>

If one more asshole tells me we can't afford Healthcare for all in this country, I'm going to kick them in their cock holster.
59 Bradley fighting vehicles.
90 Stryker armored combat vehicles.
53 MRAP armored personnel carriers.
8 Avenger air defense systems.
350 HMMWVs.

Ukraine will have the most powerful military in Eastern Europe when this is done. >

It might already be there. They are stronger than other Europeans like Germany, who allowed most of their forces to turn decrepit from underfunding >

Poland has the most powerful army in Eastern Europe.  Soon it will be the most powerful army in *all* of Europe, likely one of top few armies in the world.  The amount of equipment they are buying is enormous. >

Maybe Poland is planning on invading Russia after all this. >

Polish people aren’t that stupid >

Is it stupid if you know your enemy has exhausted their weapons and soldiers? >

1v1, no outside influence but intelligence and trade? I've got 20 on Poland. >

90 Strikers? 90? Holy shite, that's big. >

A striker can carry 9 passengers. 
90 strikers can carry 810 soldiers. Roughly battalion size.
It’s not a huge number in the scale of this war but along with the Bradley’s brings potential for a potent battalion-regiment sized mechanised force (especially if reinforced with infantry) that Ukraine needs for any future offensive. >

While the Ukrainians have been wanting to get their hands on modern NATO equipment they still have tons of older armored vehicles like BMPs that can still have a place on the battlefield as support vehicles even if they have some relative vulnerabilities. The large number of vehicles from their old stocks or what's donated from Ex Warsaw  Pact countries mean that they're not just limited to a couple of brigades of Bradleys and Strikers. Especially when Ukraine is probably hoping for a repeat of the September offensives that saw a huge rout  and the Russians losing thousands of square kilometers before they reformed their lines. That kind of breakthrough requires hundreds of armored vehicles to overwhelm the Russians and quickly capitalize on a Russian rout before they can effectively respond. >

Just a shot in the dark but they could take older bmps out of main line duty and replace them with strikers. Then take thoe bmps and use them as armored ambulances, guard duty, scouts, park in a field and use as arty bait, or a dozen other uses. >

This guy strategizes. >

Im just an armchair general. My closest experience to combat is either target shooting, or too much time playing RTS games I'm sure people with actual military tra8ning could come up with better options. >

My suspicion is that they will be used as beaters when the urban combat gets hot and heavy >

Verry possible. I got to see one at the Detroit auto show about 10ish years ago. It was the variant with the 105mm cannon on it. It by no means could hold up vs a tank but if it can get a susprise shot of on the side or rear it could very easily get a kill or atleast render it combat ineffective. >

The Mobile Gun System (MGS). I commanded a company of MGS variant Strykers several years ago, but the Army has since phased them out. 
It was armed with the M68 main gun (a licensed built copy of the British L7 105mm cannon) which is the same gun that was on the M60 and the original M1 Abrams before it was upgraded to the A1 variant with the M256 120mm gun (licensed built German L44 cannon). 
The 105 had issues penetrating the front 60 degree arc of T72 and later models when firing the M774 SABOT outside of 1800m during testing in the 70/80s. That’s one of the reasons the Abrams was upgunned to the M256 120mm main gun. The newer M833 and M900 105mm SABOT rounds for the M68 are better and should be able to penetrate the T72/90 even with Kontakt-5 ERA. 
The MGS was better suited to fighting  light armor (BMP/BRDM/BTR); and we typically trained to avoid direct engagements with heavy armor; but if used correctly could handle a T72/T80. >

Ya, I assumed penetrating the front of a t72 was either impossible or would require some Warthunder esk luck shot that managed to go through an observation port. Didn't know the army retired that variant, tho I would assume that means the Ukrainians have a better chance of getting that model based on how the US military likes to stop using something and then park it in the desert for a decade or more. >

Russia just announced they are expanding to 1.5 million troops. US commits another $2.5 billion including armored vehicles. A shitload of additional support announced from other Ukraine allies today. 
This isn’t ending any time soon… >

Probably not, but Russia can’t keep this up forever. Their financial and Human Resources are being expended. Ukraine is obviously suffering but as long as NATO countries continue to provide aid, Ukraine can keep it up however long is needed. 
Quickest way this ends is with Putin being removed or Russia collapsing. Which might happen. But also might not and if not, it’ll be a grind until Russia is pushed out >

The more innocents that the Russians kill, the less likely Ukraine is going to be to want to negotiate. You don't negotiate with people who murdered your family and drove you away from your home. Early on in the conflict, maybe, but the longer this drags on, the more Ukraine's resolve is just going to strengthen. >

The Nazis learned this about the Russians themselves in WWII… not that either side wanted to negotiate, but the atrocities definitely hardened the Soviets. >

It also happened with the British. The Nazi's did a full on war against the civilian populace with constant mass bombings fully intended to spread fear and terror. Turns out that threatening an entire people groups life just makes them galvanize against a common foe.
Apparently the US (and other nation's military I would assume) actually did a whole bunch of research on this. Wars against the populace do not actually accelerate victory, and even if you win,  now you just have a population who has been full on radicalized against you and will kill you and your people given the opportunity. It is how you create the conditions for terrorism. >

Yup, we spent the last 20 years researching the hell out that in the Middle East. >

That we did. The academics had no shortage of examples to learn from. >

The one trillion dollar question is: did we learn anything actually? >

The Russians sure didn't. >

At this point, I doubt Putin or Russian leadership are thinking “how do we win?” They’re thinking “how do we get out of this and still maintain power?” 
Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon are all on tape saying essentially the same thing about Vietnam.
I’m sure in 50 years, we’ll have tapes of Bush/Cheney, Obama, Trump, and Biden saying the same thing about the ME. >

I wish these articles made more effort to help people understand that actual financial aid only makes up 31% of what we've given Ukraine. About 21% is humanitarian aid providing emergency services, food, and housing for people who were forced out of their homes because a murderous gang of terrorists took over their homes and destroyed everything they've built in their lives. The rest is military equipment and logistics support. >

Giving Strikers away will save money in the long run. As the USA acutally maintains there old equipment and they were just going to have pay to bin it later anyway.
Given it was made to destroy the adversary's of the United States this seem like a bargain >

The strykers are moving to the new dragoon. They will not get rid of them. Giving 90 away instead of maintaining them is probably a god send to whomever units books they’re coming off of. They’re super hard to maintain at mission ready levels and seem to have suicidal tendencies. >

layman here, why? >

Because how will the people who make strykers make even more money if the small parts don’t break making some officer order gaskets for 30 bucks a pop >

Yea.  I'm current making the female side (there are 2 different parts that go together to make one part) of an aluminum clamp the size of my thumb.  It sees about 120 seconds of time inside 2 machines.  Then they are plated and painted, adding maybe another minute.  The rest of the time is moving the part for place to place, then eventually onto an airplane.  We charge about $20 for what I'm making.  I'm making over a thousand of them and it's not uncommon to do this order several times a month. >


The US has now committed $26.7 billion to Ukraine in security aid since the beginning of the war nearly a year ago.

Just a frame of reference reminder that the annual armed forces budget just to maintain the US military is $700 billion. $27 billion is less than 4% of that. It's not even two weeks worth of baseline US military expenses. >

810 billion this year >

God I wish I had healthcare. >

DoD budget isn't the reason you don't have healthcare. It's obstruction from conservatives, and lobbying from pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
EDIT: Man people are really salty that I blatantly called out Republicans for obstructing healthcare.
So I'll do it again:
Republicans are the reason you don't have healthcare, not any budget constraints, or large defense budget. >

Oh believe me I know.  I'm more lamenting that fact than anything.  There's always more money for the ever-ballooning military budget, even while they scream bloody murder over the debt ceiling.  Funny how that works. >

Again though, the military budget pales in comparison to what the US spends on healthcare every year. Medicare and Medicaid alone are 2x the annual military budget. >

Universal healthcare for how ever many people 800 billion dollars covers would arguably be a better investment even if you couldn’t cover everyone. Not saying we don’t need a military, just that health care is typically a great investment from a government perspective, at least in the long run. >

Military has been our greatest investment in our country's lifetime. We spend on average top 3 per capita in healthcare per patient and have subpar outcomes. Unless those in charge of healthcare suddenly become altruistic, throwing another 800 billion won't fix the problem. It'll just line their pockets more >

The subpar outcomes are due to the right wing compromises that keep the insurance companies involved.
M4A would literally be cheaper >

Plenty of countries use insurance effectively. It's simply greed. >

Is this still part of our lend lease program? Aka we send them shit but they’ll get a bill later. I believe that’s what we did with Britain in WW2. They paid the bill off in the 2000’s. >

No, nearly everything is given as a grant. Free. >

Patriot system is on lend-lease. However that’s because it’s not expected to get destroyed. >

The amount of wooden Patriot mockups the Russians are gonna waste missiles on will be absolutely comical. >

Implying Russia will have enough missiles to destroy the wooden mockups. lol >

Russia has no shortage of missiles, just their newer gens. Indiscriminate fire they have did a while >

A serious amount of heavy material is going to the Ukraine from all sorts of countries.
I have to imagine that Ukraine is being set up for an offensive. >

spring is around the corner and Putin wants a 1.5 million man force.   Good chance Belarus will be forced into this shit show for Putin's dying "glory" >

Russia also started deploying air-defense units within Moscow >

Clearly im in the minority here but people don't seem to understand how this all works financially. That is an enormous figure for sure but it's a tiny amount of Us overall military contribution annually. 
If western allies don't contribute then the russian steamroller doesn't stop at Ukraine. I think that's fairly accepted now? At least as a probable / possible. At that point you have no choice but to go In harder when the inevitable happens. 
Am from UK. Not US. Were taking the same approach. Glad all key western nation's have a unified view on this. >

Exactly. Nobody thought Russia would cross this line and they did, there's no telling what they'll do if they win in Ukraine. They either get stopped in Ukraine, or they get stopped in a NATO member, which significantly increases the real risks of nuclear war. >

US intel and leadership was screaming from the rooftops that Putin was absolutely going to do this. >

John McCain said in 2014 that this was Putin's plan >

Mitt Romney got laughed at in 2012 for saying he believed Russia remained a major threat to world stability.
Whoops.