WHAT gear. Outside of few things like Patriots those are completely different sets of equipment needed.
And guess what, Ukraine is constantly asking for more Patriot interceptors and batteries, and the US literally cannot make enough of those to fill all the demand for them
By now you should know better than to give me empty talking points...
Ukrainians don't need anti ship missiles and long range aircraft - Black Sea Fleet was driven into hiding already and they don't have a long way to the front.
They also aren't Afghans or Iraqis who need westerners to do their basic technical tasks.
For some types of gear this argument is completely missing. You won't be shipping around thousands of MBTs around the Pacific islands or fly old F-16's with 300 mile combat radius for patrols over oceans (sorry, no tankers, all are reserved for giving more range to the better planes, especially once Chinese air force starts taking shots at the tankers with their long range AAMs). It would be a logistical nightmare to make much use of those in the Pacific theater even if you had nothing better to do with them.
F-16's can very much still matter in the Pacific, because of the island bases that will need air defense interceptors.
Or do you expect Guam and other islands to only be defended by naval air assets?
There are no guarantees in war...
They were caught mid-transition to western style and they are learning pretty well from what i'm hearing.
They may be learning, but UA military leadership is still showing that they still hold to the old Soviet play book in many regards.
Hopefully this is changing, and fast.
Great of you to make such points, they betray your lack of deep knowledge in the topic.
Ukraine doesn't need dumb clueless 18 year olds on the frontline, there is nothing magical about their military value, it's a talking point for people who want excuses to blame Ukraine for not doing better rather than lagging western aid.
The bottleneck for Ukraine generating more combat power is not lack of light infantry, and that's all Ukraine would have to gear additional millions of troops with even if it wanted to have them.
Sure, it would slow down Russian advances to fill up frontline trenches denser... but also increase losses, because the frontline is now very drone/artillery heavy warfare, so leaving as few targets out as possible has some merits in itself.
They don't have thousands of armored vehicles and artillery weapons that they are leaving unused because they are out of people to use them.
If they did get those, then they could technically use them for more and larger scale Kursk/Belogrod cross border distractions, and it could knock Russia off balance, but they would need some time to train troops with those vehicles first to form them into decent-ish mechanized divisions and know westerners won't be threatening aid suspension over "escalatory" incursions into Russia.
The main bottleneck, and i'm not the only one noticing it, is that they cannot replicate the western way of war even if they had best leadership in the world without western style airpower, and that's something they have only symbolic amounts of.
So they are stuck pretty much improvising with what they have using drones as a substitute, which is a completely new and different animal, even if a very interesting one. But it's still not the real deal.
Ukraine cannot replicate the western way of war, and is stuck improvising, which means they have the means to hold ground they have, but not take back their own lands, as they wish to do.
The Kursk/Belgorod incursions take some pressure off other areas of the front, but run into the issue of Russia no longer is leaving those rear areas undermanned, and UA risks it's people getting cut off in Russian lands, like what nearly happened a few weeks ago.
Getting Russia to *lie about a position of neutrality to get all the carrot offered for it and helping China anyway when the shit hits the fan* is a much more realistic result of such attempts.
Self-delusion and believing enemy's obvious lies are not a war winning strategy.
The only guarantee of Russia not helping China is Russia either having nothing meaningful to help with, or dramatically different and optimistic variant leadership from current one.
I'm not sure how the attempts to use carrots with Russia will shake out, and I think Trump is running out of patience with Putin.
But beyond increasing sanctions and maybe adding a few longer range weapons to the next munition delivery, about the only option besides directly engaging Russians with US forces is issuing Letters of Marque against the shadow tanker fleet.
And Trump hasn't signaled he is seriously considering Letters of Marque, even if some GOP Congresscritters like the idea.
Yes they will. But we should be talking about thousands of modern armored vehicles and hundreds of tac jets. Which are realistic.
Not politically, it isn't, and that's what you like to ignore, that political realities mean UA isn't going to be getting swamped with thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of tactical jets.
Yet Russia sticks to them and will continue to do so. Because they do not have an easily media manipulated chattering class of pacifistic fools influencing the leadership. If they had one it would have been sent to a prison colony years ago.
It almost seems like you'd prefer western leadership and media to act more like the Russian leadership and media, regardless of what it would do to things like Constitutional Rights.
Reminder that Russia has, as demonstrated many times, arrived at a point where they can and will refuse any peace settlement they are not happy with. War weariness is for peaceniks, not dictators.
War weariness is also for people who have seen 20 fucking years of pointless and futile warfare in the MidEast come to naught, have seen how up their own ass's many NAFO types are with TDS and EDS, have seen Zelensky go from a potential Churchhill to nearly Baghdad Bob levels of trying to pretend things are better than they are, while also having Zelensky do the diplo equivalent of blowing one of his nation's own feet off.
Then again, you consider anyone who doesn't want a war to destroy Russia, as a nation, to be a 'peacenik'.
Then make greater amounts realistic, at least it will make the Russian war machine cannibalize itself faster.
Russia is already waging war economy style, which is why they aren't advancing faster and are taking massive manpower losses for sparing expensive steel and silicon.
Wish-casting about 'make it realistic', instead of dealing with the realities of current limits, shows you are simply not willing to deal with political realities as they are, and instead demand realities change to fit your desired outcome.
You cannot change domestic and logistical realities in the US and west by being angry and trying to shit on anyone who does deal with realities you refuse to accept.
All the focus on how to get Ukraine to take negotiations seriously, little to none on Russia, as per usual. Well, I tried.
(For the record, I don't believe you're correct regarding the Ukrainians being so unwilling to cede any land. For example, when they went to Saudi Arabia for those talks with Rubio, and Rubio said they would have to cede land, I'm not aware that Ukraine contradicted him.)
There simply aren't many more levers to use on Russia that will be accepted by the US domestic scene.
More sanctions and maybe some new toys in the munitions deliveries, at most Letters of Marque on the shadow tanker fleet, would be about it.
So yes, there are more levers to use to get UA to compromise on it's desires, than there are levers to use to try to force Russia to the table or off UA's lands.
It's reality, even if it is diplomatically uncouth to admit it in public.
And yet, the only one that has been forced to change its demands is Ukraine, and all Russia has been told is "stop...or we will sanction you more!" And they don't stop.
Russia will not back down from its demands, and has shown this entire time they want.
If they have to stall and act like they are willing to peace then they will.
There are more sanctions that can be leveled, and more ways to squeeze Russia economically.
And yes, UA's getting more demands for it to change it's position/demands, because UA has less leverage in the situation.
You just refuse to deal with the reality of UA's lack of leverage and the realities of these sorts of negotiations, because it doesn't paint the picture you want to see.
Russia won't agree to one until it is happy.
Russia will not get a deal that makes it happy, neither will Ukraine be happy with any deal made.
And yet again, they have been sanctioned for 3 Years now, and yet... they keep going, paying huge bonus for people to join.
Sanctioned at a 3/10 level, because Biden didn't want to risk more 'escalation', while also not even trying for negotiations.
Trump can increase the sanctions, and make them hurt even worse, if Putin keeps trying to play these fuck-fuck games.
Except you are wrong, he said he is willing to cease land if it means lasting peace.
He knows it won't, but he is willing to give it a try if it ends the killing.
Zelensky has never said he'd give up legal claims to any territory, just acknowledge it as 'occupied', which is not the same thing as actual territorial consessions, which require giving up legal claims.
This distinction seems to be something you are attempting to gloss over, just to pretend Zelensky hasn't said UA won't give up legal claims to 'occupied' areas.
No, he has routinely said that he is willing to end it at current borders, if it means that people stop dieing and negotiations open for future talks to potentially bring back land etc.
Russia has saud they wint ceade land.
Again, as above, I've only seen talk of accepting some areas as 'occupied' lands, not giving up formal legal claims, which is what actual territorial consessions entail.
yeah...so why let the russians be a huge supporter of the CCP in a eventual war?
Short of destroying Russia as a nation, trying to get them to be effectively neutral in a US/CCP fight is the best option we have.
And Trump isn't going to authorize the actions that would be required to destroy Russia as a nation, nor does most of his base have any desire for the sort of war that would be required in order to destroy Russia as a nation.
You mean the same industries that Russia nationalized upon being sanctioned and would most likely do the same as soon as we went hot against China?
Russia will be supplying China with more then we would get out kf such an agreement.
You sound like Nixon
Russia nationalized what was left in Russia, that is true; but what that misses is that much of what Russia wants back in it's market from the US/West is shit it couldn't nationalize, like the tech knowledge from western oil comapnies who built, repaired, and maintained many of Russia's refineries.
Shit, nationalizing US built civie airliners became a fucking clusterfuck, when the maintaince/logistics trail that use to maintain those planes ran out of part in Russia, and couldn't import more easily.
Nationalizing assets doesn't do a lot in the long run, if the logistics trail for said assets wasn't completely in Russia to begin with.
Except Trump has walked into every aspect of russia playing him for a fool.
Trump trying to negotiate an end to this conflict was treated as 'Russia playing him for a fool' from the first time he mentioned it, and Trump knows better than you do what realistic levers he has against Russia and Ukraine.
Because they are pointing out the truth that Trump has been soft on Russia but hard on Ukraine?
I woud point out that Ukraine has not been kind to Trump, for years now.
The Impeachment in his first term was caused by Vindman, an ethnic Ukrainian, lying about Trump's phonecall with Zelensky.
Then we have the NAFO types unhinged TDS for years against Trump, MAGA, and the GOP in general, which alienated a lot of Trump's base from UA's fight.
And we have the lies about the "Russian Collusion Hoax", which made Trump very much not a friend of the same people who championed UA later. Dems decided to make UA a teamball issue, the NAFO types went whole hog against Trump for years, and the GOP base started seeing UA as a Dem pet issue, not something that necessarily would affect the US if we walked away.
Finally, the simple fact is Russia has leverage and the US has leverage, Ukraine doesn't have any leverage besides the rare earth minerals, and Zelensky has completely fucked up the situation with the mineral deal, which should have been signed and done that day at the WHite House, but Zelensky had to start his bullshit with Vance, when Vance wasn't even addressing him.
Except he has said very little that Russia doesn't like and has basically sucked them off...the entire fucking time. He didn't even go off on the Russians for the strike that killed 9 kids and injured many more....
He doesn't actually care for the people dying he only cares kf the war ends. If that causes millions to be killed by the Russians he doesn't care.
People die in war, that is the nature of it, and pretending every little missile strike on UA should be blamed on Trump and used to harangue Trump is part of why peple have simply began ignoring a lot of UA supporters.
Emotional blackmail attempts do not work on the GOP/Trump's Admin, because that is exactly the methodology the Dems tried to use to fuck with the GOP for decades, and to which MAGA has become immune.
Trying to harp on every civie death in Ukraine and try to use it aganst Trump just makes people take you, and others who attempt it, less seriously.
Eh, all it takes is the realization the war isn't ending soon to cause Russians to push back.
Add in he hasn't drafted thr main fighting age yet.
Ukraine has numerous things they can do, most of which is get a bargaining chip or force the russians to continue to bleed them.
That is truly all they need to do.
Bleeding Russia indefinitely, to the point UA does have to start drafting anyone over 18, isn't going to get UA a better deal, and isn't going to cause an uprising in Russia that will remove Putin from power.
It also isn't what Trump is interested in.
No, trumps statements refer to the fact that he says Ukraine STARTED THE WAR, and shouldn't have because Russia is bigger and they don't have enough missiles.
Either he is mistaking putin for Zelesnky or Ukraine for russia....
Trump is talking about how the Maidan started the conflict in 2014, not just the full scale invasion of 2022.
The fact is the way the Maidan happened does very much count as 'UA starting things', even if it was mostly organic and a response to Russian fuckery in UA domestic politics.
And this might surprise you, but just ignoring the Russian point of view in negotiations like this doesn't accomplish anything, other than satisfying those more interested in ideological purity spirals than actually accomplishing anything realistic or meaningful.