Ukraine
Call it what you want. When the war first started the complications of supplying Ukraine with armored vehicles were used to explain why no one wanted to supply those weapons systems. It was explained to me that my simplistic idea about doing these things just showed that I was ignorant of the facts.
Well, I was an advocate of sending advanced weapons from the jump, but without hindsight, we had no idea that Ukraine was going to be able to stand against Russia as long as they did. Really Russia was at Kiev's doorstep in the early stages and many thought Ukraine would fall in a matter of days. Had that happened and advanced weaponry fallen into Russia's hands, today would look radically different.
Since the early stages we've steadily supplied Ukraine will billions in equipment and aid.
The fact is we're slow rolling our aid.
Yes, no one is disputing that. There were good reasons for taking their time. We might not agree that the reasons are sufficient, but they're there.
If we, meaning the US, had supplied Ukraine with ATACMS, HIMARS, Bradleys, Patriots etc and F-16s (I know F16s require more training and logistics) right off the bat the situation in Ukraine would look a lot different.
Probably, but had we just went all out from the jump, two things happen, one, the US would have run into shortages in some materials needed to produce the necessary supplies to replace the depleted inventory, and 2, sort of tied to the first point is this could impact our own military readiness.
Something else to consider is if we blatantly and recklessly provoke Russia, it could well be Europe/NATO allies bearing the brunt of Russia's retaliation. They might not directly attack us, but they'll hit targets of opportunity.
Our NATO allies look to us to take the lead, as evidenced by the reluctance to provide armor till we announced we were going to send Abrams. We didn't even have to send them, all we had to do is signal that it was okay and suddenly everybody who them was sending MBTs.
I get that we are or should be the leaders of the coalition, but we still should be measured in our actions towards Russia so as not to goad them into attacking an ally closer to them.
Remember that Biden said that we had to temper our aid with a view toward relations with Russia after the war. In other words we still want to do business with them. We also stopped all US aid for 6 months at crucial time in the war.
I believe he said that early in the current conflict. He's been saying the opposite for at least a year. I don't think he's changed that in recent months.
The 6 month pause in aid had more to do with Congress, and we know well why that happened. Hopefully that doesn't happen again.
They've oblitirated whole major cities, killed tens of thousands of of cilillians, targeted hospitals, schools, crowded shopping centers and civillian infrastructure. Now they're bringing Koreans. So Putin has no restraints whatever but we're still placing crippling restrictions Ukraine. And the further away from Russia you get the less enthusiastic the support (with some exceptions). Germany sends a lot financial support but not much else, France is more concerned with their former colonies in Africa, the UK tries but their military (like Germany) has regressed to the point that they couldn't defend themselves from an attack if they had to.
Germany has sent a lot of weapons to Ukraine, not just financial support. But yes, other NATO allies are tied up with their own issues, but they're still sending what they can to Ukraine.
After three years we're finally starting to see F16s become a factor. Imagine if we had started training and building a logistical support chain a soon as Ukraine asked (begged) for it. How many lives and assets could have been saved. How much more successful would Ukraines counter offense have been if they were properly equipped?
I supported sending F-16s fron day 1, but that was always going to be a logistical challenge. You need trained pilots, mechanics, a reliable supply chain, and the ability to coordinate attacks with troop movements on the ground. It's no small task.
And now that they've accumulated some long range capabilities we won't let them use them effectively. Meanwhile whole cities are being reduced to rubble.
Allies are starting to come around on allowing long range weapons to hit deep in Russia because Russia hasnt taken the hint to stop bombing cities. It's all a complicated mess, and this with a country in Russia who has an incredibly large nuclear arsenal. Nobody wants a nuclear conflict. The way to avoid that is by not making Russia think they have no other choice. You put a frog in hot water and it jumps right out. Put it in lukewarm water and slowly raise the temp and it's none the wiser to what's happening.
I stand by my reductionist statement.
Fair enough, we disagree. I can respect that.