China has the industry and factories in place. If it wanted to, it could easily do it and very very quickly. The reason they don´t is also about will. Deutche bank predicts a 6% growth for 2023, why should they focus on anything besides their economy.

--- This is the chinese mindset, I dont necessarily agree with it, personally I think it is time for China to enter the war and activate war-time production. Beat and break the Americans in Ukraine today (using slav-bodybags), rather than tomorrow in Taiwan (with chinese men).

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 1 2023 10:59am

I didn't say that, enough with your fallacious strawman please.

I completely believe Russia could field that many men/ However, based on recent performance. They can't do it quickly or effectively.
They are using prison inmates to plug the gap between their failed initial invasion and next wave of conscription. That is not normal for a modern effective military.



I don't have time to fully flesh out a response.
I should say I completely understand the narrative of avoiding a direct or nuclear conflict; The issue I am taking is with the reasoning behind not sending certain systems, at certain times to Ukraine.
Not sure if it was you but I recall someone in this thread opposing sending Leopards because it will start a nuclear war. That is not sound reasoning. It wasn't then and it has proven so now.
May have been the guy who was upset with his life because Germany doesn't have spaghetti Bolognese like Italy does, and it also has drab red brick architecture.

My issue is with this vague perceived threat. When we try to manifest what that threat is conventionally. We go from conscription/spring offensive directly back to a nuclear strike; and in relation to all of those vectors I have already explained why I believe they are not logically effective.

The reason planes aren´t being supplied has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, if that is what you are asking.

Also, russia could probably prepare 1million men, in 6-8 months if there was political/social will.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 1 2023 11:22am

It is not what I am asking. I am not asking anything.

I am deriding the position of those who said we should not send support previously because of a potential escalation from Russia.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 1 2023 11:25am

There is no such thing involved. There is already a proxy-war being waged on every front. The main reason American troops aren´t fighting directly is because China would intervene, etc

Also because US isn´t willing to directly bleed for ukraine, for west ukraine isn´t "that" important

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 1 2023 11:24am

That is not easy reading, I can't really formulate a response.

"there is no such thing as escalating because there is nothing being held back (due to fear of retaliation). There are 2 main reasons why US hasn´t gotten involved directly, 1:China, 2:Ukraine isnt that important."

"planes havn´t been given, because of the logistical/maintenance nightmare, and they would have very little effect. (Russian anti-air is no joke)"

It is just a statement, that mostly agrees with what you said. There isn´t a contention.

As for why long-range land-to-land havn´t been given to UKR, is because they are fairly expensive and shooting those into Russia, would enable Putin to persuade the Russians of anything he could dream of.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 1 2023 11:31am

Iraq in 1988 had a rapidly growing population with a huge surplus of young people. Russia in 2022/23 has atrocious demographics and can barely afford to lose anyone from the perspective of their long-term economic and social outlook.

Yes, Russia could definitely field 1+ million men if they wanted to, but the long-term damage this would inflict on them would be gigantic. Contrast this with Iraq in 1988, where getting rid of their excess of young men without perspective (by using them as cannon fodder) was no big deal, and might even have been a net positive for their country's long-term outlook.

Very silly assumption, Saddam caught more heat for the deaths of young-men in iraq/iran war than anything else he did, by a 1000000x margin. The compensation for every death was massive. Even to this day, baathists argue iran-iraq war was what broke the partys standing with the population (esp north and south).


Also Russia has a pool of 30million that can be drafted.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 1 2023 11:36am

Russia can always bring back polygamy. Athens did during the Peloponnesian War.

The question of whether or not to supply jets / space cannons / plasma swords or whatever else the military might be working on comes down to what our objective is in Ukraine. Are we trying to lead to the breakup of the Russian Federation? What does that look like? If our aims are merely to prevent a Ukrainian collapse, then they're clearly not necessary.