leadership void will soon be corrected.

Even though you say the US is just a contributor to this war. My question is could NATO do it any better without the USA. Of course, NATO, etc. is sending a lot of support for Ukraine. But Again could NATO support Ukraine on their own?

The current US leadership has been dragging its feet with support for Ukraine. With better leadership in the WH/DC Ukraine would have got more of what they need and much sooner. The capabilities of the US leadership in the WH/DC have a lot of blood on their hands

Bill I believe those reasons you mentioned are at the top of the list. No need to show our hand sooner than we have to. Even if the Russian Military has demonstrated that they are marginal at best.

Saying the US is a bit player and just a contributor is woefully misleading. Before the war even started US special forces were on the ground advising the Ukrainian general staff. I saw a rumor a while back that it was a US planned operation when the small Ukrainians SOF contingent brought the column moving toward Kyiv to a halt.

The US provided the AI assisted battle management system and helps the Ukrainians operate it. This has very much been a US managed war. I honestly believe the reasons the Russians haven't tried to wipe out the Ukrainian general staff is because they know they'll kill Americans if they do.

Look at what the Ukrainians have hit with some of their long range weapons in the last year. Early warning radars (for detecting incoming nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and long range bombers), bombers, naval bases. That destruction benefits the US and NATO. I would argue crippling the Russian army's logistics makes more sense for the Ukrainians.

Perhaps if NATO spent the 2% GNP they were advised by a former US president to spend, they could operate on their own without US help.

Disarming after the Cold War ended by both Europe and the US was a bad idea and I said so at the time.

China is just helping Russia to stay in the war so that Russia will weaken themselves enough that China can have Siberia.

As John the OFM says, just enough to keep the war going, not enough to win.

Perhaps the new president will give Mr. Putin a choice between withdrawal and ending the war, or massive US aid and ending the war militarily?

We don't know what will happen and that works to the advantage of the West.

Bunkermeister

A bit of history and backstory that may help with understanding the war:

link

I was in DoD when the Baltics joined, and I argued against it at the time on the grounds that they added commitment without a commensurate expansion of capabilities. We lost; there was simply too much political clout behind it (and that administration was desperate for any Europeans who would support it).

Ironic that Kennan began and ended his career as a voice in the wilderness, but true.

Nine Pound I agree. I'd argue the same for most of Central Europe and even some of Western Europe.

Subject: Adm. Sam Paparo warns Ukraine aid depleting U.S. missile stocks – Washington Times


link

There's no shortage of people on this site, who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about, who want to keep this war going. The unreadiness of our front line allies and the very real shortages of equipment and ammunition – to say nothing of the ridiculously disproportionate imbalance between the risk and the possible gain- all militate very strongly against it.

No shortage of imbeciles?
An American tradition.

Nine pound round +1

Rational analysis dictates we wind this war down before a nightmare scenario. Imbeciles indeed…we protect Europe with little in return. Not a fan of Trump but he is right about the pathetic European defense commitment…

Yup. Time to run down our US weapons, far too many strings to there use. Proably why the Typhoon has had great sales recently. We will be beholden for the US for some years but there defence industry will begin to fail at the top end. They are not reliable enough to be a European supplier long term.

Nine pound round – Spoken like a true isolationist. Not your war, too far away for you to be bothered.

Does the West have a moral obligation to the people of Ukraine? They have paid a huge price for destroying much of Putin's conventional military. This has been to US advantage as well as Europe. Or does that not matter in the harsh reality of world conflict?

Smithsco +1. It sure looks like the Ukrainians had help targeting Russian naval units. Can someone who knows the first thing they are talking about speculate further? If the US tech and intel resources are substantial, pulling them out might be the end for Ukraine in fighting ability, yes?

UshCha is incapable of engaging in European self reflection and how years of military neglect contributed to this problem. If Europe had maintained a military, production lines and stockpiles a munitions this would not be a problem. It is so much easier to blame the USA and not take responsibility like an adult. Just another European having a tantrum… Guys like you fuel my desire for isolationism!

"Time to run down our US weapons"-UshCha

Yes and then you can develop your own home grown defense industries, spend your GDP to develop them when the UK is already slashing military capability to pay for health care and education. I predict Europe will buy more from the USA actually. Just another UshCha fantasy…

Without NATO's help, there would have been no Ukraine, at least in the form it became after the 2014 coup, long ago. Without your space satellites, communications systems, weapons, mercenaries. So this is definitely your war.
And this war will end simply because Ukraine will run out of combat-ready people. Or those who want to live will kill Zelensky and his tame Nazis.

By the way, your equipment is used by the Russians.
"Leopard":

link

Another "Bradley":

vk.com/video-58315650_456249969

Ukrainians are fleeing Zelensky's regime not only to Europe, but also to territories occupied by Russia:

link

Europe will definitely buy more American weapons. We actually invest in our defense…we might not have national healthcare but we can defend ourselves without the help of a proverbial little brother.

NATO's commitment to the US is often ridiculously low. When we were attacked on 9/11 NATO countries provided pretty minimal assistance in Afghanistan (outside Britain of course…I don't usually lump them in with the rest of Europe but the current PM might change that). Now American voters want to focus on our domestic issues, not a war without a NATO member involved and we are the bad guys. As I said…not a Trump guy but he was absolutely spot on about the European NATO members.

My thanks to all of you who tried so hard to prove my point in the posts that followed it. You succeeded!

we might not have national healthcare but we can defend ourselves

What is up with this obsessive conflation of two different things?

Pre 1948 Britain had a dreadfully unhealthy population caused by anyone without the means having poor housing, no access to adequate nutrition, nor qualified medical care (they used superstition, ignorance, apothecaries, chemists, or pharmacies).

Afterwards – the returning war-heros voted for social welfare and healthcare – and got their houses, doctors and nurses, education, pensions, etc.

Please note, that despite having universal health-care, the UK still outspends most other countries on defence provision (as percentage of GDP).

---

Please stop conflating defence spending with healthcare.

🤔 nope, can't see any possibilities of this going awry. (Paragraph 2)🙄

"So U.S. and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire.

Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications."

Subject: Trump's Vow to End the War Could Leave Ukraine With Few Options – The New York Times


link

I wish the US was a bit player. Meanwhile, Canada say they will be up to 2% gpd on defense by 2035.

Let interested European nations supply, finance and (if desired) fight this fratricidal European war. Thank you UshCha for asking us to leave your party.

Please stop conflating defence spending with healthcare.

Though interestingly the early roots of the UKs universal health care arise from the poor quality of potential recruits for the Boar War.

There is also more than a touch of 20:20 hindsight going around, not mention people saying that Russia only became a threat because of NATO expansion…

Correct me if I am wrong.

If let us say, Estonia, decided to throw their force(s) into the Ukraine and Russia responded by attacking Estonia, NATO clauses would not go into effect, because Estonia launched offensive actions. NATO is a "defensive" alliance only.

So if true, then the Baltic states, Poland… could send their forces into the war and we in the US would not be obligated to be involved or respond.

At that point Russia could do what they please to those countries. Am I incorrect about NATO.

I would not advice doing it if I were them, but trying to make sure we would than have no obligations.

I hate peace time Alliances.

I believe you are correct. It is a defensive treaty. If Poland attacked Russia or sent troops to fight in Ukraine it would not trigger a response by NATO if Russia then attacked Poland. By what we have seen of Russia's military I would think Poland kick Russia's butt.

Yes IIRC, if a NATO members attack another country on their own the rest of NATO does not have to get involved. It is a defensive alliance. However, on 9/11 when the US was attacked NATO did get involved. Not just because we are allies. But Europe was having problems with islamic terrorists too.

There's no shortage of people on this site, who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about

Can we have list … ? I don't want to mislabel any one … 🤩

I'm on that list half the time. The rest of the time, I'm pretty gosh darned brilliant. 👍

Let's suppose that Greece attacks Turkey. Or more likely Turkey attacks Greece. Both are NATO members. NATO has no obligations there, other than to send a strongly worded letter to ….. whoever.
Or, if they really want to be useless, take it to the UN. That'll show them.

But, yes. NATO is a defensive alliance.

Oh right thanks all.

So, if those in Europe are that Gung Ho on keeping the conflict going, transport your forces to the Ukraine and take part.

We "useless" Americans won't have to support you, nor have any obligations if you are attacked at home. You will be happy. No U.S. hanging over your shoulders telling you what you can and can't do. The war will continue. Sounds like a win win. 👍

Again, I wouldn't if I were you, but just ignore me. After all, I am from the US. 😉

"Please stop conflating defence spending with healthcare."-Stoppage

link

British Defense Minister John Healey clearly states the need. Why should I stop?

The UK can play a shell game with their finances and spin the narrative they want. It's like claiming you don't have money to put fuel in your car but you have a budget for cigarettes.

They obligingly stepped forward to identify themselves, Legion- as they so often do.

It is gratifying to see how much more NATO-skeptic this board has become since last March. The problem of alliance burden sharing was significant enough that DoD reported annually on it to Congress a good twenty years ago, until the requirement fell victim to an internal Pentagon intrigue. The problems were not much different in those days: underspending, disinvestment, and capabilities erosion. The fact that they have persisted across twenty years and a major war is a sure sign they're not likely to be addressed without some more radical action on our part.

And of course, perhaps because the Europeans know they need our help, the declaration that they don't always comes with a nice helping of condescension, topped off with an insult or two.

The moral of the story is never give up your nukes.

Old Contemptible +1 If Ukraoine had still had nukes it would never have had this issue.

She would have sold it to someone long ago, as she sold many other weapons – for example, to China))). Remember? Ukraine sold them an unfinished Soviet heavy aircraft cruiser – now it is the first Chinese aircraft carrier "Liaoning". Sold a finished prototype and all the documentation for the Su-33 naval fighter. Now the Shenyang J-15 was created on its basis. Sold the documentation for the production of the Soviet model of the Zubr hovercraft and helped to establish the production of these ships in China. They sold tank and aircraft engines to the Chinese, as well as some of the technologies for their production. Based on this documentation and samples, China now produces its own WS-17 aircraft engine. They even wanted to sell the entire Motor Sich plant to the Chinese, but the United States blocked the deal.
According to unconfirmed information, in 2015 they sold China the technology for the production of the "Kopyo" land-based missile system, on the basis of which the Chinese created their DF-41.
I wish you further successful cooperation))) Give them more of your technology ;-)

Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe:

link

I am not impressed by these purchases by China based on what I have read of the history of the ship and the performance of the aircraft. While both are finally operational after huge and very lengthy redesign and overhaul, they have limited deployment capabilities due to the out of date Russian deck configuration as I understand it. No match for the US. The comical story of the sale and transfer of this old Soviet relic involves some adventures. I believe it took 2 years to tow it to China.

Corrupt Ukrainian officials steal from their own army:

link

link

link

link

We can go on forever… How many high-ranking Ukrainian officials were punished? Oh yes – Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny, who openly said this, was removed from office… You chose the wrong democracy to protect))) These followers of Western values will buy and sell you)))

As for the technologies that China received from Ukraine, they will deepen and develop them. And they will turn it against you.

Which they are doing, but not as fast with old Russian naval plans.

No, they are not interested in Russia. They are interested in Southeast Asia. They do not need resources, they need markets))) The West needs both.

The fact that this war is ruining Europe is manna from heaven for the Chinese. Minus one more competitor. And for the US too. Another "good war". With such "allies" no enemies are needed))) But the British and the Chinese seem to be in passionate love right now – they are very much not averse to weakening the US…
Serpentarium)))

@dragon

Good article. Following a lifetime of reasonable health I've spent the last 18 months in and out of hospital. Slow but free to me. In the US I'd probably have had to re-mortgage the house to pay the medical bills.

No doubt UK MOD needs a good clean-out Augean Stable-style Wiki – Augeas

---

I wonder what "retired from service" really means? Hopefully we'll dispose of the amphibious assault ships, puma and chinook helicopters correctly.

However – back in 1981 the only keen purchasers of amphibious assault craft at the time were the Argentines, no-one had any idea why.

(They invaded the South Georgia and the Faulkland Islands the following year.)

Didn't the US guarantee the Ukrainian borders ?

The US has far more responsibility to protect Ukraine than most of the European countries, NATO has nothing to do with it.

Sort of a technicality at this point. It looks like the guarantee expired. It doesn't look like the US will be the ones to call next time. Nine Pound is right about what was really happening. Many thought NATO could help enough to defeat Putin. As the leading imbecile here, I stand corrected.

But, Putin's army is battered, China has its own issues, and North Korea is not exactly a world class power. Hopefully there is time for every one to procrastinate as usual after Putin gets Ukraine.

These are interesting, if you are open to reading alternative information.

I do believe Gorbachev was implicitly promised NATO would not expand eastward. As I believe Russia promised no incursion if the Ukraine gave up their nukes.

Most were added under Clinton, GW Bush, Obama and Biden.

One I believe under Trump, Montenegro.

I still see no advantage to the US for these advances. For Europe, I guess it supplies a buffer for Western Europe. But of course, it places NATO into war as soon as Russia crosses a border.

I would think a country would want options, as we currently have in the Ukraine. Not mandatory commitments (WW1 and WW2). But maybe it's been too long for Europe and Russia and Lemmings have to clear out the overcrowding every so often. 🙄

Please.. enlighten me as to the advantages of adding counties like Estonia and others to NATO? List the advantages as opposed to disadvantages please. I see only disadvantages.

I do so hate "peace time" alliances.

Subject: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

link

Subject: Citizen Free Press on X: "Jeff Sachs explains what you don't know about how the U.S. and NATO provoked Russia into going to war with Ukraine. This is one of the best videos on X, share it. t.co/17bXXFm2V6 / X

link

I still see no advantage to the US for these advances. For Europe, I guess it supplies a buffer for Western Europe. But of course, it places NATO into war as soon as Russia crosses a border.

And interestingly, Russia wanted to join NATO in 2000 -- and NATO said no. Seems if your enemy wants to join your alliance that might be called victory -- but, Bill Clinton and NATO rejected the idea…

I'd say it probably a little higher. I know it is, based on those I've heard talk about it.

Subject: 51% of Americans oppose military aid for Ukraine, poll shows


link