12 ms·

Great, now free the Leopards, Abrams and IFVs/APCs. This ain't gonna end unless Ukraine gets more armor to (re)form battalions. I really don't get the whole "d

Great, now free the Leopards, Abrams and IFVs/APCs. This ain't gonna end unless Ukraine gets more armor to (re)form battalions. I really don't get the whole "don't anger Putin" vibe, during the Vietnam War the USSR would send pretty much anything they could against the American forces. Even aircraft together with crews, as aircraft weapon systems really really require trained personnel. And no WW3 happened.

michael1999 4y ago
Vietnam is much farther from Washington than Kiev is from Moscow. We know exactly how the USA reacted when the USSR sent serious hardware to Cuba.
- user-extended 4y ago
  The US wasn't bogged down in an active conflict with troops on the ground when that happened for months. We're past that point since a long time ago.
  - blub 4y ago
    A strange moment, when the Pentagon shows more self-restraint than allegedly intelligent hackers.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Maybe. But that was just a reaction of the USSR to the USA stationing some serious kit in Italy and Turkey. Namely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izmir_Air_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izmir_Air_Station in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0zmir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0zmir Now look at a map and compare the distance to the former territory of the Soviet Union and associates, and compare that with the distance of Cuba to the CONUS. Whining pinschers...
actionfromafar 4y ago
And Germany could also stop wooing the Chinese court. Why make the same mistake with a new country?
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Because vee vannt to häff our invezztmänntz bäck!
gpvos 4y ago
The difference here is that Putin considers control over Ukraine vital to Russia's territorial defence. Vietnam is far away from Moscow.
- H8crilA 4y ago
  OK, but he won't have it. Time to get real. I'm not boasting, the war over the political control of all of Ukraine, or even the eastern half of it is lost. It didn't have to be lost, but it was lost in March of 2022. What remains is some "territorial details". (also, I think you should have written "Vietnam is far away from Washington", it was the USSR in the position of today's NATO and America in the position of Russia in my analogy; and fair enough it is).
  - gpvos 4y ago
    OK, the Vietnam war was before my time, I'm vague on even some of the important stuff. On the other hand, US and USSR nuclear policies are not the same (the nuclear option is the main fear causing restraint towards Russia at the moment). As for Ukraine, they will still have a hard time reconquering the area currently under Russian control. Resources on the Ukrainian and Western side are also limited.
danbruc 4y ago
This is a risky bet. If Putin just wants some more land, then you can probably throw more weapons at the conflict and he will eventually realize that it is not worth the trouble and give up. If the opposing view is correct, if this is not about some additional land but about keeping NATO out of Ukraine, then throwing more weapons at the conflict, cornering Putin, is probably the fastest path towards total destruction of Ukraine, including the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons.
- H8crilA 4y ago
  Russia is throwing everything already, we've even seen T-55 taken out of what could be called museums. You should see some pictures from the front, it is Verdun all over again. This is a total war that has to conclude.
  - trollski 4y ago
    [dead]
  - danbruc 4y ago
    I have admittedly not followed the developments in the last weeks and months in too much detail, but I would still say this is for the most part a war between two armies. But Russia could turn against the country, target every power and water plant, hospital, fuel storage, industrial plant, dam, port, ... They could go non-conventional, they could go nuclear. And how should it conclude? Who should give up what?
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      They already do all those things except nukes. I cannot emphasise this enough, they already do everything that they can. Conclusion is return to at least Feb2022 borders, preferably 1991 borders. We have the international law for a reason, everyone agreed to this law (including the USSR) after WW2.
      - danbruc 4y ago
WJW 4y ago
The point of not giving enough weapons to Ukraine to settle this quickly is much more nuanced than just "don't anger Putin": - After previous proxy wars that saw a country flooded with western weapons it was not unheard of for a new regime to turn around and sooner or later use all the weapons they got against western forces in turn (see Afghanistan for the most famous example). Governments do slowly learn the lessons of the past and are hesitant to give out too many weapons. - Mobilization in Russia has seen hundreds of thousands flee the country and tens of thousands of young men have been killed or wounded. Even after the war ends and sanctions are eventually lifted, the demographic imbalances that Russia will face in the coming future will keep crippling its economy and army for decades. NATO doesn't care all that much about who rules the Donbas, but they do care about reducing the threat of Russia to its member states. Prolonging the war for another few years will see tens of thousands more mobilized Russians being fed into the meat grinder, making the future demographic problems that much worse. - The Russian state falling apart and former provinces selling their nukes to the highest bidder would be a Bad Thing (tm), so we want to supply the Ukrainians with enough weapons so that they don't lose (and maybe win back the conquered territories) but not with enough weapons that they could conceivably make a big enough counter attack into Russia that it would fracture.
- bgorman 4y ago
  If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance Nuclear weapons haven't even been used when Ukraine has hit Russias actual territory (in Russia) so why would they use nuclear weapons against Ukraine retaking its own territory?.
  - thechao 4y ago
    I'm not so sure. The whole point of an exercise like this is to demonstrate power, or to acquire resources. Neither tactical nor strategic nuclear weapons would help with those objectives. Ukraine's army isn't isolated to a single spot — tactical nukes wouldn't even be as effective as WW2-era area bombing, and a whole lot more expensive. Strategic weapons would deny resource acquisition to RU. The use of nuclear weapons (of either kind) against civilian centers would be problematic, I think? The US "got away" with its use of nuclear weapons (first use; the US was the only major player left; etc.)
tehbeard 4y ago
Western gear like that is very different in terms of maintenance to the Soviet era gear Ukraine has been making use of. Even if there wasn't some theoretical advantage to prolonging Russia's engagement to bleed them, or the risk of current tech falling into enemy hands, there just isn't the infrastructure in place to keep Abrams etc in the fight. Hell the fuel and ammo difference alone would be a logistical nightmare.
- H8crilA 4y ago
  Abrams famously runs on any fuel because it has a jet engine. In any case fuel is not a problem now. Ammo is already supplied in western standards (for example 155mm, even precision shells) in hundreds of thousands of tons.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    The Abrams runs on "any" fuel but uses significantly more of that fuel to do anything. This works fine for America because we invest heavily into logistics in the military, but other countries probably won't be helped by having to double up their supply to most tank operations.
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      Fuel really isn't a problem there any more, and neither is logistics broadly speaking. They received hundreds of thousands of tons of military support. Supply up to the Ukrainian border of specific weapon systems is, specifically slow political decisions. It seems there is no consensus that Ukraine should decisively win. And even if they get an Abrams that has half the range they'd take it at this point.
- dmos62 4y ago
  > there just isn't the infrastructure in place to keep Abrams etc in the fight. Afaik, while that's true for Abrams, it doesn't hold for Leopards. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment.
bgorman 4y ago
Vietnam doesn’t border Russia/USSR, and Vietnam isn’t a former Russian territory with millions of native Russian speakers. Western countries need to ask themselves: is funding a major proxy war against the second most powerful military in the world in our long term strategic interest?
- loudmax 4y ago
  "Second most powerful military in the world"? What world is that? Russia isn't even the second most powerful military in Europe or in Asia. At this point, Russia is on the verge of being the second most powerful ex-Soviet state.
  - bgorman 4y ago
    Russia has the most nuclear weapons of any country, the largest airborne assault force in the world, the best missile defense system in the world, the second most nuclear submarines (and second best), the third most fighter aircraft, the most tanks. Russia has a great domestic arms industry/natural resources and can resupply itself in isolation. People need to realize that Russia's defense is primarily setup to defend its borders. Any country other than the US would not fare well in a nuclear war with Russia, including China. China hasn't been at war since the 70s. No one knows how well they would do in a conflict. You simply cannot ignore nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer, that is why North Korea cannot be invaded from South Korea, despite South Korea having a much better "conventional" military.
- snowpid 4y ago
  Russia is not the second most military power. That is just Russian propaganda / bullshit.
  - smcl 4y ago
    Maybe they're implying that Ukraine is the strongest military power now :)
  - rags2riches 4y ago
Slava_Propanei 4y ago
[dead]
mannerheim 4y ago
Whenever you hear Germans tell you something isn't possible wrt Ukraine, just wait a month or two for America to end up doing it anyway. Happened with Western heavy equipment when the HIMARS and M777s were sent, happened with air defense with the Patriots, and I'm sure Bradleys will be sent next.
- welterde 4y ago
  Not really the case with air defense, where Germany was first in sending modern anti-air facilities (Iris-T SLM directly from the manufacturer.. not even Germany themselves were using it yet). Dont forget about the Gepard flak tanks either. And for the offensive weaponry there is significant coordination among the Western parterns with many supplying equivalent weaponry at the same time (Germany supplied MARS II, which shoots the same rockets as HIMARS; as well as several PzH2000). Add on the the time needed for actually training the people..
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    I heard for weeks from German apologists about how the Polish suggestion to send the Patriots Germany offered to Ukraine instead was just a publicity stunt because such an action would require US approval which would never happen. Then America pledged to send them outright to Ukraine. Whoops!
    - welterde 4y ago
      That we cannot know. But what we do know is that Germany pledged delivery of the Iris-T anti-air system (which btw is among the newest systems on the market) back in May and it being delivered in October of last year. But given that and that Poland initially agreed to the delivery and only afterwards started changing their tune, I don't think the PR angle is that far-fetched?
      - H8crilA 4y ago
        The Patriots are seriously needed, that's a fact, because next to no one can supply ammunition for the Ukrainian S-300. Debating the Polish motivation is a waste of time IMHO. One thing I'd add is that Patriot != Patriot, this is a common name for essentially completely different weapon systems (air defense systems, but from different eras). Same as the S-300. So it could be that US is supplying some really old Patriots that would still work fine for taking down Kh-55 and Kalibr missiles. I don't think we know what exact Patriot battery configuration Ukraine will receive.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Great, now free the Leopards, Abrams and IFVs/APCs. This ain't gonna end unless Ukraine gets more armor to (re)form battalions. IIRC, since the war started, Ukraine has more than doubled its number of operational tanks, some from Soviet-era tanks from NATO member inventories, but mostly with captured Russian ones. > I really don't get the whole "don't anger Putin" vibe, during the Vietnam War the USSR would send pretty much anything they could against the American forces. Even aircraft together with crews, as aircraft weapon systems really really require trained personnel. And no WW3 happened. It came pretty close (also in Korea), but you’ll note that those were quite far from the US itself, and innthe Vietnam War the US still did escalate against neighboring countries, which is also something the US wishes to avoid Russia doing.

michael1999 4y ago

Vietnam is much farther from Washington than Kiev is from Moscow. We know exactly how the USA reacted when the USSR sent serious hardware to Cuba.

user-extended 4y ago
The US wasn't bogged down in an active conflict with troops on the ground when that happened for months. We're past that point since a long time ago.
- blub 4y ago
  A strange moment, when the Pentagon shows more self-restraint than allegedly intelligent hackers.
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Maybe. But that was just a reaction of the USSR to the USA stationing some serious kit in Italy and Turkey. Namely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izmir_Air_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izmir_Air_Station in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0zmir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0zmir Now look at a map and compare the distance to the former territory of the Soviet Union and associates, and compare that with the distance of Cuba to the CONUS. Whining pinschers...

actionfromafar 4y ago

And Germany could also stop wooing the Chinese court. Why make the same mistake with a new country?

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Because vee vannt to häff our invezztmänntz bäck!

gpvos 4y ago

The difference here is that Putin considers control over Ukraine vital to Russia's territorial defence. Vietnam is far away from Moscow.

H8crilA 4y ago
OK, but he won't have it. Time to get real. I'm not boasting, the war over the political control of all of Ukraine, or even the eastern half of it is lost. It didn't have to be lost, but it was lost in March of 2022. What remains is some "territorial details". (also, I think you should have written "Vietnam is far away from Washington", it was the USSR in the position of today's NATO and America in the position of Russia in my analogy; and fair enough it is).
- gpvos 4y ago
  OK, the Vietnam war was before my time, I'm vague on even some of the important stuff. On the other hand, US and USSR nuclear policies are not the same (the nuclear option is the main fear causing restraint towards Russia at the moment). As for Ukraine, they will still have a hard time reconquering the area currently under Russian control. Resources on the Ukrainian and Western side are also limited.

danbruc 4y ago

This is a risky bet. If Putin just wants some more land, then you can probably throw more weapons at the conflict and he will eventually realize that it is not worth the trouble and give up. If the opposing view is correct, if this is not about some additional land but about keeping NATO out of Ukraine, then throwing more weapons at the conflict, cornering Putin, is probably the fastest path towards total destruction of Ukraine, including the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons.

H8crilA 4y ago
Russia is throwing everything already, we've even seen T-55 taken out of what could be called museums. You should see some pictures from the front, it is Verdun all over again. This is a total war that has to conclude.
- trollski 4y ago
  [dead]
- danbruc 4y ago
  I have admittedly not followed the developments in the last weeks and months in too much detail, but I would still say this is for the most part a war between two armies. But Russia could turn against the country, target every power and water plant, hospital, fuel storage, industrial plant, dam, port, ... They could go non-conventional, they could go nuclear. And how should it conclude? Who should give up what?
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    They already do all those things except nukes. I cannot emphasise this enough, they already do everything that they can. Conclusion is return to at least Feb2022 borders, preferably 1991 borders. We have the international law for a reason, everyone agreed to this law (including the USSR) after WW2.
    - danbruc 4y ago

WJW 4y ago

The point of not giving enough weapons to Ukraine to settle this quickly is much more nuanced than just "don't anger Putin": - After previous proxy wars that saw a country flooded with western weapons it was not unheard of for a new regime to turn around and sooner or later use all the weapons they got against western forces in turn (see Afghanistan for the most famous example). Governments do slowly learn the lessons of the past and are hesitant to give out too many weapons. - Mobilization in Russia has seen hundreds of thousands flee the country and tens of thousands of young men have been killed or wounded. Even after the war ends and sanctions are eventually lifted, the demographic imbalances that Russia will face in the coming future will keep crippling its economy and army for decades. NATO doesn't care all that much about who rules the Donbas, but they do care about reducing the threat of Russia to its member states. Prolonging the war for another few years will see tens of thousands more mobilized Russians being fed into the meat grinder, making the future demographic problems that much worse. - The Russian state falling apart and former provinces selling their nukes to the highest bidder would be a Bad Thing (tm), so we want to supply the Ukrainians with enough weapons so that they don't lose (and maybe win back the conquered territories) but not with enough weapons that they could conceivably make a big enough counter attack into Russia that it would fracture.

bgorman 4y ago
If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance Nuclear weapons haven't even been used when Ukraine has hit Russias actual territory (in Russia) so why would they use nuclear weapons against Ukraine retaking its own territory?.
- thechao 4y ago
  I'm not so sure. The whole point of an exercise like this is to demonstrate power, or to acquire resources. Neither tactical nor strategic nuclear weapons would help with those objectives. Ukraine's army isn't isolated to a single spot — tactical nukes wouldn't even be as effective as WW2-era area bombing, and a whole lot more expensive. Strategic weapons would deny resource acquisition to RU. The use of nuclear weapons (of either kind) against civilian centers would be problematic, I think? The US "got away" with its use of nuclear weapons (first use; the US was the only major player left; etc.)

tehbeard 4y ago

Western gear like that is very different in terms of maintenance to the Soviet era gear Ukraine has been making use of. Even if there wasn't some theoretical advantage to prolonging Russia's engagement to bleed them, or the risk of current tech falling into enemy hands, there just isn't the infrastructure in place to keep Abrams etc in the fight. Hell the fuel and ammo difference alone would be a logistical nightmare.

H8crilA 4y ago
Abrams famously runs on any fuel because it has a jet engine. In any case fuel is not a problem now. Ammo is already supplied in western standards (for example 155mm, even precision shells) in hundreds of thousands of tons.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The Abrams runs on "any" fuel but uses significantly more of that fuel to do anything. This works fine for America because we invest heavily into logistics in the military, but other countries probably won't be helped by having to double up their supply to most tank operations.
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    Fuel really isn't a problem there any more, and neither is logistics broadly speaking. They received hundreds of thousands of tons of military support. Supply up to the Ukrainian border of specific weapon systems is, specifically slow political decisions. It seems there is no consensus that Ukraine should decisively win. And even if they get an Abrams that has half the range they'd take it at this point.
dmos62 4y ago
> there just isn't the infrastructure in place to keep Abrams etc in the fight. Afaik, while that's true for Abrams, it doesn't hold for Leopards. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment.

bgorman 4y ago

Vietnam doesn’t border Russia/USSR, and Vietnam isn’t a former Russian territory with millions of native Russian speakers. Western countries need to ask themselves: is funding a major proxy war against the second most powerful military in the world in our long term strategic interest?

loudmax 4y ago
"Second most powerful military in the world"? What world is that? Russia isn't even the second most powerful military in Europe or in Asia. At this point, Russia is on the verge of being the second most powerful ex-Soviet state.
- bgorman 4y ago
  Russia has the most nuclear weapons of any country, the largest airborne assault force in the world, the best missile defense system in the world, the second most nuclear submarines (and second best), the third most fighter aircraft, the most tanks. Russia has a great domestic arms industry/natural resources and can resupply itself in isolation. People need to realize that Russia's defense is primarily setup to defend its borders. Any country other than the US would not fare well in a nuclear war with Russia, including China. China hasn't been at war since the 70s. No one knows how well they would do in a conflict. You simply cannot ignore nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer, that is why North Korea cannot be invaded from South Korea, despite South Korea having a much better "conventional" military.
snowpid 4y ago
Russia is not the second most military power. That is just Russian propaganda / bullshit.
- smcl 4y ago
  Maybe they're implying that Ukraine is the strongest military power now :)
- rags2riches 4y ago

Slava_Propanei 4y ago

[dead]

mannerheim 4y ago

Whenever you hear Germans tell you something isn't possible wrt Ukraine, just wait a month or two for America to end up doing it anyway. Happened with Western heavy equipment when the HIMARS and M777s were sent, happened with air defense with the Patriots, and I'm sure Bradleys will be sent next.

welterde 4y ago
Not really the case with air defense, where Germany was first in sending modern anti-air facilities (Iris-T SLM directly from the manufacturer.. not even Germany themselves were using it yet). Dont forget about the Gepard flak tanks either. And for the offensive weaponry there is significant coordination among the Western parterns with many supplying equivalent weaponry at the same time (Germany supplied MARS II, which shoots the same rockets as HIMARS; as well as several PzH2000). Add on the the time needed for actually training the people..
- mannerheim 4y ago
  I heard for weeks from German apologists about how the Polish suggestion to send the Patriots Germany offered to Ukraine instead was just a publicity stunt because such an action would require US approval which would never happen. Then America pledged to send them outright to Ukraine. Whoops!
  - welterde 4y ago
    That we cannot know. But what we do know is that Germany pledged delivery of the Iris-T anti-air system (which btw is among the newest systems on the market) back in May and it being delivered in October of last year. But given that and that Poland initially agreed to the delivery and only afterwards started changing their tune, I don't think the PR angle is that far-fetched?
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      The Patriots are seriously needed, that's a fact, because next to no one can supply ammunition for the Ukrainian S-300. Debating the Polish motivation is a waste of time IMHO. One thing I'd add is that Patriot != Patriot, this is a common name for essentially completely different weapon systems (air defense systems, but from different eras). Same as the S-300. So it could be that US is supplying some really old Patriots that would still work fine for taking down Kh-55 and Kalibr missiles. I don't think we know what exact Patriot battery configuration Ukraine will receive.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Great, now free the Leopards, Abrams and IFVs/APCs. This ain't gonna end unless Ukraine gets more armor to (re)form battalions. IIRC, since the war started, Ukraine has more than doubled its number of operational tanks, some from Soviet-era tanks from NATO member inventories, but mostly with captured Russian ones. > I really don't get the whole "don't anger Putin" vibe, during the Vietnam War the USSR would send pretty much anything they could against the American forces. Even aircraft together with crews, as aircraft weapon systems really really require trained personnel. And no WW3 happened. It came pretty close (also in Korea), but you’ll note that those were quite far from the US itself, and innthe Vietnam War the US still did escalate against neighboring countries, which is also something the US wishes to avoid Russia doing.