Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[Marduk]

Well that's because the only nations that tried isolationism were weak ones. It did work for Japan for 200 years though which I should remind you is a very good time something lasting centuries is very good.

And it's a lesson for why it doesn't work for long even in extremely good circumstances, meanwhile no one now is a feudal island nation in east Asia in age of sail.

Umm I said it below.

Isolationists only care about their own nation, they don't see benefit engaging with Europe of Asia, but they do see rightly or wrongly that securing South America is bennefical.

What makes South America so special in the eyes of those hypothetical isolationists? Why not Europe, or East Asia? Economically, in the as-is world as opposed to 1850's, it would make more sense, as USA is more economically tied to those.

All nuclear powers don't want nuclear proliferation because nuclear powers are also conventional powerhouses. Nuclear weapons are expensive not every nation can make them but if they could that would make invasions impossible.

Not just nuclear powers, ask all the non-nuclear powers if they want all the third world shitholes to have nukes. Nuclear weapons are not that expensive, as shown by shitholes like NK and Pakistan having them. The delivery and support structure are expensive, and the former are to some degree dual use with conventional weapons. Note how in reality even the poorerst nuclear powers as abovementioned still maintain massive conventional armies.
The observation, as opposed to smartass theories, show that countries go nuclear when conventional armies are not enough, rather than as replacement for them.

I will watch the video later.

Also naval blockades can be fought with nukes.

How do you nuke a blockade? You still have to have the same anti ship missiles and systems to use them, and still have to hit relatively close in terms of naval warfare to hurt a ship.

Any aggressive action will recieve a full nuclear response.

My point exactly. How do you solve, say, the Donbass\Crimea shenanigans with nukes? Do you nuke yourself?
Falklands?
It only gets worse when the other side is also a nuclear power.

What good is your army and soldiers if any large concentration of them burns in hell and their famillies in the city burn with them. If you had a choice for Poland would you rather have nukes with the same capability as the US arsenal, OR would you rather Poland have the same conventional army as the United States? The nukes are more useful for you to ensure your eternal security a conventional army is more useful for enforcing demands and creating an empire/sphere of influence.

Nukes are only a deterrent against open invasion or nuclear strike, and even then it gets iffy against other nuclear powers and in certain political or geographical circumstances.
Did nukes help Russia keep Chechnya?
Did nukes help UK keep Falklands?
Did India retake Kargil with nukes?

 

[Captain X]

Well that's because the only nations that tried isolationism were weak ones. It did work for Japan for 200 years though which I should remind you is a very good time something lasting centuries is very good.

Yeah, how'd that work out in the end? Oh, right, they stagnated and were eventually overtaken technologically by the rest of the world, and it is only thanks to the approach the US took at the time to open them up again that they were given a chance to catch up. They recognized at the time that they could have easily been conquered, which is why they pushed so hard after that to modernize.

 

[King Arts]

And it's a lesson for why it doesn't work for long even in extremely good circumstances, meanwhile no one now is a feudal island nation in east Asia in age of sail.

Thats a silly argument Marduk. You might as well say any government that does not last past 200 or 300 years is a failure, yet that is the average lifespan of a dynasty. Most governments will die off in that time and something new will come by. Nations are just like people they have a life cycle they are young grow up, and die and something replaces them to start it again. Show me a political system that lasted 10,000 years since the dawn of human history?

I mean I can point to Poland it never tried isolationism yet it was still conquered by Germany and Russia does not mean getting involved doesen't work?

What makes South America so special in the eyes of those hypothetical isolationists? Why not Europe, or East Asia? Economically, in the as-is world as opposed to 1850's, it would make more sense, as USA is more economically tied to those.

Same reason stupid Russians are going for the mythical "defensible borders" it makes them feel safe but it's not needed nukes and self sufficiency is all you need.

Not just nuclear powers, ask all the non-nuclear powers if they want all the third world shitholes to have nukes. Nuclear weapons are not that expensive, as shown by shitholes like NK and Pakistan having them. The delivery and support structure are expensive, and the former are to some degree dual use with conventional weapons. Note how in reality even the poorerst nuclear powers as abovementioned still maintain massive conventional armies.
The observation, as opposed to smartass theories, show that countries go nuclear when conventional armies are not enough, rather than as replacement for them.

No nation has tried abolishing it's army and instead relying only on a nuclear deterant. But there are nations that have abolished their army. This proves that you can get rid of a conventional army and the state won't collapse.

How do you nuke a blockade? You still have to have the same anti ship missiles and systems to use them, and still have to hit relatively close in terms of naval warfare to hurt a ship.

Wat?

Umm you would nuke the cities of the nation that is blockading you. A blockade is an act of war, any act of war is then grounds for total war.

My point exactly. How do you solve, say, the Donbass\Crimea shenanigans with nukes? Do you nuke yourself?
Falklands?
It only gets worse when the other side is also a nuclear power.

Nuke yourself? If you are talking about rebels then the solution is to not have people in your nation that don't want to be part of it. Yes a military can be used against the people of a nation at the government's behest. By abolishing the army and relying on solely nukes I'm assuming that mostly everyone in the nation wants to be part of the nation and only police is needed, if there are breakaway regions that want to secede this nation should let them go away.

As for Falklands nukes could have solved that problem.

Nukes are only a deterrent against open invasion or nuclear strike, and even then it gets iffy against other nuclear powers and in certain political or geographical circumstances.
Did nukes help Russia keep Chechnya?
Did nukes help UK keep Falklands?
Did India retake Kargil with nukes?

Chechnya was a breakaway province.

But the UK could have used nukes on Argentina it may have caused international outrage but again it would have worked.

Yeah, how'd that work out in the end? Oh, right, they stagnated and were eventually overtaken technologically by the rest of the world, and it is only thanks to the approach the US took at the time to open them up again that they were given a chance to catch up. They recognized at the time that they could have easily been conquered, which is why they pushed so hard after that to modernize.

It'd worked for hundreds of years tell me how many years has there been a continual policy of something? Contiutiy of government is rare the US is the longest government that is still using the same constitution. Does that mean the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Egypt, etc. are failures because none existed in their current form before 1777?

Also are you saying that the US was justified to use Imperialism to force the Japanese to trade with them? You understand that if the US did not force Japan to abandon isolationism then the crazy stuff that the Imperial Japanese did would not have happened.


Tell me @Captain X and @Marduk let's say there was a coup in Russia and the new government decided to reorganize itself to remove corruption and achieve self sufficiency then it decided to implement total isolationism, they even reduced their army to almost nothing and just kept their nuclear weapons. Would you not be thrilled? They would stop being a problem.

 

[Captain X]

It'd worked for hundreds of years tell me how many years has there been a continual policy of something? Contiutiy of government is rare the US is the longest government that is still using the same constitution. Does that mean the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Egypt, etc. are failures because none existed in their current form before 1777?

Japan's isolationism didn't work because of continuity of government or something like that, it worked because its leaders feared outside influence enough to order the death of any foreigner who stepped on Japanese soil, regardless of the circumstances (i.e. shipwrecked sailors), and the people were so afraid of their own overlords that most of them actually would go and report any foreigners, or at least refuse to have anything to do with them. Also, at the start of their isolation, Japan was militarily strong enough to repel any effort at conquering them. So they got left alone. Eventually, though, even if it hadn't been the US, someone would have gotten curious and might have conquered them anyway.

Also are you saying that the US was justified to use Imperialism to force the Japanese to trade with them? You understand that if the US did not force Japan to abandon isolationism then the crazy stuff that the Imperial Japanese did would not have happened.

If the US was so imperialist, we would have simply conquered them at the time and added them to the empire. The Japanese were already nucking futs by the time we wandered on to the scene, though. That was part of the reason for their isolationism to begin with.

Tell me @Captain X and @Marduk let's say there was a coup in Russia and the new government decided to reorganize itself to remove corruption and achieve self sufficiency then it decided to implement total isolationism, they even reduced their army to almost nothing and just kept their nuclear weapons. Would you not be thrilled? They would stop being a problem.

Cool. Now China takes them over. China then becomes a bigger problem.

 

[King Arts]

Japan's isolationism didn't work because of continuity of government or something like that, it worked because its leaders feared outside influence enough to order the death of any foreigner who stepped on Japanese soil, regardless of the circumstances (i.e. shipwrecked sailors), and the people were so afraid of their own overlords that most of them actually would go and report any foreigners, or at least refuse to have anything to do with them. Also, at the start of their isolation, Japan was militarily strong enough to repel any effort at conquering them. So they got left alone. Eventually, though, even if it hadn't been the US, someone would have gotten curious and might have conquered them anyway.

Who would have conquered them? I mean China had it's own problems and so did Russia. Also the world wars would have still happened which would have destroyed the European empires. Let's say post 1950 who would want to go conquer a feudal nation, or force them to open up and modernize?

If the US was so imperialist, we would have simply conquered them at the time and added them to the empire. The Japanese were already nucking futs by the time we wandered on to the scene, though. That was part of the reason for their isolationism to begin with.

They weren't insane until the early 1930's.

Cool. Now China takes them over. China then becomes a bigger problem.

Tell me how China will take over isolationist Russia after Russia nukes China when the Chinese declare war?

 

[Zachowon]

Who would have conquered them? I mean China had it's own problems and so did Russia. Also the world wars would have still happened which would have destroyed the European empires. Let's say post 1950 who would want to go conquer a feudal nation, or force them to open up and modernize?


They weren't insane until the early 1930's.

Tell me how China will take over isolationist Russia after Russia nukes China when the Chinese declare war?

Russia wouldn't nuke China because it would be nuking its own citizens if it nukes the border.
He'll, why hasn't Russia used nukes in Ukraine when mainland Russia has been attacked countless times?
The populace wouldn't handle it.

And also, a Russia that is pure isolated would basically have nukes that become useless because without trade they can't maintain them.

NATO is defensive as much as Iraq had WMDs.

Explain.

 

[King Arts]

Russia wouldn't nuke China because it would be nuking its own citizens if it nukes the border.
He'll, why hasn't Russia used nukes in Ukraine when mainland Russia has been attacked countless times?
The populace wouldn't handle it.

And also, a Russia that is pure isolated would basically have nukes that become useless because without trade they can't maintain them.

What? The whole point of nukes and MAD is to prevent the end of the government. If China was invading Russia why would they not use nukes if they were about to lose?

As for Ukraine that's completely different Russia could end the war tomorrow by leaving Ukraine, that's diffrent than if China invaded them.

Also what do you mean they couldn't maintain them do they get their uranium or other fissile material outside of Russia?

 

[Zachowon]

What? The whole point of nukes and MAD is to prevent the end of the government. If China was invading Russia why would they not use nukes if they were about to lose?

As for Ukraine that's completely different Russia could end the war tomorrow by leaving Ukraine, that's diffrent than if China invaded them.

Also what do you mean they couldn't maintain them do they get their uranium or other fissile material outside of Russia?

Some of the things they need to keep thier stuff from getting old and wore out is imported.

 

[Marduk]

Thats a silly argument Marduk. You might as well say any government that does not last past 200 or 300 years is a failure, yet that is the average lifespan of a dynasty. Most governments will die off in that time and something new will come by. Nations are just like people they have a life cycle they are young grow up, and die and something replaces them to start it again. Show me a political system that lasted 10,000 years since the dawn of human history?

Except we are talking of a policy, not a dynasty. And a lot of things have changed in terms of how the world works over those specific 200 years. Very relevant ones to the idea of isolationism.

I mean I can point to Poland it never tried isolationism yet it was still conquered by Germany and Russia does not mean getting involved doesen't work?

Could it try and how would it help for not getting conquered? Do we have to play these silly games where we pretend to have no idea how history of international conflicts works and how it utterly sucks for the idea of isolationism?

Same reason stupid Russians are going for the mythical "defensible borders" it makes them feel safe but it's not needed nukes and self sufficiency is all you need.


No nation has tried abolishing it's army and instead relying only on a nuclear deterant.

Every nation with a nuclear arsenal has that option, and they all unanimously agree that it's a retarded idea. That says something.

But there are nations that have abolished their army. This proves that you can get rid of a conventional army and the state won't collapse.

Nations that universally have someone else's army protect them lol.

Wat?

Umm you would nuke the cities of the nation that is blockading you. A blockade is an act of war, any act of war is then grounds for total war.

LMAO. Read up on what "total war" means.

Nuke yourself? If you are talking about rebels then the solution is to not have people in your nation that don't want to be part of it. Yes a military can be used against the people of a nation at the government's behest. By abolishing the army and relying on solely nukes I'm assuming that mostly everyone in the nation wants to be part of the nation and only police is needed, if there are breakaway regions that want to secede this nation should let them go away.

Someone drives unmarked commandos in civilian cars to your capital. What do?

As for Falklands nukes could have solved that problem.


Chechnya was a breakaway province.

But the UK could have used nukes on Argentina it may have caused international outrage but again it would have worked.

It would have worked, but Falklands would still be occupied. Do they nuke Falklands too?

It'd worked for hundreds of years tell me how many years has there been a continual policy of something?

It worked for 200 of years in probably the most perfect storm of circumstances for it, and then it was *forced* to end it rather than choosing it in rather bad circumstances. Not a great advertisement for this policy.

Tell me @Captain X and @Marduk let's say there was a coup in Russia and the new government decided to reorganize itself to remove corruption and achieve self sufficiency then it decided to implement total isolationism, they even reduced their army to almost nothing and just kept their nuclear weapons. Would you not be thrilled? They would stop being a problem.

My point exactly. It's a stupid policy and i would love for all my enemies to lose their minds and practice it. From Russia's perspective, it's like full surrender to West's demands and more, minus the benefits of restoring trade and other relations with the West.

 

[Captain X]

Who would have conquered them? I mean China had it's own problems and so did Russia.

If that's the case, then there's the real reason for the "success" of Japanese isolationism.

Also the world wars would have still happened which would have destroyed the European empires. Let's say post 1950 who would want to go conquer a feudal nation, or force them to open up and modernize?

The Soviet Union.

They weren't insane until the early 1930's.

You obviously aren't all that familiar with the Japanese then. In any case, their isolationism was driven by insanity and their method of enforcing it was also insane.

Tell me how China will take over isolationist Russia after Russia nukes China when the Chinese declare war?

It depends on how much China actually fears Russian nukes actually being successfully deployed, undoubtedly. In any case, they would use the same methods that have always used, which is to do as much as they think they can get away with before triggering such a response.

 

[King Arts]

Except we are talking of a policy, not a dynasty. And a lot of things have changed in terms of how the world works over those specific 200 years. Very relevant ones to the idea of isolationism.

Policies usually last a much shorter time than dynasties or governments. So Sakkoku was very successful for keeping Japan free of Western influence and being colonized.

very nation with a nuclear arsenal has that option, and they all unanimously agree that it's a retarded idea. That says something.

Let's look at the nuclear nations.
USA, UK, France, Russia, China are the biggies on the UN council notice that all of them are Imperial powers that are interested in more than just their own independence they also want to influence other states.

Israel, Pakistan, and India are the other nations that have nukes. While they aren't traditional colonial powers(except maybe Israel though that is debateable) the thing is those nations have borders that are difficult and they want less tools so they don't go to the genocide weapons automatically.

Nations that universally have someone else's army protect them lol.

I was thinking of Costa Rica actually. While if someone invaded them the US would probably get involved yes, but they don't actually have a defense alliance with anyone so they actually don't have someone else's army protecting them like Poland in NATO.

LMAO. Read up on what "total war" means.

Total war is war on everything civillian industries included. A nuclear war is automatically a total war as it would destroy civillian cities.

Someone drives unmarked commandos in civilian cars to your capital. What do?

Someone? Who?

Anyway the police should be able to stop commandos in civillian cars.

It would have worked, but Falklands would still be occupied. Do they nuke Falklands too?

No they don't nuke Falklands but they nuke the capital of Argentina then the UK that has no armed forces warns the remaining forces on the Falklands that unless they leave they will continue to launch nuclear warheads to every city on Argentina to wipe out every single Argentinian except those that exist on the Falklands. I'm pretty sure they won't stay there.

It worked for 200 of years in probably the most perfect storm of circumstances for it, and then it was *forced* to end it rather than choosing it in rather bad circumstances. Not a great advertisement for this policy.

I already addressed this in the first post.

My point exactly. It's a stupid policy and i would love for all my enemies to lose their minds and practice it. From Russia's perspective, it's like full surrender to West's demands and more, minus the benefits of restoring trade and other relations with the West.

So if a future Russian government did this and cut off all trade after making sure they could still service their nukes you would not want to influence or coerce them to open their nation back up? You'd be happy ignoring them for all eternity?

 

[Marduk]

Policies usually last a much shorter time than dynasties or governments. So Sakkoku was very successful for keeping Japan free of Western influence and being colonized.

And then they lost their ability to have a say about it as a result. And then did a 180 once they regained a say. Much success. Apparently those who had it took the conclusion that it doesn't work.

Let's look at the nuclear nations.
USA, UK, France, Russia, China are the biggies on the UN council notice that all of them are Imperial powers that are interested in more than just their own independence they also want to influence other states.

Israel, Pakistan, and India are the other nations that have nukes. While they aren't traditional colonial powers(except maybe Israel though that is debateable) the thing is those nations have borders that are difficult and they want less tools so they don't go to the genocide weapons automatically.

My point exactly. Whether you want to play superpower games or want to prevent others from playing superpower games with you, nukes alone won't do.

I was thinking of Costa Rica actually. While if someone invaded them the US would probably get involved yes, but they don't actually have a defense alliance with anyone so they actually don't have someone else's army protecting them like Poland in NATO.

Tiny country anyway, and yeah, definitely under western power protection. Formal or not, functionally it works the same.

Defense and Public Security Leaders Gather in Costa Rica for Central American Security Con

Regional collaboration opportunities to address 21st century challenges was the theme this year as defense and public-security leaders from the United States and Central America took part in the

www.southcom.mil

Same goes for other tiny countries like Luxemburg - even if they have armed forces, they are way too small to stop the neighbors if they wanted to take them over. But someone else would still intervene.

Total war is war on everything civillian industries included. A nuclear war is automatically a total war as it would destroy civillian cities.

With certain likely consequences in relation to many countries with relations to both.

Someone? Who?

Anyway the police should be able to stop commandos in civillian cars.

Good luck with that. Russia did exactly that at the beginning of the invasion, and it took far more than the police.

No they don't nuke Falklands but they nuke the capital of Argentina then the UK that has no armed forces warns the remaining forces on the Falklands that unless they leave they will continue to launch nuclear warheads to every city on Argentina to wipe out every single Argentinian except those that exist on the Falklands. I'm pretty sure they won't stay there.

Congratulations on becoming the North Korea of the West. And they still can occupy Falklands. Few countries have the stomach to go through with such strategy and the implications, and even fewer can shrug off the consequences.

I already addressed this in the first post.

So if a future Russian government did this and cut off all trade after making sure they could still service their nukes you would not want to influence or coerce them to open their nation back up? You'd be happy ignoring them for all eternity?

Us, yes, not much chance to achieve much benefit in trying. China, probably not, they have the means to achieve more.

 

[Yinko]

Tiny country anyway, and yeah, definitely under western power protection. Formal or not, functionally it works the same.

Defense and Public Security Leaders Gather in Costa Rica for Central American Security Con

Regional collaboration opportunities to address 21st century challenges was the theme this year as defense and public-security leaders from the United States and Central America took part in the

www.southcom.mil

Ummm...?

SOUTHCOM Commander announces $13.7 million security assistance donation to Costa Rica​

Well..

On 1 December 1948, President José Figueres Ferrer of Costa Rica abolished the military of Costa Rica after achieving victory in the Costa Rican Civil War that year.

You see...

In 1949, the abolition of the military was introduced in Article 12 of the Constitution of Costa Rica.

I mean...

Costa Rica maintains small forces capable of law enforcement, but has no permanent standing army.

That's a lot of money donated to the civilian police force of a country of five million.

 

[Zachowon]

Policies usually last a much shorter time than dynasties or governments. So Sakkoku was very successful for keeping Japan free of Western influence and being colonized.

Let's look at the nuclear nations.
USA, UK, France, Russia, China are the biggies on the UN council notice that all of them are Imperial powers that are interested in more than just their own independence they also want to influence other states.

Israel, Pakistan, and India are the other nations that have nukes. While they aren't traditional colonial powers(except maybe Israel though that is debateable) the thing is those nations have borders that are difficult and they want less tools so they don't go to the genocide weapons automatically.


I was thinking of Costa Rica actually. While if someone invaded them the US would probably get involved yes, but they don't actually have a defense alliance with anyone so they actually don't have someone else's army protecting them like Poland in NATO.


Total war is war on everything civillian industries included. A nuclear war is automatically a total war as it would destroy civillian cities.


Someone? Who?

Anyway the police should be able to stop commandos in civillian cars.


No they don't nuke Falklands but they nuke the capital of Argentina then the UK that has no armed forces warns the remaining forces on the Falklands that unless they leave they will continue to launch nuclear warheads to every city on Argentina to wipe out every single Argentinian except those that exist on the Falklands. I'm pretty sure they won't stay there.


I already addressed this in the first post.

So if a future Russian government did this and cut off all trade after making sure they could still service their nukes you would not want to influence or coerce them to open their nation back up? You'd be happy ignoring them for all eternity?

Police forces are not trained to stop commandos.
They would chew through ordinary police outside if the US or special teams in most countries.
Evening the US our cops would be able to do something due to radio amd guns, but stealth benefits commandos

 

[ATP]

When they have all the rest of the Russian countryside to deploy these glide bombs... why are they deploying them over a major city?

Well,soviet mentality.Who care about some people?

Wonder how many of those explosions in Belgorod have been failed launch attempts for glide bombs, and not Ukrainian/Free Russian partisan actions.

All of them ?

 

[Aldarion]

Police forces are not trained to stop commandos.
They would chew through ordinary police outside if the US or special teams in most countries.
Evening the US our cops would be able to do something due to radio amd guns, but stealth benefits commandos

Normal police yes, but special police units such as anti-terrorist units are another story. These even get used in actual combat operations alongside regular army units.

 

[Bacle]

 

[Husky_Khan]

Basic lessons of war in Ukraine:
Basic Lessons of War in Ukraine So Far

I wager that doesn't cover half of it, but eh... still an OK overview.

The most interesting bit to me is talking about how the influx of NATO weapons and munitions both saved Ukraine and casting doubt on how useful it'll be in the coming stages of the War since it's not one of maneuver but of how he calls it, positional warfare so a broad continuous front with very little dynamic change. I agree doctrine wise, especially since Russia seems to be adopting attritional warfare now and hopes to kill enough Ukrainians at a ratio favorable enough to eventually secure victory.

But the influx of NATO weapons can still be used IMHO for the type of War Ukraine desires. The main shortcoming is Ukraine's supporters being able to continue to sustain the number of artillery & ammunition, rockets, and air defense systems & missiles that Ukraine will need to sustain this conflict.

But things like IFV's and armored fighting vehicles and tanks, whether from NATO or post-Soviet forces, will still increase the survivability of Ukrainian troops, especially in sustaining offensives. And Western guided munitions are still important. Ukraine would like hundreds of long range cruise missiles like the West has I'm sure, but since that's not on the table, this conflict still has shown the value of guided rockets and smart artillery. But yeah, the Western allies backing Ukraine will need to increase the production of various munitions, and not just for Ukraine either, if they want to maintain the strategic balance at the very least.

 

[Marduk]

This shit is hilarious.
Western neonazis: Europe has fallen to globohomo, support Russia, the last real White Christian state!
Russian imperialists: No, Russia is the real globohomo, and Europe has fallen to nazism!
It's like a political matter-antimatter collision.

 

[Aldarion]

The most interesting bit to me is talking about how the influx of NATO weapons and munitions both saved Ukraine and casting doubt on how useful it'll be in the coming stages of the War since it's not one of maneuver but of how he calls it, positional warfare so a broad continuous front with very little dynamic change. I agree doctrine wise, especially since Russia seems to be adopting attritional warfare now and hopes to kill enough Ukrainians at a ratio favorable enough to eventually secure victory.

But the influx of NATO weapons can still be used IMHO for the type of War Ukraine desires. The main shortcoming is Ukraine's supporters being able to continue to sustain the number of artillery & ammunition, rockets, and air defense systems & missiles that Ukraine will need to sustain this conflict.

But things like IFV's and armored fighting vehicles and tanks, whether from NATO or post-Soviet forces, will still increase the survivability of Ukrainian troops, especially in sustaining offensives. And Western guided munitions are still important. Ukraine would like hundreds of long range cruise missiles like the West has I'm sure, but since that's not on the table, this conflict still has shown the value of guided rockets and smart artillery. But yeah, the Western allies backing Ukraine will need to increase the production of various munitions, and not just for Ukraine either, if they want to maintain the strategic balance at the very least.

Oh, certainly. But the point that part of the article is making is that the equipment is shaped by doctrine, or rather the way military is supposed to fight. So the question is whether NATO will have the proper equipment in quantities Ukraine needs. The war in Ukraine has seen air force much less relevant than NATO assumes (though certainly not neutered the way uncritical view may imply), and far more focus on artillery. So the issue is basically what you said in the bolded part... Can NATO supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery? Can NATO supply Ukraine with sufficient amount of munitions for the artillery?