3 ms·

No, no, no. What I meant was arm the Ukraines with rifles/shotguns and grenades. That's all. Set up for guerrilla warfare. Make it easy to participate. Fightin

No, no, no. What I meant was arm the Ukraines with rifles/shotguns and grenades. That's all. Set up for guerrilla warfare. Make it easy to participate. Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. Time is too short also. And I'm talking about arming the citizenry, not the Ukrainian army. OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.

alkonaut 5y ago
> OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country. There won't be any large scale occupation of Ukraine. That's not the risk here. Crimea wasn't possible to occupy because the inhabitants lacked guns. What will happen if there is an invasion is that tanks will roll quickly to where they need to roll, artillery and missiles will destroy what needs to be destroyed, forming the gunpoint at which "negotiations" will be held. Infrastructure will be destroyed (military installations, factories, power plants etc) to ensure this capiulation and that Ukraine remains a failed state for a long time. Russia doesn't have any interest in occupying and thereby having to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine being poor and unstable is the feature. So Russia doesn't want to occupy Ukraine. It just wants to ensure that it's a failed state with a russian friendly government (which Russia can ensure, once it throws the country into instability and poverty). > Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. The equipment was recently shipped, possibly donated. Javelins have been part of the Urainian military for a long time. If you want to stop a gunpoint situation arising from a mechanized assault, it doesn't really matter how many villages of people with rifles the tanks had to drive straight through on their way to the hold position outside Kyiv. They'd make no difference. The villages are never going to be "occupied" and the rifles won't stop the tanks.

alkonaut 5y ago

> OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country. There won't be any large scale occupation of Ukraine. That's not the risk here. Crimea wasn't possible to occupy because the inhabitants lacked guns. What will happen if there is an invasion is that tanks will roll quickly to where they need to roll, artillery and missiles will destroy what needs to be destroyed, forming the gunpoint at which "negotiations" will be held. Infrastructure will be destroyed (military installations, factories, power plants etc) to ensure this capiulation and that Ukraine remains a failed state for a long time. Russia doesn't have any interest in occupying and thereby having to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine being poor and unstable is the feature. So Russia doesn't want to occupy Ukraine. It just wants to ensure that it's a failed state with a russian friendly government (which Russia can ensure, once it throws the country into instability and poverty). > Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. The equipment was recently shipped, possibly donated. Javelins have been part of the Urainian military for a long time. If you want to stop a gunpoint situation arising from a mechanized assault, it doesn't really matter how many villages of people with rifles the tanks had to drive straight through on their way to the hold position outside Kyiv. They'd make no difference. The villages are never going to be "occupied" and the rifles won't stop the tanks.