Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "EU mulls plan for joint munitions buying amid dwindling supplies | DW News" video.

@anarabbasov8634 Are we to "respect" Putin's self-styled sphere of influence? How about you respecting Ukraine's sphere of influence, as delineated by Ukraine's national borders?
8
It's difficult to convince EU countries to standardise on the same weapons systems. 155 mm and 105 mm artillery shells are a no-brainer, however.
1
@Thor.Jorgensen ...as I wrote, a no-brainer.
1
@Thor.Jorgensen Don't be a pedant. I know perfectly well what's metric and what's imperial. The point here is that it's easy to standardise on artillery shells, more sophisticated weapons systems are a different kettle of fish.
1
@Thor.Jorgensen Nowhere have I disputed that artillery shells are indeed standardised. On the contrary, I have -- thrice by now -- made that very same observation. I noted that standardisation with regard to more sophisticated weapons systems is more troublesome. In comparison, artillery shells are a no-brainer. What makes it so hard for you to understand? Should you be taking more English lessons?
1
@Thor.Jorgensen It's difficult all right, but not impossible. Ammunition is a case in point. Explain to me why Europe is saddled with a myriad of dissimilar MBTs, IFVs, APCs, ATGMs and whatnot. It's not just about ammunition, but also, spares, training and maintenance, etc. I'm sure the Ukrainians on the receiving end could tell you a thing or two about the challenges. FYI, I spent ten years with a defence contractor, served in the military for four and did an internship at NATO HQ. Your amateurish lectures amuse me.
1
@Thor.Jorgensen Oh dear. Didn't I just write that these weapons systems require spares, training and maintenance besides standardised ammunition? Have you not noticed how Ukraine specifically wants the Leopard 2 and the F-16, because both weapons systems come close to what would constitute a standard? Both types fire NATO standard ammunition, as in 120 mm tank shells, 7.62x51 rounds and 20 mm shells, but somehow the Ukrainians have more concerns than ammunition alone. Where's my false statement regarding ammo standardisation? As I keep repeating, I've never disputed it. Your reading comp is piss-poor.
1
@Thor.Jorgensen I clarified that standardising on weapons systems is difficult, but not impossible. I'm starting to suspect that you have an intellectual impairment. Ukraine wouldn't turn down the Typhoon, no, but all the same they've expressed a preference for the F-16. You clearly can't wrap your head around anything more complicated than yes and no. You're lecturing again. My employer was bought out by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. Guess which MBT they make?
1
@Thor.Jorgensen Go lecture to kindergarteners. You'll connect on an intellectual level.
1
@Thor.Jorgensen You keep accosting me and you call me a troll? Go play, kid.
1
@Thor.Jorgensen I'm not calling myself an intellectual. I'm calling you intellectually impaired. This thread is testament to that.
1
@yvonnetomenga5726 It's scorched earth policy when a retreating defender destroys resources and infrastructure that may be useful to the advancing enemy. Russia has invented a whole new policy. Moon landscaping policy?
1
@anarabbasov8634 Russia attacked? Please elaborate.
1
@TheBlackIdentety Decades? It's even better than that. Russia won't be rebuilding its armed forces when the war is over. Russia will struggle to provide for its people, let alone rearm.
1
@MrJonezy541 I was about to comment the same. Investing in artillery shells for Ukraine is a good investment in peace. With Russia's armed forces permanently degraded, the prospect for a lasting peace looks very good indeed.
1
@duncansmith7562 Russia has demonstrably lost so much armour that it won't be able to replace it in a jiffy, if ever. NATO is running low on 155 mm artillery shells, because artillery doesn't play a big part in NATO doctrine.
1