The West as a whole always made sure to send just enough for Ukraine not to lose.
The whole summer offensive debacle last year was caused (to a large degree) by the Western reluctance to send modern tanks, IFVs, etc. So the Russians dug in like hell.
If Ukraine had just Bradleys, not even tanks, at the end of 2022, they could have thrown Russia almost to its border.
Ukraine won’t win just because of this particular supply of artillery. But if we can get them enough support then they will ultimately win, yes. This artillery helps that.
There’s a jack rackam video on japan in wwii that’s has a relevant idea here. War isn’t a game where you run out the clock and declare a winner. Negotiating peace is a whole at in of itself. Something like that. More weapons, more negotiating power. Negotiations also aren’t just win/lose, and they require more than one party. I think russia isn’t planning on accepting the current lines either.
This uses Oceania rather than Australia, so a bunch of poorer countries are included and North America is first, followed closely by Oceania.
PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP. International Monetary Fund numbers, 2023:
North America, $64,279
Oceania, $62,900
Europe, $50,110
South America, $19,506
Asia and Pacific, $18,406
Africa, $6,341
Antarctica, $0
EDIT: I should note, though, that the whole “NATO spending commitment” thing as well as some of the Ukraine donation charts I’ve seen are measured in terms of percent-of-GDP rather than absolute value, so it’ll take the different sizes of economies into account, more-or-less. Arguably, that’s biased a bit towards wealthy economies still, since some costs are going to be more-or-less fixed across societies, like food and basic shelter, and the “ability to spend on things” should maybe be based on money above-and-beyond that. But it does at least partially account for the fact that Estonia is much smaller than the US, and less wealthy per-capita than Luxembourg.
Why do you use per capita if the GDP also supports your point? If you compare wealth or economic power it does not seem important how many people achieve this.
Russia is not going to overrun Ukraine. Worst case scenario is that Trump will win elections, stop any aid and Ukraine will be forced to sign a peace deal putting it in similar situation as before the war (no EU, no NATO and some territory lost).
Better scenario is that Trump loses and Putin, seeing his best chance at getting advantage is gone, will sing a peace treaty ending the war. He will soon win re-election and he just murdered Navalny. His position is safe enough to give up on Ukraine.
Best case Ukraine will not sign any treaty and regains all it’s territory and Crimea. The war formally continues but Ukraine joins NATO ending any actual fighting.
Where do you guys thinks this ends? Do you think Ukraine is going to win now or this is just going to prolong the eventual outcome?
That depends on the Western support.
The West as a whole always made sure to send just enough for Ukraine not to lose.
The whole summer offensive debacle last year was caused (to a large degree) by the Western reluctance to send modern tanks, IFVs, etc. So the Russians dug in like hell.
If Ukraine had just Bradleys, not even tanks, at the end of 2022, they could have thrown Russia almost to its border.
Ukraine won’t win just because of this particular supply of artillery. But if we can get them enough support then they will ultimately win, yes. This artillery helps that.
There’s a jack rackam video on japan in wwii that’s has a relevant idea here. War isn’t a game where you run out the clock and declare a winner. Negotiating peace is a whole at in of itself. Something like that. More weapons, more negotiating power. Negotiations also aren’t just win/lose, and they require more than one party. I think russia isn’t planning on accepting the current lines either.
The harder a win looks to russia the more concessions they will be willing to make at the negotiating table.
Europe is the richest continent by far. They simply need to step up production and deliveries to make the outcome clear.
Ten artillery shells per ruzzki tank and five per ruzzki soldier would make the outcome pretty one-sided 😉
I looked this up a while back. IIRC, it’s Australia (one well-to-do country) followed by North America followed by Europe.
googles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_GDP
This uses Oceania rather than Australia, so a bunch of poorer countries are included and North America is first, followed closely by Oceania.
PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP. International Monetary Fund numbers, 2023:
North America, $64,279
Oceania, $62,900
Europe, $50,110
South America, $19,506
Asia and Pacific, $18,406
Africa, $6,341
Antarctica, $0
EDIT: I should note, though, that the whole “NATO spending commitment” thing as well as some of the Ukraine donation charts I’ve seen are measured in terms of percent-of-GDP rather than absolute value, so it’ll take the different sizes of economies into account, more-or-less. Arguably, that’s biased a bit towards wealthy economies still, since some costs are going to be more-or-less fixed across societies, like food and basic shelter, and the “ability to spend on things” should maybe be based on money above-and-beyond that. But it does at least partially account for the fact that Estonia is much smaller than the US, and less wealthy per-capita than Luxembourg.
Why do you use per capita if the GDP also supports your point? If you compare wealth or economic power it does not seem important how many people achieve this.
Who will use these weapons, Ukrainians? They are all dead, and russia still has artillery.
yes, Ukrainians, because contrary to your completely baseless assertion, they’re still very much alive
Russia is not going to overrun Ukraine. Worst case scenario is that Trump will win elections, stop any aid and Ukraine will be forced to sign a peace deal putting it in similar situation as before the war (no EU, no NATO and some territory lost).
Better scenario is that Trump loses and Putin, seeing his best chance at getting advantage is gone, will sing a peace treaty ending the war. He will soon win re-election and he just murdered Navalny. His position is safe enough to give up on Ukraine.
Best case Ukraine will not sign any treaty and regains all it’s territory and Crimea. The war formally continues but Ukraine joins NATO ending any actual fighting.