EPTBut yes the EU should have scaled up production
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 837
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21703 Posts
But yes the EU should have scaled up production | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5572 Posts
xD | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17270 Posts
On August 15 2025 22:05 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: If Europe made a serious commitment in early 2022 to build/procure 1mn 155mm shells per month from jan 2023 and onwards the war would have stopped in late 2022. This was before drones, Russia would take one look at the follow through and go "nah bro if you care so much we out". It would have been expensive and a massive effort but it's a fraction of what's been done twice in recent history so it's extremely possible. And of course in hindsight it would have been a lot cheaper then what we ended up with. I think you're talking as if Russia was a reasonable actor. They're not reasonable and you can't judge them by the same standards you would a Western country. Russia is a state of mind after all, and this state of mind is incompatible with I'd assume 99% of the people who post here. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2625 Posts
On August 15 2025 23:34 Manit0u wrote: I think you're talking as if Russia was a reasonable actor. They're not reasonable and you can't judge them by the same standards you would a Western country. Russia is a state of mind after all, and this state of mind is incompatible with I'd assume 99% of the people who post here. I complained about the exact same things back then as I do now and they are just as true. Russia is not the west but they aren't completely irrational either. They obviously expected to roll Ukraine over, that didn't happen. Then the west expected them to back off with some of the gains they had once they realised how costly the war was going to be. That was a miscalculation based on western perceptions. But let's not forget that at every step of the way of Russia's escalation there was an incremental increase in support from the west to match it but nothing more. There was red lines for every single thing and in the end we sent it to Ukraine (and more) but at that point it was too late for it to be real effective. Instead we end up paying massive amounts of economic support for a stagnated war 3 years in. At no point was there a clear western response that to could look like something Russia couldn't handle and at this point the sunk cost fallacy is in full effect. Putin can't back out without some kind of victory or he's dead. That was not true in mid 2022. If Europe had shown that they were completely serious about massive aid to Ukraine (like 1mn shells a month at a stage were artillery was the king of the battlefield) Putin could absolutely have sold that the west had entered the conflict to Russia. At that point the losses were relatively small in both men and material. Get a cease fire and negotiations, probably end up with Luhansk and Donetsk being "independent" and Crimea for Russia. | ||
KwarK
United States42776 Posts
It's a very bad theory and history is full of examples of escalate to deescalate failing. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9199 Posts
I think the West as a whole should do more and some countries deserve more blame than others but even if everyone did the right thing in 2023 this war would still be ongoing. The most optimal plan would be to keep sending equipment to Ukraine and keep Russia sanctioned untill the latter starts losing ground slowly and eventually agree to fuck off and agree on prewar borders. This seems no longer possible because of Trump presidency and unsatisfying European investments into the local military industry. | ||
|
pmp10
3329 Posts
On August 16 2025 00:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: That was not true in mid 2022. If Europe had shown that they were completely serious about massive aid to Ukraine (like 1mn shells a month at a stage were artillery was the king of the battlefield) Putin could absolutely have sold that the west had entered the conflict to Russia. At that point the losses were relatively small in both men and material. Get a cease fire and negotiations, probably end up with Luhansk and Donetsk being "independent" and Crimea for Russia. Back in mid-2022 I doubt you could have made Ukraine give up Donetsk without a fight. Same goes for Russia and Kherson. Sad reality is that war exhaustion needs to build-up before compromises are possible. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2625 Posts
On August 16 2025 01:27 KwarK wrote: This is called "escalate to deescalate". It's the idea that by slowly increasing with matching responses you can find yourself far more committed than you otherwise would have been if you'd had to make one single decision to call or fold. Each individual decision is only a little more but it's so little that both sides feel like they can justify it. Whereas by raising the stakes extremely high up front you can make it clear to the other side that they're never going to win and so they give up preemptively which ends up saving both sides resources. It's a very bad theory and history is full of examples of escalate to deescalate failing. History is full of examples of slow and matching escalations failing as well. Also it's not really an escalation since it's the same kind of weapons we were already giving at the time it's just a commitment that there will be (massive amounts) of weapons to give in the future. Putin banked on Trump winning, the US stopping their aid and Europe not having enough military support to give. The west didn't anticipate drones and North Korea. But make it a fact that Europe alone will have enough weapons to give in a year and that changes the math for the future. | ||
| ||
