Forcing Russia to allocate a large amount of its limited air defences to defend Moscow seems like a good result in itself. It appears to allow Ukraine to attack airfields, fuel storages and other infrastructure inside Russia with good results.
Russia is physically large, but pretty poor (its economy is only about the same size as that of Italy) and its defence industries are increasingly cut off from essential supplies. Russia has limited everything right now.
As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, well-trained competent military personnel are also in short supply.
>its economy is only about the same size as that of Italy
You've been fooled by your geriatric politicians.
"In the realm of foreign policy discourse, few memes have been more prevalent or misleading than the oft-cited comparison of Russia’s economy to that of Italy’s.
...
Yet error in this comparison lies in the reliance on measuring nominal GDP itself, as it fails to account for exchange rates and purchasing power parity (PPP), which accounts for the standard of living and productivity (and from there, per capita welfare and, importantly, resource use). Renowned French economist Jacques Sapir has pointed out the inadequacy of this metric, arguing that Russia’s GDP, when measured in PPP ($3.74 trillion in 2013, $4.81 trillion in 2021), is closer to Germany’s ($3.63 trillion in 2013, $4.85 trillion in 2021) than Italy’s ($2.19 trillion in 2013, $2.74 trillion in 2021). This is a crucial distinction, and it is both puzzling and troubling that so many continue to parrot the Russia-Italy comparison.
But even the PPP figures do not fully capture the significance of Russia’s economic power. Sapir further expanded his analysis in an essay for American Affairs, a policy journal, and noted that the PPP measurement “may not yet reflect the real importance of the Russian [economy] when strategic, geopolitical issues are at stake.”
Sapir notes that, over the past fifty years, Western economies have become increasingly dominated by service sectors, which, while contributing to GDP calculations, lose their importance during times of conflict. In such situations, it is the production of physical goods that matters, and by this measure, Russia’s economy is not only stronger than Germany’s but also more than twice as robust as France’s. Furthermore, Russia’s dominant position in the global energy and commodities trade—as it is a key producer of oil, gas, platinum, cobalt, gold, nickel, phosphates, iron, wheat, barley, buckwheat, oats, and more—provides it with substantial leverage over markets and economies, making it less susceptible to sanctions and less easily cowed by Western pressure. "[0]
Why? No clue - probably gross incompetence and corruption. The fact is that they have been at war for two years against what was one of the smallest militaries in Europe and still have not managed to obtain air superiority, indicating that they have some kind of shortage in the AA department.
I think you mean... say you got robbed. and even though you told them to get out, the robber is still in your house.
So you then ask the community for help and Smith and Wesson calls you up. They understand you don't have a lot of money especially since the robber just robbed you. But it doesn't cost much, so they let you owe them. Not free, more of a loan.
They give you a gun, and obviously train you on how to responsibly defend yourself. btw, they passed the robber in the bathroom on the way in and let you know, they're still in your house.
So you get your gun, and shoot them in your own home after they robbed you.
NATO is learning a lot from the AFU. When Ukraine eventually joins NATO (or even just after the war ends) their veterans will be eagerly sought out so the AF of other states can learn from them!
Note: I am not Ukranian, or even in any way European, though I have lived in western Europe.
Every war zone is a testing/advertising zone for weapons manufacturers. Think of the infamous (and hilarious, if it hadn’t meant loss of life) Exocet ad in Jane’s after the Falklands War.
And NATO’s role in the war is crucial, of course, as a supplier of materiel, but not as deep as the conspiracy theorists like to think. They did not launch this war and do not direct it.
Also, despite my comment being voted down, it’s not a joke that NATO was shocked by how Ukraine has fough, not just how well. Its influence is openly discussed in the US and a European press and can be seen, for example, in the rush to embrace low cost disposable drones.
But it’s more than that: Ukraine has been more nimble and creative than the stogy western militaries who stopped taking Russia’s military that seriously in the early 1990s. Russia has underperformed, but not by a lot. But Ukraine has taken a weak hand and, without a navy, bottled up the Russians in the Black Sea. They demonstrated and used a flexibility far from the capabilities of any of the western militaries at scale. NATO needs not just to embrace that (which will likely take a generation) but also be ready to fight an adversary that has a similar attitude.
2. Not really. NATO mostly gave Ukraine stuff that's obsolete, or close. The cutting-edge stuff (drones, mostly) is Ukraine innovating out of resource constraints, not NATO testing stuff out.
But maybe, instead of "obsolete", I should have said "not state of the art". Is there anything that NATO has given Ukraine that is state of the art? HIMARS might be. Were the Abrams and Bradleys state of the art, or were they old revs?
Is Storm Shadow actually state of the art?
>Is there anything that NATO has given Ukraine that is state of the art?
AMRAAM-ER, for example.
>Is Storm Shadow actually state of the art?
"France, the UK, along with Italy are jointly developing the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon to replace SCALP/Storm Shadow and each nation's respective anti-ship missiles by 2028 and 2034." [0]
