Europe supplied Ukraine 1M shells in 3 years

Europe really did deindustralize

"Deindustralize" is such overused term. Nobody trully expected Europe to ever need so many artillery shells. According to NATO's doctrine they would airforce instead of artillery. Nowadays Russia shots more shells per day than was ever used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

VW soon-to-be unused plant

de-industrialized is such an overused term

Mmm! Forbidden pasta

Yes. And these shells were still superior to Nork's junk.

Fucking retard. That’s not how war works

Obviously it doesn't work that way for Russia. "Globa supapowa" that wasn't even capable of establishing air superiority in Ukraine - even before Ukrainians got Patriots and jets from NATO. For countries that aren't corrupted shitholes war works on very different terms.

They also conveniently forget episodes like Bulgaria and Macedonia giving them their Soviet-era planes and helicopters in secret.

according to NATO doctrine

Yeah, according to mentally handicapped doctrine that presumes that it will be easy and cheap to use 150 million dollar airframes built in low-hundreds in best case in AA-satured environment to drop dumb bombs on Soviet-esque troop formations neatly lined up in some field.
The fact they even entertained this moronic idea tells you everything about the competence of Western high military officers.

In reality, many were never this dumb: it was merely PR talk to warrant spending more money on hyper-priced magic gear instead of tried and tested equipment.
Who do you think profitted here?

put people to work building munitions

sell munitions

use funds for public services

That's how a military-industrial complex works in a country not ruled by kikes.

take taxpayer money to build munitions

enrich the munitions company's stockholders

distribute a tiny fraction of earnings as employee wages & benefits

hand munitions to Israel for free

repeat

That's how it's done in ZOGland.

Following your logic USA didn’t establish air superiority in Yemen either. Air superiority doesn’t mean what you think it means. Air superiority means you control the AIR. Russians pretty much do that since day one.
What Russians don’t control is ground-based air defenses which proved their potency in this war.
Which, anologously, spells disaster for NATO military thinking, as they were the ones who placed high value on aircraft providing fire support for ground troops.

VW soon-to-be unused plant

Because VW opens plants in different European countries. Europe =/= Germany. German plants can start making military stuff instead, since there's a need for it.

German plants can start making military stuff

You literally have no fucking idea what the fuck are you talking about. This is 2025 cretin. Tanks and guns can no longer be built in shoe factories. And they never were built. You just believe in a stupid midwit conception of how industrial production works.
Russian MIC is gigantic, their arms factories are the size of medium cities. They had ample reserve capacity as it was all state owned and they didn’t scrap it as soon as it wasn’t hugely profitable.

EU and USA don’t have that. There are no factories, there are no trained people, there are no specialised machines, factories and logistic chains.

Even Russia despite this lacks the real capacity to wage full-scale industrial war (at least without major economic sacrifices).

The Russians have found a new owner.

And consider the following: UK spends like SIXTY billion pounds yearly on their army. And that buys them minuscule army, minuscule air force, and dysfunctional navy which has more admirals than ships. Their ground forces no longer even have SPG’s as all were sent to Ukraine.

Since the price of manpower and equipment surely won’t go down, how much money do you think they have to spend to build a credible military force that would be 20% the size of Ukrainian Army?
Do you think UK or any Western country can spend 500 billions every year for the next 5-10 years?

We're talking fighting some partizans or Russian army?

Despite Russia being Africa-tier shithole, it has regular, invading army (obsolete, but still). It's soldiers aren't partizans. They wouldn't even become partizans if they really had to fight on Russian territory (as Prigo's coup showed).

Because of that NATO's doctrine very much applies - like it applied during Desert Storm, when Iraqi army (considered 3rd or 4th in the world at that time) absolutely bowed to mutts.

Africa-tier

Is this really what polish (American) propaganda tells you?

EU and USA don’t have that.

You're throwing entire civilized world into one basket. US doesn't have heavy industry. EU very much has such.

Besties lol

We have border and long history with them. We don't need CNN to tell us about Russia.

NATO doctrine is spend 100 times the price of what you destroy, because you absolutely must buy the most expensive and ineffective weapon there is. Western military industrial complex is about lobbying and kick-backs, never about achieving military goals. It's just that, for-profit enterprises and corruption.
Actual war is about spamming millions of shells and thousands of drones, destroying enemy faster than they can manage to rebuild and replenish stuff.
When Europe tried to bomb Libya they ran out of bombs in mere days. That crap when you spend 10 million dollars to blow up a shack is not sustainable, you inflict 100 hundred more harm to your own economy than damage to your adversary. When you try to shot a $100k with two $5kk rockets, it's not protecting you either, because your enemy will just send you a hundred more.
If you try to evaluate the value of literally everything in Iraq and Afghanistan, that wouldn't amount to even a fraction of what was spend by NATO there. Or rather transferred through corruption to the military industrial complex.
Western countries are too corrupt to wage any actual war, even if the enemy did literally no damage to them and killed no army personnel, western governments would go bankrupt before they managed to destroy anything significant.
Heck, the entirety of European stockpiles could probably destroy 300 buildings and that's it. A single small town. How is that supposed to win them anything? Western doctrine cannot win wars.

They're not just more reliable, they're also a lot less likely to kill their operators.

westerners that are falling for the Russian propaganda that isn't even meant for them, is something else LoL

Ukrainian losses are a no-no shushed topic because Russian arty crews have been damaged by NK shells lol. Makes sense to me

says he as his populace rushes to lick toilet seats for peanuts in bongland

The irony is palpable

Stop shilling around here you fucking loser

You know what impressed me with Russian tactics in this war? It's the fact that Russians didn't bother doing CQB. They just blow up the entire building or bunker with a cheap anti-tank mine. Compare that to US or NATO training their soldiers to bust doors and enter an Afghan mud hut wasting time, money and manpower(whenever they fell for a taliban trap).

Welp that was a fitting anaphora. Kys nigga

pls stop

I mean the munitions don't cook off so easily.

just build that fucking iron wall again and hid behind it for another 80 years already plzzz you slavery loving KuK. we've got a special word for your kind here - swołocz (cвoлoчь).

Western military industrial complex is about lobbying and kick-backs, never about achieving military goals.

Says the country that's fought a war for more than three years while achieving 0 of its stated objectives. It took the Americans about a month to defeat one of the worlds largest armies in 2003.

NATO doctrine is spend 100 times the price of what you destroy, because you absolutely must buy the most expensive and ineffective weapon there is.

Because there was assumption that Russian army is 2nd in the world and life of Europeans is considered priceless.

corruption

Dude, your flag is Russian. Your leadership is literally Leningrad's mafia. Your country isn't just corrupted - it's corruption itself.

Actual war is about spamming millions of shells and thousands of drones, destroying enemy faster than they can manage to rebuild and replenish stuff.

If your leadership fucked up and bite more than it could chew, then yes. Otherwise war should be about shock and awe.

When Europe tried to bomb Libya they ran out of bombs in mere days.

Because Europe was unarmed. Still is in many cases. However now goal of most countries is to arm themselves. Maybe drones and missiles will still be 100x more expensive than few Russian soldiers on old rusty lada, but Europe is very much capable of such costs.

lobbying and kick-backs

corruption

not sustainable

Western countries are too corrupt

hehehe

it's even more retarded - we supplied the explosive, the French made the casings, then the English finished the shells and sent them to Ukraine. NK just made the shells themselves

Germany is not at war and we want to help Ukraine but we don't want to spend too much money/resources on it.
Building factories and producing shells is not some magic and we could force the millions of neets we have to work in those factories but there's no need for it and the population doesn't care enough about Ukraine to make such moves acceptable.

Ukrainian nigger under judeoparadisum flag is that you again

South Korea supplied Ukraine with lots of weapons too. I think it would be a good idea to not let them unite.