Can we continue to arm Ukraine if the war becomes protracted ,and still adequately supply our armed forces ?

The question was asked of Navy Sec Carols Del Toro last month.

Quote:

---

The secretary was asked to respond to comments made at the conference by Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Caudle, the reporter said, worried that “the Navy might get to the point where it has to make the decision whether it needs to arm itself or arm Ukraine, and has the Navy gotten to that point yet?”
Del Toro replied, “With regards to deliveries of weapons systems for the fight in Ukraine…Yeah, that's always a concern for us. And we monitor that very, very closely. I wouldn't say we're quite there yet, but if the conflict does go on for another six months, for another year, it certainly continues to stress the supply chain in ways that are challenging.”

---

Navy Secretary Warns: If Defense Industry Can’t Boost Production, Arming Both Ukraine and the US May Become ‘Challenging’ - Defense One

There is currently a massive backlog in arms sales to Taiwan because systems have been diverted to Ukraine. That is weapons that Taiwan has already paid for . And as I noted ,the threat matrix of a Chinese invasion grows daily .

WWIII “My gut tells me we will fight in 2025.” (askmehelpdesk.com)

5200 rounds of Excaliber rounds sent to Ukraine will take 7 years to replace at the recent production rate .Even an accelerated rate would take 4 years . We have been sending Ukraine 1,000 shells a month . The annual production rate of the shell is 1,000 rounds .

We have already sent any Javelin anti-tank missile available to Ukraine that we could spare without risking our needs . The Ukrainians have used them to great effect . But they are running out and we cannot supply them at the rate of usage. Again only 1,000 a year are produced . It would take more than 12 years to replace the inventory we have shipped to Ukraine .
We are taking the weapons we have stock piled in South Korea and Israel to send to Ukraine .

We have treaties and commitments for the defense of South Korea ,and Taiwan. We no such one for Ukraine . What will happen if /when to Pacific Rim lights up ?

It's one level of dumb for us to print/borrow money to take care of our needs, but it's even worse when we do that in order to send munitions to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Can we continue to arm Ukraine if the war becomes protracted ,and still adequately supply our armed forces ?

---

We should support any country that is invaded by a terrorist nation trying to expand its borders such as Russia through seizing another country's sovereign territory. The great example is WW2.

the answer is no; we cannot both supply Ukraine and adequately supply our armed forces without going into war footing and mobilizing the arsenal of democracy again .Nor will the war party fund such a massive increase in spending ;and pay for it .

Quote:

---

support any country that is invaded by a terrorist nation

---

below is a map of the wars currently in the world . How many of them should we supply weapons to ? Why ?Ukraine above the rest ? Because it is a European nation ? There are at least 35 armed conflicts in Africa alone . Many of them have Western interventions ;some are even on the right side of the conflicts .

How about Asia ? Which country in the Azerbaijan v Armenia side should we arm ?



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._world.svg.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the answer is no;

---

We should support any situation as I noted above. The UN was founded for that very reason. NATO was founded specifically to contain an expansionist Russia. As far as Ukraine, this is not the time to back down. Beef up production of weaponry.

The UN and NATO are not perfect. Work on making them effective.

sorry . even the weapons systoms like the Abrams tanks that we promised will miss the anticipated offensive by at least a half year . And tanks are expensive cannon fodder as the Ukrainians have demonstrated effectively with their Javelin use against Russian tanks .

This is what is going to happen. When Ukraine is defeated ;and a whole generation of Ukrainians are slaughtered the west will tisk tisk ;shake their heads and say 'well at least we tried '.

Then our EU allies will scramble to renew their economic relationships with Russia and will show as much effort to rebuilding Ukraine as they are showing sending aid to our NATO ally Turkey after the Earthquake .

Quote:

---

The UN and NATO are not perfect. Work on making them effective.

---

Good question where is the UN on Ukraine ? diddly squat except for collecting donations . They will be distrubuted in UNs typical non-transparent ways .

As for NATO . You ask about aggression . Who was NATO protecting when they bombed the Capitol city of Belgrade and plunged much of Serbia into darkness targeting the nations infrastructure ?... When they carved out a separate nation in Yugoslavia that they want to join NATO ? The pretext was to protect human rights . The real goal was the eastern expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia.

The production rates for the M-1 are not encouraging if we plan on just giving them away like cookies at a birthday party. Interesting that as the Biden admin is planning drastic cuts to tank production, they are also wanting to ship some of them overseas.

Quote:

---

The Army plans to produce 22 tanks in FY23, 80 fewer than previously planned; 30 in FY24, 71 fewer than planned, and 53 in FY25, 60 fewer vehicles. This equates to roughly a half a Brigade Combat Team a year. In FY26, the Army would build 42, followed by 40 in FY27.

---

https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...ress-funds-it/

At what cost do we support Ukraine ? And I am not talking $$$ . To guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty may require the deployment of NATO forces .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

At what cost do we support Ukraine ? And I am not talking $$$ . To guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty may require the deployment of NATO forces .

---

As long as Ukraine resists, we should continue to support them as we have been doing with weapons, diplomatic support, and pressure on Putin with sanctions.

Signalling to Putin if or when our support will end is out of the question. Putin knows the minute he attacks NATO, his criminal regime will be obliterated from the planet. So I believe he may go to the edge but not over it.

For the time being, it's a wait-and-see situation.

I wonder how long popular support for sending weapons to Ukraine would last if the feds instituted a tax increase to fund it? For that matter, how much support would the dems have had for their infrastructure bill if they had done the honest thing and increased taxes to pay for it?

It's always easy to support issues that cost me nothing.

Quote:

---

For the time being, it's a wait-and-see situation.

---

Not anymore. The Pentagon wants to send Special Operations troops into Ukraine.
Pentagon pressing Congress to restart programs monitoring Russian movements in Ukraine: report | The Hill

The program they seek to restart (it was suspended in the days before the Russian advance into Ukraine) has Americans on the ground . The Pentagon insists that Americans would only have non-combat roles .They would still be on the ground in Ukraine assisting Ukraine troops . (think US military advisors in Vietnam ;the first names on the Vietnam Wall are Dale Buis and Chester Ovnand . Both were advisors sent by Eisenhower By 1963 American 'advisors' exceeded 10,000 troops ).

Also the US is actively assisting Ukraine in targeting .

U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals, Officials Say - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Some of our assistance has led to Russian Generals being killed .

Yesterday the US warned citizens to leave Russia "immediately " .

These are all escalations that are not being aired sufficiently to the American public by the Administration and their cohorts in the compliant press . We are severely depleting our own defense arsenal. Which again is hardly mentioned in the sensored news.



Whatever it takes is not a plan. How's this . Since we have the leverage ,force Ukraine to take part in peace negotiations to end the war .

2014-2015 Minsk agreements was signed by Russia ,Ukraine ,and the commanders of the rebels in the ethnic Russian oblast region.
The agreements called for semi-autonomy in the region and decentralization of power..., including through the adoption of the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".

Instead what happened was a brutal war on the region especially by Ukraine surrogates of the Azov militia(a unit backed by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs) The US was training them also according to various news reports from 2015 ,under the program that the Pentagon wants to reinstate

Quote:

---

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Sgt. Ivan Kharkiv of the Azov battalion talks about his battalion’s experience with U.S. trainers and U.S. volunteers quite fondly, even mentioning U.S. volunteers engineers and medics that are still currently assisting them.

---

Is America Training Neonazis in Ukraine? (thedailybeast.com)

Bottom line is that the Minsk model is a good starting point for a negotiated peace .

But Zelinsky admitted this week that he never had an intention to implement the Minsk agreements ,and that he was behind the derailing of the best chance for peace in Ukraine. He said he used the process as a stalling tactic while he prepared for war .

Ukraine's Zelensky admits he sabotaged Minsk peace deal with Russia, West blocked negotiations - Geopolitical Economy Report

Instead of peace talk there is talk of more and more sophisticated lethal weapon systems to be delivered to Ukraine including top of the line fighter jets . This is a fight to the last Ukrainian .

Perhaps this is not so much about helping Ukraine as it's about weakening and even embarrassing Russia. If that is the goal, then it's certainly working, but at what cost?

Quote:

---

Perhaps this is not so much about helping Ukraine as it's about weakening and even embarrassing Russia. If that is the goal, then it's certainly working, but at what cost?

---

Yes it is weakening Russia . More than 4 million have fled the country since the war began ;especially after the mobilization announcement . The Compost calls it an historic exodus .
Russians abandon wartime Russia in historic exodus - The Washington Post

It is historic . After the 1918 revolution some 2 million fled.

The people in Moscow are not really feeling the effects of the various sanctions . Most of the mobilization occurred on the borderlands of the country .
There may be an underground anti-war movement . But so far it has been suppressed . Russia has found new markets for it's export products .
Why sanctions against Russia aren't working — yet : Planet Money : NPR

It is shifting from a Euro centered economy to an Asia one . India is completely bypassing sanctions in purchases of Russian oil at discount prices .They then sell it at market prices. There is little the US can do about it because we need India in our coalition against China.
Ukraine crisis: Who is buying Russian oil and gas? - BBC News

The bottom line is that foreign relations is a delicate balancing act in which compromises are routinely made and very little is reliably predictable. I'm not sure how much we can do to ease the suffering of the Ukrainian people who, as usual, are the ones suffering the most. Even if the Ukes "win", they will be, at best, a corrupt democracy.

Ukraine has no real democratic roots .In a 600 year period it was an "independent" nation briefly in the 1920s as a Soviet Satellite state .It has been a free independent state only since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The territory that is now Ukraine was cobbled together by Russian Czars
Alexey and Catherine the Great . Alexy got the "wild fields " from Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnitsky who wanted merging with Russia because he was afraid of annihilation by Poland in 1654 .

Catherine the great annexed Western Ukraine territory and renamed it Malorossiya .She also conquered the areas mostly in contention and called it Novorossiya or New Russia .
She then fought a very bloody war with the Ottomans and annexed Crimea.
Fast forward to 1919 . Lenin consolidated the territory into the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic. Stalin added some territory in western Ukraine . By the 1950s Ukraine had the 2nd largest land mass in Europe next to Russia. In a strategic blunder1954, Nikita Khrushchev, transferred Crimea from the Russian Federation to Ukraine. At the time Ukraine was part of the larger Soviet Union so the transfer was seen as symbolic.

Modern Ukaine is a patch work of territory cobbled by Russia and paid for by Russia blood and treasure . The Russians see it as a vital barrier against western European invasion .Russia defended the territory of Ukraine from western European invasion 3 times costing them millions of lost lives .

Napolean's 1812 invasion .

An alliance of the Ottoman empire England and France invaded Russia via the Black Sea into Crimea .

And Hitler's invasion of Russia .In all 3 cases the avenue of invasion was through Ukraine.

And now NATO "for defensive reasons" have pushed it's border to Ukraine.

If NATO succeeds in making Ukraine a member state then Russia will have a hostile 1426 mile border with NATO.

That is a red line. Western leaders made it more than clear that the war cannot end without total victory and the elimination of Putin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ukraine has no real democratic roots

---

Are you opposed to nations, new or old, forming democratic roots? Would you prefer it be rooted in authoritarianism?

Quote:

---

In a 600 year period it was an "independent" nation briefly in the 1920s as a Soviet Satellite state .It has been a free independent state only since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

---

Thanks for the history lesson, but I hope there's a point in our future.

Quote:

---

The territory that is now Ukraine was cobbled together by Russian Czars lexey and Catherine the Great

---

The territory that is now the United States was cobbled together by colonists from England, Spain, France, the Netherlands and a handful of other nations.

Quote:

---

Catherine the great annexed Western Ukraine territory and renamed it Malorossiya .She also conquered the areas mostly in contention and called it Novorossiya or New Russia

---

The United States annexed by treaty or conquest most of its current territory from Mexico, England, France, and hundreds of Native American tribes which had been here for thousands of years.

Quote:

---

She then fought a very bloody war with the Ottomans and annexed Crimea.

---

The United States fought a bloody war with Mexico and annexed most of the Southwest.

Quote:

---

Fast forward to 1919 (and later).

---

Fast forward from 1898 to the present. The United States annexed the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Cuba was semi-annexed. The United States voted for the addition of the far distant territories of Alaska and Hawaii to achieve US statehood.

Quote:

---

Modern Ukaine is a patch work of territory cobbled by Russia and paid for by Russia blood and treasure

---

The United States is far more of a patchwork cobbled together by "Americans" and paid for by American blood and treasure. The patchwork cobbled together consisted of several territories owned by European nations and tribal lands inhabited by Native American tribes.

Quote:

---

The Russians see it as a vital barrier against western European invasion

---

Wanting a buffer state on your border is not an acceptable reason to invade that state.

Quote:

---

Russia defended the territory of Ukraine from western European invasion 3 times costing them millions of lost lives.

Napoleon's invasion of 1812.

An alliance of the Ottoman empire England and France invaded Russia via the Black Sea into Crimea .

And Hitler's invasion of Russia .In all 3 cases the avenue of invasion was through Ukraine.

---

None of these are an excuse to invade Ukraine on false pretenses as Putin has done. Even Putin is not stupid enough to cite any of these as a casus belli.

Quote:

---

If NATO succeeds in making Ukraine a member state then Russia will have a hostile 1426 mile border with NATO.

---

There is a simple solution to this. Putin withdraws from the Ukraine. He can use any face-saving reason he wants for home consumption. The 1426 mile border with NATO is hostile only if Putin makes it so.

Quote:

---

Western leaders made it more than clear that the war cannot end without total victory and the elimination of Putin.

---

No, Western leaders are demanding Putin withdraw from Ukraine. That's all. Anything beyond that is not Western strategy. If Zelensky demands more from Putin, it's up to Zelensky to get it.


Your post and my reply will, I hope, shed some light on the situation from both sides (yours and mine). To put it crassly, the loser in Ukraine will be the first guy that blinks.

Putin knows he's got the world against him, and I believe he wants out but he might not be able to do that without losing any remaining prestige he has, and therefore his position as Russian leader. In my opinion, that will not be enough for Putin to start WW3.

Quote:

---

The 1426 mile border with NATO is hostile only if Putin makes it so.

---

and Russia should believe this why ?

Because when Russia was at it's weakest NATO attacked Serbia and carved out another nation from it ?
Because the west convinced Ghaddafi to disarm right before they sent troops in to overthrow and assassinate him ? Because the US armed jihadists against Russia in Afghanistan ?

The US almost went to WWIII against the Soviet Union because they were putting nuclear weapons on an island 90 miles away from us. Imagine Russia or Chinas having a military presence on the US Mexico border . That is the equivalent threat . Imagine the US hearing Xi say 'well Chinese troops on your border is only a threat if you make it so.'

Quid pro Joe will travel to Poland on Feb 20-22 on the anniversary of the war . He will meet with the 'Bucharest Nine' ;the NATO nations on jt's eastern flank ,to give them marching orders. NATO’s forward presence includes multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. They have also sent more ships, planes and troops to NATO’s eastern flank, from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south.

This would include Romania where the elite 101st Airborne is now deployed ;AWAC planes ,and the US navy is stationed at Deveselu Military Base,on the Black Sea .

Quote:

---

Western leaders made it more than clear that the war cannot end without total victory and the elimination of Putin.


No, Western leaders are demanding Putin withdraw from Ukraine.

---

Last time he was in Poland he shouted out his support for the ousting of Putin ,

The US ruling elite saw a threat when Trump suggested that the US should pull back from our international engagements and that European NATO members should have more skin in the game. This threatened US dominance and that was unacceptable to them. What better way to rekindle the status quo Cold War revival than a war against the boogie man Russia ? The outcome in Ukraine is secondary to that goal . Ukraine may be won or lost . But a revitalized NATO with a real enemy deadly evil foe will go on . This is a tale as old as Manichean good vs evil .The Ukrainians call Russian soldiers Orks in reference to the 'Lord of the Rings' good vs evil tale.

Quote:

---

Putin knows he's got the world against him,

---

Tell that to India and China;nations in Africa ;the BRICS .Iran .Egypt ...even our NATO ally Turkey is on the fence. BTW great job of US and NATO coming to the aid of Turkey after an earth quake that has already claimed the lives of 35,000 Turks .

It is just as easy to argue that the world is pulling away from the American hegemon. Have you seen what happened in the Solomon Islands where thousands of American marines died ? The nation ;critical to our policies in the Pacific signed a security pact with China. The pro-Taiwan leader of it's most populated island was ousted this week.Me ;I would argue that the Solomon chain is more vital to American interests than Ukraine .

This war is good for the military industrial complex. It is now incumbent to ramp up production cost be damned . Not only do we need to replace our own depleted arsenal .Our allies will be more dependant on US armament. The Poles are sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine. They will be replaced by M1A Abrams .

Taking out the Nordstom II pipeline is the last act making Europe completely dependent on US energy.

But how good an ally is NATO ? Germany is certainly wobbly .France does what France does. It certainly does not muster the military might it had in the 1960s .Germany has cut it's military by half since the 1970s . Most NATO nations would have difficulty committing 20,000 troops to a conflict . The smaller states are down to a couple thousand. Only the Poles have a force sufficient to what is needed . The rest are completely dependent on US muscle. They contribute nothing significant to the alliance. Militarily they are vassal states decades after they should've moved on to become collectively our equal partner .

We are Rome 3rd century forward desperately holding on to an empire .It will end much sooner because the Roman legions were manned by the dependent states . The US has no such luxury.

Yesterday NATO member Romania detected what may be a balloon.They informed their neighbor Moldova(a nation that has applied to the EU for membership ) ;which quickly shut down it's air space.

There are concerns by Moldova's President Maia Sandu of Russia attempting a coup in the country with the help of saboteurs disguised as anti-government protesters. She based the charge on rumors that Zelinsky spread .

Zelenskyy: Ukraine caught Russian plan to 'destroy' Moldova - ABC News (go.com)


Moldova borders Ukraine and has a pro-Russian breakaway region called Transnistria where 1,500 Russian troops are deployed .

Would NATO come to the defense of Moldova in the event of a coup to reinstall a pro-western leader ?