Thread 64144943

The Ukraine war has proven that the 'citizen-militia' concept is superior to professional militaries. Ukraine has managed to beat Russia, the 2nd largest threat any independent country is reasonably going to face.

Sure, they might not have stood up to an invasion from America, but they don't need to, America is largely isolationist these days. China is more iffy, but is also much more hesitant to actually invade anyone than Russia is. The largest threat any nation is going to face is Russia...and Ukraine managed to beat them with hastily thrown together conscripts and cheap drones assembled at home. With 6 billion dollars, Ukraine has managed to beat a Russian military spending 160 billion dollars.

Since nobody is going to face a stronger military than Russia really, you can easily get away with a cheap civilian-soldier conscript army that you only raise in times of war.

>>64144943 (OP)
>With 6 billion dollars
LMAO. We've given Ukraine over $180 billion in military support since 2021 and the EU has given another $160b in aid, the Brits alone have given >$20b in aid (of which $17b was direct military support), even the Japs have given more than $6b.

Blow that number out your ass.

>>64144943 (OP)
>The Ukraine war has proven that
That no matter what year it is; Russia, in any of its forms, will be militarily incompetent

>>64145223
Ukraine didn't need that aid though, it's useful sure but even if they hadn't gotten any aid they'd still be kicking Russia's ass.

>>64145252
Lol. I don't think Ukraine would have been nearly as effective if the governments pay cheques all bounced for 18 months versus the USA ensuring.

It hasn't, because russia is a professional military only by African standards.

the only reason ukraine has lasted this long is entirely because of western backing and funding but sure, whatever you say

>>64145223

Wars like this haven't been clean 1v1's for centuries. Getting external funding is normal so I think OP's argument is still valid.

I disagree with the conclusion though. Russia is not broadly a professional military. They had a small professional core surrounded by a conscript army. Their idiosyncratic ideas about their military history, in conjunction with leftovers from the more competent Soviet Union, led all of us, including them, to believe they were professionals just because they were cosplaying in Soviet gear.

The reason Ukraine has been a fair fight is because it has been a fair fight. Their actual professional military was thrown away in "Ramirez, win the war!" bullshit missions in the first few weeks. In this case we have a citizen-militia army whose leadership is delusional enough to think it's a professional army.

>>64145252
look bro, I couldn't care less about the war to be honest. I want it to end and things to go back to normal ONLY in the hopes that one day cheap ammo and parts kits/complete rifles will return one day.

That said, Ukraine absolutely needed the money. The only reason they've held off Russia for so long is because they're literally out-purchasing Russia. We put massive sanctions on Russia, and started funneling dump trucks of money into Ukraine, it could have happened to any countries on earth if you funnel the funds right.

>>64144943 (OP)
You made this same thread last month to the letter.

>>64145252
Perhaps, but they would have lost a lot more people and land

>>64144943 (OP)
Absolutely retarded take on all levels that shows a 14 year old level of understanding society, war and economics.
Ukraine had a low intensity civil war with the Russian separatists since 2014 so they already had hundreds of thousands of people going through military service building up a decent reserve. You try and build up an army from the ground up with civilians when a war starts and most will no way fag you and just fuck off.
At the beginning of 2022,there were over 200k volunteers with military experience due to patriotic fevor.
So to summarise you need to build up a semi-professional reserve for years if not decades and professional volunteers are mandatory for the backbone of any military and will body conscripts easily.
On the economic side again abslutly uniformed takes. The total western aid has well surpassed 200 billion $ and more than half of it has been economic.
Without it Ukraine finances would have been crushed and they would not have bee able to pay soldiers, state employees, buy ammunition, rations etc.
Left to its own economy Ukraine would've caved in economically less than a year in even if Russia was impotent in the field.

And lastly Ukraine has suffered a pretty bad defeat overall by any metrics having lost almost a third of its population, a quarter of its territory and those ones being the richest in natural resources.
The only silver lining is that they were not wiped off the map or didn't have a puppet regime installed for now.
Trump and Putin seem to be working that angle though.
All in all when you put it in perspective Finland was way more successful in its defeat against a much bigger and stronger Russia proportionally back in the 1940s...

So the answer is a sounding no.
Peasent-militia armies are a sign of poverty and desperation, the most powerful nation on earth doesn't use them and doesn't need them period.
Read a book.

Completely retarded take. Ukraine probably has the most experienced and professional army in the world now. Even before 2022 they've been through an 8 year long civil war against Russian separatists, and they now are the only western country to have experience in high intensity warfare against a numerically and technologically superior adversary.

They basically invented the whole tactics of drone warfare by themselves, and thanks to NATO they have access to equipment like F-16s, Patriot systems, ATACMS, SCALP, HIMARS and so on while also having experience with Russian equipment and tactics. When you think about it, the amount of field experience Ukraine now has on both western and Russian equipment and doctrine is amazing.

Why is Ukraine 20% smaller and ready to concede land it if it's winning? You are a retard

>>64144943 (OP)
>Ukraine has managed to beat Russia
it is impressive that they've held them off, but let's not kid ourselves: it is Russia that conquered 20% of Ukraine, not the other way

>>64146467
if you count the starting line as being russia and not land russia already had control of in 2014, 20% is an absolute cope

>>64144943 (OP)
I don't think anybody denies a conscript military is stronger than a volunteer military. It is obvious that the moment manpower needs go beyond what volunteers can provide, conscripts must be used. It's just that there's more to "superiority" than just simple total strength. Volunteers are considered higher quality, most countries don't rely purely on their military for defense, and don't use their military purely for defense either. And there's also civilian ethics to be careful of, an armed citizenry is too dangerous, as it strengthens democracy. If you want strength, yes, you want conscripts. But for first world countries they can survive with a volunteer army and avoid all the problems of conscription. They just simply don't need the sheer overwhelming strength that conscription produces. There's also nothing cheap about current conscription models, it is in effect mobilizing an entire segment of your working population just for training purposes, and usually very poor quality training.

>>64145919
>ready to concede land
It's not tho

>>64145847
Idiot, they can just go into debt to pay their soldiers, it's not like nations don't go into debt all the time for far less.