Ukraine has been left exposed on the front lines — running out of ammunition and men — while its energy system now faces an onslaught that is exposing its depleted air defenses.
I think a lot of people forget how before the war, but after the 2014 annexure, Ukraine begged to be able to buy western weapons, such as the javelin, because one random guy can take out a whole tank (great force multipliers against the russian bear). Great deterrent. But they were not approved because they fought giving arms for Ukraine would provoke and not deter, and that dialog and greater economic integration with Russia would be the solution.
So the west miscalculated, luckily Russia as well and Kiev did not fall, but now Ukraine is in a war, and unlike previously where they could have put resources into acquiring western weapons, they now have to input their resources into fighting and defending their country.
The EU and America have stepped up initially, like 90% of the pledges went straight back into the American economy, since the give Ukraine their old stock and manufacture replacement stock for themselves. EU is close to matching USAs total contributions and if you look at France and their economy’s size they are percentage wise out spending the US in contributions.
The nice thing here is most support money gets spend in their own country, stimulating their economy, Ukraine is putting their own citizens and soldiers life on the line and it will weaken a common Nato foe. But not supporting Ukraine will emboldened Russia and now that most of their military ineptitude and corruption has been exposed and is being improved, Russia might calculate further expansion, since that is their modus operandi.
Exactly, but hindsight is 20/20. What I wanted to show was that a lack of support for Ukraine was then a win for Russia. But even more so now, that a lack of full continuous support for Ukraine today is just another win for Russia.
I think a lot of people forget how before the war, but after the 2014 annexure, Ukraine begged to be able to buy western weapons, such as the javelin, because one random guy can take out a whole tank (great force multipliers against the russian bear). Great deterrent. But they were not approved because they fought giving arms for Ukraine would provoke and not deter, and that dialog and greater economic integration with Russia would be the solution.
So the west miscalculated, luckily Russia as well and Kiev did not fall, but now Ukraine is in a war, and unlike previously where they could have put resources into acquiring western weapons, they now have to input their resources into fighting and defending their country.
The EU and America have stepped up initially, like 90% of the pledges went straight back into the American economy, since the give Ukraine their old stock and manufacture replacement stock for themselves. EU is close to matching USAs total contributions and if you look at France and their economy’s size they are percentage wise out spending the US in contributions.
The nice thing here is most support money gets spend in their own country, stimulating their economy, Ukraine is putting their own citizens and soldiers life on the line and it will weaken a common Nato foe. But not supporting Ukraine will emboldened Russia and now that most of their military ineptitude and corruption has been exposed and is being improved, Russia might calculate further expansion, since that is their modus operandi.
This rationale is given time and time again for why we shouldn’t have supported Ukraine and every time it’s completely false.
Hopefully people can learn from this history and not make the same mistakes in the past.
Ukraine should’ve mined the shit out of their border with Russia.
Exactly, but hindsight is 20/20. What I wanted to show was that a lack of support for Ukraine was then a win for Russia. But even more so now, that a lack of full continuous support for Ukraine today is just another win for Russia.