Splinty

Not in the history of warfare, no. At least not that I can think of on short notice. But if you look at more minor forms of human on human killing, there is an example that actually fits pretty well. Terrorist attacks.
And I hate that I'm going there. I'm usually the first to point out that our fear of terrorism has been blown way out of proportion to the threat it actually poses. But the motivational pattern fits perfectly. Terrorist attacks are conducted without any realistic hope of achieving any tangible political objective. They are conducted by angry people who don't see any way of having their grievances addressed, just lashing out and trying to kill as many people as possible. In that respect the October 7th attacks look a lot more like a really big terrorist attack than like a military operation with a definable political objective.

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

Again, your ignorance is showing. The fight over aid to Ukraine isn't pro-Russian. It's an internal political fight. The new Speaker...who voted against it months ago is now saying "We can't allow Putin to prevail in Ukraine". Why? Because he's in a position of more responsibility and has to take it seriously. You really, seriously don't know what you are talking about.

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

I did 20+ years in the US Army. I went to Desert Storm and did 2 tours in Iraq. You have no idea at all about our professionalism and our capabilities. You know even less about Americans and what we will or will not fight for. Drop this stupid argument, and let's get back on topic.

If they are staying home while their nation is fighting for its life, and whining that Ukraine is losing this far into the war. They are cowards. Sorry, but that's the truth.

"Russia's plan is luncheon meat somewhere on the Vistula. They want to continue after Ukraine" [SROCZYŃSKI'S INTERVIEWS]
Grzegorz Sroczyński
20/11/2023 11:57
Western governments and the US government already know about the plan to conquer all of Europe. The problem is that societies still do not believe it or deny it, because people want to live a normal life - Grzegorz Sroczyński talks to reserve major Michał Fiszer.
Sroczyński's interviews

Grzegorz Sroczyński: Where are we exactly?
Michał Fiszer: In September 1939. At that time, there was no general awareness that a world war was already underway. The fighting took place in one place - Poland - and European societies believed that Hitler would be satisfied with that. He won't go any further, because what's the point?
Is it like that now?
Just like then, we deny the fact that World War III has started. Even though the Russians don't really hide what their goal is. Recently, an interview with one of the main Russian commanders, General Andrei Mordvichev, was published. "When will this war end?" "Not soon, it will continue, first in Ukraine, and then beyond." "So Ukraine is just a phase?" "Of course."
But what does "and then next" mean?
West. When my son and I - because the two of us are preparing our war analyzes for "Polityka" - wrote this a year ago, there was a huge wave of indignation: what nonsense are they saying, why are they spreading panic?! And just listen to Biden. He already knows.
Know?
That the Russians will not stop in Ukraine, he said this in a speech in Israel . Moreover, now the Americans are intensively informing their allies about this. President Duda also said this clearly on November 11.
Duda said: "Can we be sure that Russian imperialism will stop there, on the Russian-occupied lands of Ukraine? Well, let me tell you straight - not only can we not be sure that it will stop, we can be sure that it will not stop." Do you agree?
It's not about whether I agree. Duda is not saying this because he read my analysis in "Polityka", but the Americans made him aware of it. Biden has access to intelligence information and professional analyzes that we can only dream of. This team of people in the US knows that the Russians want to conquer Western Europe. Recently, Politico and the New York Times described leaks from the US Department of Defense: the Americans approached the Russians to enter into negotiations, they were offered something. There was no response at all. The Russians are not interested in any negotiations or stopping the war. According to them, it's going well: they've dug in and are waiting. They believe that at some point, Western aid will end, Ukraine will fall, and they'll move on. If Biden didn't know that this was Putin's plan, what would be the point of all this? Insisting on further packages for Ukraine do not gain him electoral points at all. Quite the opposite. Same with Duda. Why would he care? People don't want to hear such things and be afraid.
So politicians know?
The governments in Europe know and the US government knows. The problem is that societies still do not believe it or deny it, because people want to live a normal life.
And Russia will not hesitate to attack Poland?
Why would she hesitate?
Because he will get a fifth from NATO.
Will not get. From who?
From the USA.
The Americans have half the army of Russia. And if Trump wins, I don't know if they will send anything here.
They will send.
All right. Let's say that Biden wins, or that Trump only talks like that and he sends troops. How much can Americans send to Europe in an emergency?
I don't know.
They need to maintain reserves in case of war with China, so they will send a maximum of seven or eight divisions. And the Russians have about 30 divisions, including the conversion divisions, i.e. three brigades as one division.
How many soldiers is that?
A division consists of 10-15 thousand people.
So the US will send a maximum of 100,000?
100,000 soldiers in combat units, 50,000 in logistic units, 50,000 in aviation units. With the Navy, I don't think it would be more than a quarter of a million.
That's probably a lot. And wouldn't that be bull****?
The Russians now have 800,000.
Well, during the war in Ukraine we learned that technological advantage and the quality of weapons are decisive. Modern equipment is a hundred times more important than masses of cannon fodder.
The thing is, we ended up finding out the opposite. Ukraine received Western weapons much better than Russian ones, but this did not play a major role on the battlefield. A technological advantage can somewhat compensate for a smaller military force, but only within certain limits. If the quantity difference is large, the quality cannot cope with it at all. And this is the real lesson from this war.
If there was a war between Russia and NATO, it would not involve any sophisticated operations or brilliant strategies that the West had imagined long ago during the Cold War, but something similar to what is happening now in Ukraine: a mincemeat somewhere on the Vistula River.
Meatball on the Vistula River?
They would attack, sending tens of thousands of people every day to attack from that shore. Because before the reinforcement forces reached us, before we acquired fighting skills, they would definitely have reached the Vistula, no matter what we did. A country that has not participated in a war for a long time always makes a lot of mistakes at the beginning of the fight. Only then does it start to work better and adapt to the conditions and draw conclusions. The Russians have already done this, because at this point they are veterans. However, we would be newbies.
But why would they attack NATO and go further West?
Because in order to play a role in the world, they cannot have competition in the form of healthy countries. They themselves are a criminal, mafia, corrupt state, full of terrible chaos and carelessness, so they will always be pariahs in the surroundings of Western European countries. And they don't want to be pariahs, but a dominant country. That is why they wrote in their new doctrine that Russia's goal will be to create a multipolar world, and although it is not stated directly, it can be read between the lines that it is about such a division: Russia takes Europe, China takes Asia, both share Africa , and Let the Americans linger on those two continents, let them mind their own business in the North and the South. In such a world, the Russians would be able to emerge as a superpower and cannot compete with the West. They hate the West.
And they want to invade the West?
Eliminate it in its current form. And introduce Russian peace. Then there will be peace, no one will compare that people have it better in the West, and if they have it better, why is the government doing what it is doing in our country, why is there dishonesty and corruption in our country? This normal environment needs to be abolished and then everyone will think that the whole world is constructed this way.
But how do we know that if they win in Ukraine, they want to move on? What are the signals?
For example, they talk about it on TV every day. Just watch their programs. "Solovyov Live". "60 Minutes". Or Margarita Simonian, who outdoes herself. But I recommend Sołowiow, he leads interesting discussions. For example, he invited Russian professors, including President Putin's adviser on military affairs, and the discussion went like this: "Okay, Ukraine, then Poland, that's already known, but then Germany or the Balkans? What do you think?" "Professor, after Poland, should we take Berlin or Sarajevo first?" Russian professors discuss things this way.
This is a deliberate scare, propaganda!
Sure, you can console yourself that way. They made the same threats against Georgia, right? So, did they enter or not? Then they threatened Ukraine in the same way... They say what they will do. When will we finally learn this? How will they approach Brussels?
How are they doing in Ukraine now?
I already said: they think it's good. They hold on to their positions, send further attacks on the Ukrainians, the Ukrainians are losing strength, they are losing strength too, even faster, but they don't worry about it, because they have much more. Let Trump win in the United States and say that Europe should defend itself, because we don't care about Ukraine - and withhold aid. Europe will not be able to cope on its own and Ukraine will eventually fall. Then the Russians move on without stopping.
Without stopping?
They started preparing for war with the entire NATO. They want to do it right away, because they know that with each month of downtime after the annexation of Ukraine, the advantage of the West - terrified and desperate - would increase. Because if an arms race were to start seriously, the West would have a much more efficient economy, more innovative, and we would have a much better industrial and scientific base. That's why they want to do it right away in Ukraine and aim to march to the West in 2026 or 2027. Their plans for developing the armed forces go far beyond the needs of the war in Ukraine. They create new military districts, new armies based on corps, in these corps they transform former brigades into divisions, i.e. they triple their size, and they admit a huge number of students to officers' schools. After the presidential elections next year, they will probably announce open general mobilization so that over the next two or three years the newly formed forces will become more polished and combat ready. They introduce old types of weapons into production.
Why the old ones?
They are no longer able to make newer ones because they used many imported components, so they decided that they would switch the factory lines to the production of old models, all the iron that can be thrown at the front. If it is possible to produce an old tank again that does not need modern technologies, then they produce it. They will bombard us with numbers, they will create a large army, when Ukraine falls, all this can be thrown at Poland and continue the mincemeat until the end. And we will see how long the Belgians will endure in the trenches.
Trump leads in the polls. In the few states that decide the presidency, he has a solid lead over Biden: 10 percentage points in Nevada, five points in Arizona, five in Michigan, six in Georgia, four in Pennsylvania. What would happen if Europe were left alone with Russia? Can't cope without the USA? 27 countries won't send a decent army to defend themselves against invasion?
He'll put something up. But what armed forces does Germany currently have? Well, they have half of the Polish army. Even less. They have a special division, which includes an airborne brigade, a mountain infantry brigade and a special forces brigade. In addition, they have two semi-mechanized armored divisions. And that's all. We in Poland will be building six divisions, and now we actually have four.
But France, Italy, Spain?
It's been counted. Together with America, we can put up about as much as Russia throws at us.
And without America?
We will have less and the Russians will have a quantitative advantage at the start. Turkey has the strongest army in Europe, almost as many troops as the rest of Europe, but it is unclear how Erdogan will behave. He will probably send troops, but the question is how many. Greece has a large army, but pro-Russian sympathies dominate there, we don't know how they will behave. The Italians, Spaniards and French have armies the size of Poland's, the British a little smaller. We slept in Europe for 30 years, we were fooled. "Putin only scares." "Putin is not dangerous." "You can do business with the Russians." And it ended up that we are almost defenseless. The Russians are constantly creating new units, Europe is also slowly waking up and expanding its own forces.
What would have to happen for you to be able to write a text saying that everything is fine?
The point is that the Ukrainians will manage to do the job for us and save Europe. So that it becomes the Poland of 1920. European governments - as I said - fortunately know what is coming. The Germans allocated huge amounts of money to the army, the French canceled the great army reform in order to redo it for the war with Russia, the Swedes explicitly wrote in their defense doctrine that, as a NATO member, they would probably have to send troops to defend their allies in Europe, because in the event of the fall of Ukraine, the Russian attack is inevitable. So governments have woken up, but societies are still unaware and think: it's impossible.
And what to do?
Provide Ukraine with far-reaching support.
After all, this support is provided all the time.
Too little and too slow. The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, Valery Zaluzhny, said what they need to gain an advantage on the battlefield. Firstly, they need planes to take the initiative in the sky, secondly, they need faster training of troops and faster equipping of soldiers with equipment, thirdly, help in developing techniques for overcoming minefields and breaking fortifications, fourthly, more precision missile systems, and the last point is systems for electronic closeup. These points are interconnected, because a greater possibility of interference and electronic warfare means support for aviation - interference makes it more difficult for the Russians to defend themselves against aircraft.
But all this - all the help Załużny is talking about - seems to be within the reach of Western countries.
Yes.
And this is not done?
How many tanks will Ukrainians get in 2023? About three hundred. And the Russians provided their troops with almost seven hundred tanks. You can't win this war like that.
Shouldn't NATO just stop pretending it's not a party and send the army there?
Not yet. But if the Russians somehow started winning decisively, it would be in NATO's interest - instead of waiting for them to come here - to organize defense on the Dnieper. And then the West must tell Russia: not one step further. Take advantage of our technological advantage and the increased number of joint troops together with the Ukrainians. And then, together, start retaking the areas lost by Ukraine.
Will Putin then drop nuclear weapons on these joint troops?
He won't cum. Because he is aware that if he uses nuclear weapons against NATO troops, he will receive such blows that would lead to the annihilation of Russian troops.
Strikes with nuclear weapons?
NATO would respond at the same level. But the Russians do not have to resort to nuclear weapons, they simply believe that a soldier from Norilsk will survive a much longer winter in the trenches than a Belgian soldier from a villa on the outskirts of Brussels.
So what should we do now?
Understand that we are next in line and not delude ourselves that Putin will negotiate. Because there are voices like: okay, let him take what he already has, the rest of Ukraine will be accepted into NATO, the Ukrainians - so that we can accept them - will give up these areas and there will be peace. But the Russians are not interested in such a thing. They are not interested in Bakhmut or Severodonetsk, they are interested in Warsaw and Berlin.
We need to ramp up arms production in Western countries. New units need to be formed, the armed forces and infrastructure need to be expanded. And we must always remember that investing in Ukrainian troops is an investment in our own defense. This is not a gift to Ukraine. Western planes should have been flying there a long time ago, there were still fears that the Russians would treat it as an escalation and start escalating themselves, but meanwhile they don't need any excuse. And so they escalate whenever they want. 
So we have a situation where Russia has de facto declared war on NATO, and NATO is pretending that this is not the case?
They haven't formally declared it, but yes - they have a plan to attack Western countries, i.e. NATO, after Ukraine. For Russia, this is an ideological war, a modern version of the Great Patriotic War, they are convinced that they are fighting for their own survival as a country important in the world. And they assume that at some point they will fight the entire NATO. They keep telling their citizens about it on TV. They prepare them for this.
Where would you send your youngest son if anything?
Recently, after an article in "Polityka", a man from Białowieża, who is building a house there, wrote to me in this spirit. "A beautiful place to live, but does it make sense?" I myself push away the thought of what I would do if they came here to Poland, occupied the areas leading to the Vistula, then dug in, set mines and they couldn't be kicked out. In Ukraine, they have built such a tangle of trenches and minefields that they can sit and fight until they die.
What did you reply?
Well, I don't know what to reply to him. Something like we have to believe that we will defeat them in Ukraine and do everything to make it happen.
So where?
Kids? To Germany. To buy time. And then further. We keep pushing it away from each other and I push it away in the same way, but when writing about Ukraine I have to analyze it all, put two and two together and it always comes to four, I don't want it any other way.
Four means what?
That they want to come here right after Ukraine.
And how will it end? Are you a pessimist or an optimist?
Still, an optimist. What is the reason for my optimism? Paradoxically, these scary statements made by politicians. Because if they already know, they will act. And let's hope something comes out of it. They will expand the armed forces, ramp up arms production, and will not let Ukraine fall. If Ukraine has the entire West behind it, maybe the Russians will exhaust their resources first.
***
Michał Fiszer  (1962) is a former military pilot and instructor on Su-22 supersonic aircraft. Lecturer at Collegium Civitas, columnist for military specialist press, regular collaborator of Polityka.pl. He is the author, together with his son Jacek Fiszer, of a series of articles in "Polityka" commenting on the war in Ukraine.
https://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/7,114884,30422174,plan-rosji-to-mielonka-gdzies-na-wisle-po-ukrainie-chca-z.html?fbclid=IwAR2BZ3urOaUSXzTzex4KWJAtBslMkDGcUH7Hue6_IFcT8z1n7uObdetzabY

If they are staying home while their nation is fighting for its life, and whining that Ukraine is losing this far into the war. They are cowards. Sorry, but that's the truth.

If they are staying home while their nation is fighting for its life, and whining that Ukraine is losing this far into the war. They are cowards. Sorry, but that's the truth.

If they are staying home while their nation is fighting for its life, and whining that Ukraine is losing this far into the war. They are cowards. Sorry, but that's the truth.

If they are staying home while their nation is fighting for its life, and whining that Ukraine is losing this far into the war. They are cowards. Sorry, but that's the truth.

If they are staying home while their nation is fighting for its life, and whining that Ukraine is losing this far into the war. They are cowards. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Hey politics day. Well for my two cents.

According to the oh so helpful political campus and my lifelong voting record I'm a conservative. No way around it the truth is more than enough people with right wing views seem to have accepted the idea that Putin is not so bad, or Ukraine is not our problem. I think a lot of them think this way because they believe that our society is deteriorating, and Russia represents true traditional Christian values or whatever. Thing is Russia is basically just a mafia state. Some just don't like how much this war costs.

Well, that being said some folks on the left read "tankies" also give Russia a pass, because they still like Russia as it is a successor to the Soviet Union and they still think the Soviet Union is a force for good...Lets ask some of our friends from central and eastern Europe about that.

Anyway, I think the North American conservative movement needs more guys like Mitt Romney and Steven Harper as far as their understanding of the threat that Putin presents. As far as Russia goes, I think both of those guys would feel right at home on this forum.

What I always loved about this place is we have liberals and conservatives uniting to oppose an unjust war of aggression by a nation ruled by a man that we know is not our friend. 

Alright now that I said that I will go back to posting cool videos from Twitter. 🙂

I don't think it's just the weather that's impairing those folks. 

Speaking as a Bradley infantry guy. I'll have to disagree with the ground war could have been won with APCs part. I was with 1st Armored at Medina Ridge, and that was a hell of a fight. The Air War cleared the way for us, But it was the Ground War that finished the Iraqi military.
 

And no one take this as me thinking it is good news.  I would have been very happy to see mechanized forces doing what we expect them to.  The bad news is that if they had, and if air power still worked along with it, Kyiv would probably look like Gaza as the RA would have rolled over them.
But in the face of significant shifts of some pretty fundamental stuff like surprise and mass we are kinda off the map.  Now I expect some renormalization as counter systems kick in but the speed at which miniaturization, computing power/machine learning and information technologies are advancing I am concerned that we could be playing catch up for some time.  It is in disruptive times like this that warfare gets pretty rocky.  

Someone rang?  Oh good a tank argument.  The problem with tanks as we are observing in Ukraine is 1) not all about tanks - get over to yourselves tank lovers.  The issue is much larger than a single platform regardless how much you might love the thing.  Mechanized mass is currently in the wind.  2) It isn’t that tanks are dying.  It is that tanks are dying before they can deliver the effects we want the tank to do. They cannot mass. They cannot break in, through or out.  We are seeing sniping and indirect fires (seriously wtf?) as their primary roles on the ground right now.  And 3) those who come out defending the tank really do not fully understand just how fundamental the shifts are appearing.  Mass as we knew it is failing.  Force ratios are out the window.  Denial appears to have battlefield primacy.  The tank, along with a lot of other things are being dislocated from their ability to deliver results.
Now could a massive NATO mech force still roll over a smaller less capable force?  Sure.  But the cost is likely going to go up significantly.  To the point operational and strategic calculus will need to change.  If we run into a force empowered by a supporting great power’s C4ISR and the levels of precision and autonomous systems we are only seeing hints of on the modern battlefield, we are going to be in serious trouble.  We do not have effective counters.  The other thing the tank lusters also tend to gloss over is that the current wars we are seeing are last-Gen technology.  The more modern stuff has not even appeared on the battlefield.  The trend for mechanized mass is not good overall.
Yes, people have been predicting the end of the tank since the 60’s….what if they were right?  We have never seen modern armor tested in an environment like Ukraine.  We talked and “exercised” a lot of threat reality away back in the 90s and leapt headlong into confirmation bias as we crushed Iraq (freakin Iraq?!).  I am strongly suspecting that the tank was in trouble back in the 80s.  As of 2023, the entire mechanized edifice is in trouble.  
Lastly, narrowing this back down to tanks.  The other reality that is getting sidestepped (conveniently) is that a tank is part of a much larger system extending back to the factory.  We can wrap tanks in APS and bubble wrap but the fuel trucks, ammo resupply, maintenance and spare parts are strung out on highly visible and vulnerable supply chains.  Even if the tank manages to pull off what it is supposed to deliver, we likely cannot sustain it.
First video I saw out of this Israeli conflict was a tank getting nailed by a UAS…the idea has gone viral.  Normally I really would not care if the tank, or IFV or whatever was going obsolete but given that we are likely going to looking at billions in investment in the old fleets to keep them “competitive” I think it is a damned important conversation to have.  Personally I would double down on C4ISR, UAS/UGV, PGM and light fast highly empowered infantry because it has pretty much been definitively proven that on the current battlefield that is what works on the defence at least.  Solving for offence is likely going to be the challenge of the next decade.
But hey, we will always have CM.

I don't have any direct experience to contribute (I was about a week old when that war ended, and despite studying military history my entire life, I have never actually fought in a war (I did consider going to Ukraine, but I chickened out (I just didn't feel prepared to die))), so I can't replace a response from Splinty himself. But while airpower has been absolutely invaluable in every war from WW2 on, no war has ever been won by airpower alone. No matter how much the Iraqi military was degraded by air attacks, eventually a ground element was going to have to go in to finish them off. And that's what happened. The war ended after ground troops went in, not before. And as heavy as Iraqi losses were to air attacks, somewhere from half to most of their casualties (unfortunately there aren't exact records for Iraqi losses, so there is a lot of estimating going on) were taken in the four days of the ground offensive, with the other half to minority of their casualties being taken in the six weeks of the air campaign.
So, with the necessity of the ground offensive (hopefully) established, how essential were tanks to the ground offensive? I'm sure Coalition casualties would have been higher without tanks, but it might still be doable if you permit the Coalition to retain IFVs. It's hard to imagine how we could have fought battles like 73 Easting and Medina Ridge without either tanks or IFVs though. As things went, tanks and IFVs accounted for a huge proportion of Iraqi losses. Taking those assets away certainly would have meant harder, more prolonged fighting, with higher Coalition casualties.
Still, someone could easily point out that the Iraqis were hardly a top tier opponent, and the Gulf War was over 30 years ago in any case. So it doesn't prove the value of tanks in warfare in 2023 and beyond. We had TOWs and Dragons in 1991, but no Javelins and nothing like current numbers of drones. And that would be a fair point that I am not prepared to refute. While I am adamant that tanks are still important today, and I believe that it is pretty obvious that tanks were invaluable in the 1991 Gulf War, I will admit that the value of tanks in the Gulf War does not prove that they remain important today.

Speaking as a Bradley infantry guy. I'll have to disagree with the ground war could have been won with APCs part. I was with 1st Armored at Medina Ridge, and that was a hell of a fight. The Air War cleared the way for us, But it was the Ground War that finished the Iraqi military.
 

Full version
 

I'll take your word for it that you're not pro-Russian. But you are clearly getting your information from Russian propaganda. It has been obvious since last April that Russia is going to lose this war. That comes with the caveat that victory conditions are asymmetric. Russian defeat does not automatically mean Ukrainian victory. Russia has already lost this war, and there is absolutely nothing that can change that now. Ukrainian victory has not yet been assured, though it is very likely. In fact the only way that Ukraine could lose at this point is if western support evaporates. So long as western support remains strong, Ukraine cannot lose.
Yes, Ukraine is still struggling with corruption. They are not more corrupt than Russia (they aren't even as corrupt as Russia (even in 2014 Ukraine was still only the 2nd most corrupt country in Europe after Russia)). They are struggling with the same corruption that all former-Soviet/Warsaw Pact and Russia-aligned states struggle with. Notably, all former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states which realigned away from Russia have drastically reduced corruption and increased economic prosperity compared to when they were aligned with/part of the Soviet Union/Russia. We are seeing signs of the same trends in Ukraine. A single decade is far too little time to eliminate all of the corruption that comes with formerly being aligned with Russia, but they are making impressive progress.
There is zero chance of this becoming WW3. Even if war broke out between Russia and NATO (which is basically impossible, considering that Russia has no available forces to attack NATO with (they are all in Ukraine), and in order for NATO to attack Russia all members would need to unanimously agree on something), Russia just isn't a world war-class threat (modern day Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it is not modern day China). It would be a big war, but not a world war (by any reasonable standard).
Stopping the war would overwhelmingly benefit Russia and hurt Ukraine. It would give Russia a chance to rebuild their forces, absorb lessons, and retrain under peacetime conditions. It would undo so much of the progress that has been made towards defeating them. And remember that Russians do not keep to their agreements. Any agreement that is made with Russia will be broken by Russia. Peace now along the current borders will result in Russia invading again in a few years. They will have a better starting position, they will have produced more modern equipment, and they will not underestimate the Ukrainians next time. If we stop the war now then far more people will be killed in the inevitable next war than if we see the current war through. Seeing the current war through will make it possible to more completely defeat the Russian army, allow the Ukrainian army to reestablish itself along more defensible borders, and make it easier to accept Ukraine as a full NATO member, all of which will drastically reduce the threat of future Russian invasions. 
Another reason not to stop the war right now is the importance of deterring future wars started by other would-be invaders. Allowing Russia to keep any part of Ukrainian territory sends the message that land grabs work. Part of the modern rules-based order is that invading your neighbor is no longer a legitimate way of settling territorial disputes (Russia is allowed to claim that Ukraine is a historical part of Russia all they want, but they are not allowed to settle that claim with force). We must send the message that as long as the current world order lasts, land grabs will always fail.

Toyota produces enough Hiluxes and LC70s (and enough of them exist already) that someone would just have to open their checkbook.
However, Europe and US are not going to subsidize Toyota. That’s why pages ago I suggested we literally send all of the luxury pickups in the US that aren’t selling to Ukraine:
Subsidize US industry? Check Subsidize US workers (or NAFTA ones)? Check American trucks towing weapons and looking badass? Check I don’t think you realize how many pickup trucks exists in the US (or Latin America, or SE Asia). I bet even a medium size US city could spare a thousand plus between all the dealerships.