Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Valmy]

EU membership but no NATO membership, conflict frozen along current lines. Is that the best we can realistically hope for?

I don't know. I think Europe should re-arm at a faster and more robust pace, and massively increase support for Ukraine to beat Russia on the battlefield. Then I think we can hope for more.

Is that realistic though?  If the US cuts support, it'd take years for Europe to build an arms industry.  Can Ukraine grind that time out against the full power of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, as well as the financial backing of India?

Even if Russia ultimately wins, this is a long term threat. If it takes Europe years, well the best time to build a self-sufficient defense for Europe was 30 years ago, but the second best time is right now. They need it ASAP. And Europe seems particularly well suited to be a great military power (in a defensive capability anyway) in an era dominated by technology like drones.

[Neil]

Of course Europe should decouple their military from the United States (although I don't think they will).  They should rebuild their military manufacturing capabilities (also unlikely, but not impossible).  They just can't do either of those things in time to save Ukraine.

[Valmy]

They just can't do either of those things in time to save Ukraine.

Probably not. But it is worth the attempt.

[Jacob]

Of course Europe should decouple their military from the United States (although I don't think they will).  They should rebuild their military manufacturing capabilities (also unlikely, but not impossible).  They just can't do either of those things in time to save Ukraine.

I think that depends on how brittle Russia's own manufacturing (and support from NK and China) has become.

Can Europe produce the weaponry to unequivocally bury Russian aggression the way a US supported NATO can? No.

Can Europe produce enough to keep Ukraine in the fight and forestall Russian victory? That seems more within the realm of the possible. And as long as Europe can do that, there's the potential that Russia's will to fight breaks at some point. Though it's also possible that Ukraine's will breaks first.

[Josquius]

Of course Europe should decouple their military from the United States (although I don't think they will).  They should rebuild their military manufacturing capabilities (also unlikely, but not impossible).  They just can't do either of those things in time to save Ukraine.

I can't see a situation where Ukraine isn't safe.
All the metrics around the war are in their favour. Time is on their side.
They'd rather not see ever more thousands upon thousands of their citizens killed and miles of their country destroyed to get there though.

The best Russia can realistically hope for is a peace at the current front line give or take a few miles depending how long it takes to happen.

[Sheilbh]

Is that realistic though?  If the US cuts support, it'd take years for Europe to build an arms industry.  Can Ukraine grind that time out against the full power of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, as well as the financial backing of India?

It doesn't seem overly likely, no; though within the realm of the theoretically possible.

I agree but I am still fundamentally hopeful. I think an awful lot depends on Merz though.

I would add that even aside from the military stuff which takes building an industrial complex I saw an energy think tank had done the rather depressing calculation that in the last year EU member states have bought €22 billion worth of Russian fossil fuels. In the same period the EU and member states have provided Ukraine with €19 billion worth of financial support (so excluding the in-kind stuff). I think 2027 is still the target to have got Russian energy totally out of our system - but it's still disappointing.

[Neil]

Russia has better access to artillery shells and to fresh recruits.  They seem to have pretty comparable, if not slightly better, access to drones.  They have larger stocks of old supplies to run through.  I think that 'Russia can't possibly win' thought is based on the same kind of thinking that leads to 'Trump can't possibly win'. 

Maybe Jacob is right that Europe can string along enough support to hold Ukraine up as a byproduct of their own rearmament, but I don't think it's a given that Russian wills would break first.

[Josquius]

The artillery shell problem was solved a while ago for both sides. Russia does have a big artillery tube problem though. They're reliant on equipment from Germany to make these and understandably the Germans aren't selling them anymore.
 
On manpower I heard an explanation the other day that made a lot of sense.
1: it's weird this suddenly became such a critical issue for Ukraine right as the shell issue stopped being believable
2:  Ukraine recruits 210-280k men per year.
Russia recruits 350-450k men per year.
Advantage Russia you'd think.... But even on a bad day the Ukrainians are easily going way past 2:1 kill ratios.
Ukraine is fighting a defensive war with hardened positions where a top objective is keeping its men alive.
Russia is using serious meat grinder tactics as it inch by inch crawls forward, years away from taking all of the donbass.

[The Brain]

Ukraine has to deal with the understandable wish of the population to remain largely alive. Russia doesn't have that problem.

[Jacob]

Maybe Jacob is right that Europe can string along enough support to hold Ukraine up as a byproduct of their own rearmament, but I don't think it's a given that Russian wills would break first.

Definitely not a given, no.

[Norgy]

Of course Europe should decouple their military from the United States (although I don't think they will).  They should rebuild their military manufacturing capabilities (also unlikely, but not impossible).  They just can't do either of those things in time to save Ukraine.

It can't be done quickly because of NIMBYs. Re-armament not only requires the plants to make weapons, it also requires a lot of power, and since Europe in many ways is a union of NIMBY, we sort of are done for in that respect.

With a few very honorable exceptions, of course. Sweden and Denmark.

[Josquius]

Of course Europe should decouple their military from the United States (although I don't think they will).  They should rebuild their military manufacturing capabilities (also unlikely, but not impossible).  They just can't do either of those things in time to save Ukraine.

It can't be done quickly because of NIMBYs. Re-armament not only requires the plants to make weapons, it also requires a lot of power, and since Europe in many ways is a union of NIMBY, we sort of are done for in that respect.

With a few very honorable exceptions, of course. Sweden and Denmark.

I'm not sure NIMBYs are to blame here. There's loads of disused factory units out there and towns will usually fight tooth and nail for jobs.
The impression I get the problem is more capitalism. This stuff isn't made directly by states but by private companies and naturally the companies want to maximise profits and states want to save money. Things seem to get drawn out a long while as they negotiate order numbers and pricing.

[Norgy]

Our ammo is made right next door to me. This re-armament is making this region relevant again.

They also make so many car parts and missile parts that it makes my head spin.

Some countries probably have redundancy when it comes to industrial capacity, we certainly don't. Norway needs to expand, but, despite being seen as a energy power in Europe, we don't have enough energy to feed the expansion we need.
So, NIMBYs.

Oh, and we got ourselves a perfect Putin-friendly party. The Party of Peace And Justice. Consisting mainly of old Maoists and the usual crystal-healing mad people. I've tried through our transparency laws to look into who funds them.

[Sheilbh]

NIMBYs and environmental policies are definitely part of it in respect of energy policy and costs, which is a challenge for Europe industrially (especially as we no longer have access to the cheap Russian gas).

I agree to a point on the profit v state costs but I'm not sure I'd frame it necessarily as just about maximising profits. The big challenge, from what I've read, is that European states are very, very reluctant to sign up to long-term contracts with defence manufacturers who, understandably, say that they need to know there's a long-term steady stream of orders if they're going to invest in re-opening/developing new factories. To an extent I actually that argument is really about an assessment of political will and the arms industry is not convinced of Europe's political will to re-arm so wants binding, long term contracts. I'm not sure I disagree with their assessment. There are exceptions - the big Euro-wide exception is Poland, in the UK my understanding is that there is a lot of money flowing into Barrow and Plymouth for very long-term, big money Royal Navy projects (which is good as both those areas need the money).

And it's worth noting that Europe has very successful arms industry that are major export players - two of the top five arms-exporting countries are non-Russian Europeans (France who are very strong and Germany). Expand it to the top ten and Italy, the UK and Spain all have fairly significant arms export industries (in that order). So the challenge isn't that Europe doesn't have the industry but they've got committed orders from around the world they're currently meeting. New orders from Europe would require expansion - with a lot of up-front costs (plus those long-term energy costs).

Edit: I mean with gas - it will never happen but I sort of wonder if it's worth considering ending the bans on fracking - because it is really important, especially for heavy industry and European energy costs are 2-4x what they are in the US, Russia or China.

[Jacob]

It can't be done quickly because of NIMBYs. Re-armament not only requires the plants to make weapons, it also requires a lot of power, and since Europe in many ways is a union of NIMBY, we sort of are done for in that respect.

With a few very honorable exceptions, of course. Sweden and Denmark.

I'm seeing some NIMBY flavoured pusback against the new ammunition factory in Denmark (and I suppose I can understand not wanting to suddenly find your home next an ammunition factory), but I don't expect it'll succeed.