US to start training Ukrainian troops on Abrams tanks within weeks(airforcetimes.com)
airforcetimes.com
US to start training Ukrainian troops on Abrams tanks within weeks
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2023/04/21/us-to-start-training-ukrainian-troops-on-abrams-tanks-within-weeks/
122 comments
> It would be best to arm Ukraine to the extent required (missiles, planes etc) to reclaim all their territory vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight.
The trouble is: it's impossible to know ahead of time what's enough. It's doubly difficult because Russia gets to react to what NATO and friends do (e.g. with additional mobilization).
I do agree, though, that it would have been a lot better to have gotten to this place right away.
Honestly, though, the real thing that the Ukraine needs is way more artillery ammunition. And no one in NATO really has a lot of excess that they're willing to part with. Or much capacity to create more.
If NATO could give Ukraine 20 million rounds of 155mm per year, that would substantially improve their prospects. And it wouldn't be the same sort of "escalation"[1] that aircraft or long range missiles might be.
Edit: artillery -> artillery ammunition
---
1. IMO, the escalation theory is overblown. But enough people believe it in the US that it causes problems getting those kinds of equipment to Ukraine.
The trouble is: it's impossible to know ahead of time what's enough. It's doubly difficult because Russia gets to react to what NATO and friends do (e.g. with additional mobilization).
I do agree, though, that it would have been a lot better to have gotten to this place right away.
Honestly, though, the real thing that the Ukraine needs is way more artillery ammunition. And no one in NATO really has a lot of excess that they're willing to part with. Or much capacity to create more.
If NATO could give Ukraine 20 million rounds of 155mm per year, that would substantially improve their prospects. And it wouldn't be the same sort of "escalation"[1] that aircraft or long range missiles might be.
Edit: artillery -> artillery ammunition
---
1. IMO, the escalation theory is overblown. But enough people believe it in the US that it causes problems getting those kinds of equipment to Ukraine.
Or much capacity to create more.
Citation needed here. What happens is, western governements are shipping older, but good gear to the Ukraine, and ordering shiny new as replacements.
There is no reason to presume the same is not valid here.
Citation needed here. What happens is, western governements are shipping older, but good gear to the Ukraine, and ordering shiny new as replacements.
There is no reason to presume the same is not valid here.
For the counterfactual, imagine if we sent a bunch of HIMARS or MBTs in the first months of the conflict and now they were being paraded around by Russia on victory day.
It makes some sense to provide small arms -> light support -> progressively bigger weapons systems. It is worth remembering that at the beginning of military aid to Ukraine, there was a large chance they might have suddenly capitulated. In that event, anything you send would have immediately fallen into not-Ukrainian hands.
It makes some sense to provide small arms -> light support -> progressively bigger weapons systems. It is worth remembering that at the beginning of military aid to Ukraine, there was a large chance they might have suddenly capitulated. In that event, anything you send would have immediately fallen into not-Ukrainian hands.
I think Ukraine established its will to fight within the first month and its ability to exist in two or three months or so. We should have shifted our approach around then and started planning long term.
We are 14 months in now.
We are 14 months in now.
I don't want to make any big claims because real visibility is low but I think your assessment is somewhat mistaken, and not shared by US DoD generally, which were, I believe, fairly pessimistic as recently as 3 months ago.
Especially relevant on the F-16 discussion, since they'd likely only be flying over Ukrainian controlled territory.
There's no reason we shouldn't have gotten some of their pilots started in a training pipeline months ago.
There's no reason we shouldn't have gotten some of their pilots started in a training pipeline months ago.
There are two important factors you are not considering.
The first is that it takes a long time train soldiers on complex weapon systems and the entire logistical supply chain required to support and maintain those weapon systems. Giving someone a weapon system without this makes the weapon system nigh useless to them. Look at how long it takes for American soldiers to become rated on new weapon systems.
The second is that weapon systems are designed to fit a specific war doctrine. Most weapon systems will have greatly degraded effectiveness deployed outside of the context in which they were intended to be used. US builds weapons for the way the US expects to fight. One of the reasons there is a shortage of artillery and related munitions, which is critical in Ukrainian doctrine, is that the US and many other NATO countries don't need much artillery and therefore don't have much of it nor the ability to manufacture vast quantities. And it is not feasible for Ukraine to radically change their war doctrine at this point such that NATO weapons would be more fit for purpose, it requires years of preparation to do this.
Basically, the US but more broadly NATO can't easily supply a war that is being fought the way the Ukrainians are fighting it because their militaries are not equipped to fight a war that way.
The first is that it takes a long time train soldiers on complex weapon systems and the entire logistical supply chain required to support and maintain those weapon systems. Giving someone a weapon system without this makes the weapon system nigh useless to them. Look at how long it takes for American soldiers to become rated on new weapon systems.
The second is that weapon systems are designed to fit a specific war doctrine. Most weapon systems will have greatly degraded effectiveness deployed outside of the context in which they were intended to be used. US builds weapons for the way the US expects to fight. One of the reasons there is a shortage of artillery and related munitions, which is critical in Ukrainian doctrine, is that the US and many other NATO countries don't need much artillery and therefore don't have much of it nor the ability to manufacture vast quantities. And it is not feasible for Ukraine to radically change their war doctrine at this point such that NATO weapons would be more fit for purpose, it requires years of preparation to do this.
Basically, the US but more broadly NATO can't easily supply a war that is being fought the way the Ukrainians are fighting it because their militaries are not equipped to fight a war that way.
The US and NATO has been training the Ukrainian military since the 00s. [0]
They don't fight exactly according to US doctrine, but they don't not either.
[0] https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-04-07/ukraine-c...
They don't fight exactly according to US doctrine, but they don't not either.
[0] https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-04-07/ukraine-c...
That’s much trickier than it seems. Not only modern weapons stacks requires large integrated systems - which Ukraine is far from having - but you have no guarantee those weapons and vehicles won’t be used to attack targets on Russian ground that will escalate the war beyond what Ukraine’s allies might want.
> you have no guarantee those weapons and vehicles won’t be used to attack targets on Russian ground that will escalate the war beyond what Ukraine’s allies might want.
For purpose of discussion, does that include Crimean and Donbass?
For purpose of discussion, does that include Crimean and Donbass?
I don't consider these areas to be "Russian ground" since I meant to talk of mainland Russia. I believe Donbass has been shelled by Ukraine (and Russian) for many years before the 2022 invasion: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/74158
No, that's not a great approach. One overreach and you're in a nuclear war.
> No, that's not a great approach. One overreach and you're in a nuclear war.
That's pretty easy to stop - I'm sure NATO has already told Ukraine that an incursion into Russia proper would mean an end to military aid.
That's pretty easy to stop - I'm sure NATO has already told Ukraine that an incursion into Russia proper would mean an end to military aid.
Bullies only respond to force. The only way to prevent Russia using nukes, is to tell(and mean it!) them any use will be repaid 5x over.
Really though, all we're waiting for is Putin to die from old age, or lose his hold, and then Russia will decend into anarchy.
Which will end the current threat, but open up others...
Really though, all we're waiting for is Putin to die from old age, or lose his hold, and then Russia will decend into anarchy.
Which will end the current threat, but open up others...
Yeah there’s no way anyone could succeed Putin, such as Dmitry Medvedev, who works closely with him and already served as president and prime minister.
Strong men eliminate those who are threats, who can be a threat. Putin is very good at this, competitors which had potental are dead, lessor competitors jailed.
This means that anyone close to Putin, is likely lacking in capability, or perhaps more importantly, the ability to lead and drive loyalty.
Weak leaders fall fast, if they try to pick up the sceptre.
This isn't slashot. People don't need personal trolls here. Is there any reason you're following me around?
This means that anyone close to Putin, is likely lacking in capability, or perhaps more importantly, the ability to lead and drive loyalty.
Weak leaders fall fast, if they try to pick up the sceptre.
This isn't slashot. People don't need personal trolls here. Is there any reason you're following me around?
I have no idea who you are but evidently you say a lot of baseless or uninformed stuff if you recognize me
It is akin to how the USA has not yet vanquished ISIS, despite it being a bunch of poorly armed amateurs. Perhaps the reason is that a "forever war" keeps your enemy in a known place, rather than regrouping and rebuilding.
well yes but ISIS is very much on the back foot and in survival mode. They aren't exactly in control of population centers or threatening to overrun countries.
In this case if Ukraine & Russia arrive at some kind of a truce, its likely a low level conflict (fought through online misinformation /cyber warfare /border shelling) will continue. But it also won't be this full scale war
In this case if Ukraine & Russia arrive at some kind of a truce, its likely a low level conflict (fought through online misinformation /cyber warfare /border shelling) will continue. But it also won't be this full scale war
> vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight.
Probably because this it the real goal. Ukraine is a pawn.
Probably because this it the real goal. Ukraine is a pawn.
The west prefers a bled dry Russia to a recently humiliated but not bled dry Russia. That's why it's a drip by drip basis.
Also the defense industrial complex sells more shit in a long conflict than a short one.
Also the defense industrial complex sells more shit in a long conflict than a short one.
You couldn't possibly be naive enough to think that the military industrial complex wants the war to actually end do you?
I really feel sad about my friends in both Ukraine and Russia. Both countries bleed because of someone's misguided fantasies. And there's no way out. Putin knows he can not give up. Ukrainians will never give up. And even if someone managed to kill Putin now, there is no any guarantee his successor won't want to continue the war. It's sad to watch all this and feel completely hopeless.
>there is no any guarantee his successor won't want to continue the war.
If they continue the war, it will be difficult for them to hold onto power for more than 1 failed offensive.
There will always be a group of people that want the war over, not for peace reasons necessarily, but for economic(and political or personal reasons). A new dictator stands on a shaky ladder. They need to have a successful offensive quickly or they will be replaced.
If they continue the war, it will be difficult for them to hold onto power for more than 1 failed offensive.
There will always be a group of people that want the war over, not for peace reasons necessarily, but for economic(and political or personal reasons). A new dictator stands on a shaky ladder. They need to have a successful offensive quickly or they will be replaced.
It's a common misconception to think it's Putin's war and not Russians'. There are many people who fled Russia in European cities like Berlin. How many anti-war protests conducted by Russians were there?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62969778
> Being an anti-war activist in Russia is dangerous. Rights groups say there have been more than 16,000 detentions across the country for anti-war actions.
That's 16000 as of last September, by the way. Thousands more since.
> Being an anti-war activist in Russia is dangerous. Rights groups say there have been more than 16,000 detentions across the country for anti-war actions.
That's 16000 as of last September, by the way. Thousands more since.
Look - I'm sure that there's lots of Russians who are against the war and are just afraid to speak out.
But you can go on Youtube and find people doing interviews in Russia. It's pretty clear to me that the war continues to have substantial popular support among Russians.
Is it a majority? Who knows. But it's not difficult to find people who are strong supporters.
But you can go on Youtube and find people doing interviews in Russia. It's pretty clear to me that the war continues to have substantial popular support among Russians.
Is it a majority? Who knows. But it's not difficult to find people who are strong supporters.
Please read my message again: I'm talking about anti-war protests *outside* Russia, which are safe and should (in normal societies) produce many more attendees.
That's laughable numbers. After the genocidal pictures from Bucha, destroyed Mariupol, 16 russian civilians dead in russia when their fighter fell on top of the buildings you'd think more people should be against.
Sadly, russian society is sick and most of them want to destroy Ukraine. The only way they understand is brute force.
This. We got to high on our own history lessons learned medicine in the west. Thinking that anybody shared that sentiment.
For all those other regions on the planet, the Great game never ended and is in full swing ever after. For them the WorldWars were a colonial power internal affair, and now its "our turn to become the king of the hill of skulls". The history and injustices of 2 worldwars is just a justification to go into battle for them.
Its bleak, but our reality altering screams never penetrated that mindset.
For all those other regions on the planet, the Great game never ended and is in full swing ever after. For them the WorldWars were a colonial power internal affair, and now its "our turn to become the king of the hill of skulls". The history and injustices of 2 worldwars is just a justification to go into battle for them.
Its bleak, but our reality altering screams never penetrated that mindset.
Well, there were at the very beginning, and they were quite harshly repressed. It's not like anti-war protests in the US against the Iraq war, where you can just do it and go back to your life the next day, necessarily. Russian reporters who just say negative things in print get prison sentences.
There are more protests against the war in Ukraine now, than there were in Russia in 1915, and the Russian people eventually overthrew their czar over that.
There are more protests against the war in Ukraine now, than there were in Russia in 1915, and the Russian people eventually overthrew their czar over that.
As firsthand recorded source material for the above, see "This American Life" episode 767, act 2.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/767/do-not-go-gentle
(Disclaimer: contains recordings from Russian police stations...)
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/767/do-not-go-gentle
(Disclaimer: contains recordings from Russian police stations...)
Please read my message again. I'm talking about protests in cities like Berlin, where nobody is repressed.
Doesn't seem like there's a big protest scene in Germany. I don't remember seeing anything from Germans when the US blew up their pipeline.
Someone's?
We have been steadily escalating the conflict with Russia. We're training Ukrainian forces, providing the intelligence for them, and supplying them with our best weapons. How can we even pretend it's Ukraine at war and not us at this point? How is there not more debate about backing a country with enough nukes to destroy life on earth into a corner?
The US has lost three wars without resorting to nuclear weapons; Russia has lost two wars (once as the USSR, once as Russia) similarly without resorting to nuclear weapons. A loss in Ukraine wouldn't even be the most "backed in a corner" a superpower has been since WWII.
> The US has lost three wars without resorting to nuclear weapons;
None of which was happening anywhere close to US borders. In finance they say that past performance is no guarantee of future results, but you're eager to bet everything you have on this war outcome nonetheless.
None of which was happening anywhere close to US borders. In finance they say that past performance is no guarantee of future results, but you're eager to bet everything you have on this war outcome nonetheless.
Ah yes, but the war Russia (as Russia, and not the USSR) lost was fought on Russian soil.
Russia didn't lose in Chechnya, there were two campaigns and three rival military insurgent groups to combat. Eventually, the most prominent one was dealt with, and Khattab and all of his Saudi and Afghani terrorist field commanders were eliminated.
> Russia didn't lose in Chechnya
Yes it did, you're arguing against basic facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
Yes it did, you're arguing against basic facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
No it didn't, you're referring to an article on Wikipedia explaining how a battle was lost. I was saying how the war was won. Eventually every single insurgency leader and their field commanders were eliminated and nowadays Chechnya is part of Russia, and Chechen military forces are fighting on the side of Russia. If that's your definition of Russia's losing then I don't envy Ukrainian military command leaders.
That was the Second Chechen War, though, not the First Chechen War, was it not?
The three insurgent groups acted across two campaings (two hot war phases). The first phase was dealing with Dudayev & Maskhadov and their following specifically. The second phase acted on the Kadyrovs group and the Khattab & Basayev group. The former essentially were bought out and negotiated out of the war via rivalry with Maskhadov, financial incetives, and several regional autonomy promises (they have their own militia and army divisions like the 141 Special Motorized Regiment). The latter Khattab group effectively became the most prominent force during the second phase, it had several field commanders from Middle East who organized acts of terror in major Russian cities. [1] The war ended with elimination of all the leaders and field commanders of the two separatist groups.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Khattab
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Khattab
>The US has lost three wars
Are we calling Iraq and Afghanistan losses? Sure would be great if we established a liberal democracy in Afghanistan, but it seems like after Osama was killed, Americans mentally declared victory and we were just burning money and lives.
Iraq had their leader overthrown and a new government established. Its really hard to call that a loss, even if it wasnt a perfect liberal democracy like we want.
Are we calling Iraq and Afghanistan losses? Sure would be great if we established a liberal democracy in Afghanistan, but it seems like after Osama was killed, Americans mentally declared victory and we were just burning money and lives.
Iraq had their leader overthrown and a new government established. Its really hard to call that a loss, even if it wasnt a perfect liberal democracy like we want.
In 2003-13 I never would have said this but it sure looks like Iraq came out better.
Neither came out great but both are stable, Iraq is not destabilizing the region and Afghanistan isn't harboring people who want to attack the west and have the capability to.
That said, we never should have invaded Iraq and we probably could have accomplished what we accomplished in Afghanistan and more had we more seriously pursued diplomatic options in 2001.
Neither came out great but both are stable, Iraq is not destabilizing the region and Afghanistan isn't harboring people who want to attack the west and have the capability to.
That said, we never should have invaded Iraq and we probably could have accomplished what we accomplished in Afghanistan and more had we more seriously pursued diplomatic options in 2001.
For Afghanistan, I think the use of special forces and the like to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists would have been expedient. We got him in Pakistan even after all the trouble to invade and occupy Afghanistan.
Throw in some shock and awe on Taliban forces if we wanted to make more of a point, I suppose.
The mood in 2001 was one where diplomacy was impossible short of unconditionally handing over everyone in Al Qaeda to the US.
Throw in some shock and awe on Taliban forces if we wanted to make more of a point, I suppose.
The mood in 2001 was one where diplomacy was impossible short of unconditionally handing over everyone in Al Qaeda to the US.
>The mood in 2001 was one where diplomacy was impossible short of unconditionally handing over everyone in Al Qaeda to the US.
That wasn't an unreasonable request all things considered. We should have tried much harder to get the Taliban to accept that deal. They needed to look like more legitimate government with a stronger grip on power. We needed Al Qaeda. It should have been an easy deal to make. Marketing it would have been harder.
We've made the same deal a dozen times before. It's not like we didn't have the playbook ready to go. All we had to do was translate the end user guides from Spanish and replace "commies" with "Al Qaeda". Obviously the details would have needed to be hammered out but it's not like the precedent wasn't there.
That wasn't an unreasonable request all things considered. We should have tried much harder to get the Taliban to accept that deal. They needed to look like more legitimate government with a stronger grip on power. We needed Al Qaeda. It should have been an easy deal to make. Marketing it would have been harder.
We've made the same deal a dozen times before. It's not like we didn't have the playbook ready to go. All we had to do was translate the end user guides from Spanish and replace "commies" with "Al Qaeda". Obviously the details would have needed to be hammered out but it's not like the precedent wasn't there.
Russia has explicitly stated multiple times that they will use nuclear weapons in response to an existential threat, but you want to call their bluff?
Resisting their incursion into a sovereign country somehow constitutes a credible threat to the _existence_ of the Russian nation?
Read the comments in this thread and others. See how many slack-jawed jackals are slavering over the idea of overthrowing Putin, ‘decolonizing’ Russia, Russia descending into anarchy, etc. These halfwits are merely echoing the myopic fantasies fed to them via the US media apparatus from the highest echelons of state power. Do you really think all these dark fantasies originated a year ago? Or is there maybe something else going on?
> A loss in Ukraine wouldn't even be the most "backed in a corner" a superpower has been since WWII
Perhaps not for the country, but it could be for Putin. It's dangerous to make a man with the nuke codes desperate toward the end of his life.
Perhaps not for the country, but it could be for Putin. It's dangerous to make a man with the nuke codes desperate toward the end of his life.
> It's dangerous to make a man with the nuke codes desperate toward the end of his life.
You always talk about the nukes because it's all you have left.
Western leaders will never bow to the nuclear threat because doing so means Russia/China can get their way in everything if they just use the nuclear threat.
You always talk about the nukes because it's all you have left.
Western leaders will never bow to the nuclear threat because doing so means Russia/China can get their way in everything if they just use the nuclear threat.
> You always talk about the nukes because it's all you have left.
I talk about nukes because I believe it's the biggest danger the world faces and have for a long time. I grew up in the shadow of the cold war being drilled on how to hide under my desk when the missiles came. Far before Ukraine I was mystified by everyone's ability to forget that threat still exists. It seems possible and even likely to me that nuclear catastrophe will come before and be far greater in magnitude than any AI or climate catastrophes, for me it overshadows every other threat. Apparently I'm not the only one that perceives a threat: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/
I talk about nukes because I believe it's the biggest danger the world faces and have for a long time. I grew up in the shadow of the cold war being drilled on how to hide under my desk when the missiles came. Far before Ukraine I was mystified by everyone's ability to forget that threat still exists. It seems possible and even likely to me that nuclear catastrophe will come before and be far greater in magnitude than any AI or climate catastrophes, for me it overshadows every other threat. Apparently I'm not the only one that perceives a threat: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/
That’s not how nuclear codes work. There’s a long chain of people before ICBM is launched.
How long? A decision that must be made in an hour can't have too long a chain of command. There are several historical instances where we or Russia almost launched by mistake.
> How long? A decision that must be made in an hour can't have too long a chain of command. There are several historical instances where we or Russia almost launched by mistake.
The chain is even longer then the higher ups decision to actually launch a nuke though.
Would you press the button to nuke another country knowing that doing so will very likely kill your entire family and you?, or would you ignore the order?.
The chain is even longer then the higher ups decision to actually launch a nuke though.
Would you press the button to nuke another country knowing that doing so will very likely kill your entire family and you?, or would you ignore the order?.
Everyone downvoting this should be completely ashamed of themselves.
This isn't reddit - we strive for a higher level of discourse here. "Upvotes / downvotes" mean "good contribution to the discussion / not good, ad hominem, rude, etc." And the above comment is an excellent contribution.
I want someone who actually has a good grasp of foreign policy, strategy, wargaming, geopolitics, etc. to answer this. I too want to understand how America arming and training a Ukrainian man to fight Russia is so strategically/diplomatically different from an American man fighting Russia. The degree of indirection seems so minor, how is it so different from direct engagement? Why/how does Russia/U.S. not treat it like direct engagement? I don't understand.
This isn't reddit - we strive for a higher level of discourse here. "Upvotes / downvotes" mean "good contribution to the discussion / not good, ad hominem, rude, etc." And the above comment is an excellent contribution.
I want someone who actually has a good grasp of foreign policy, strategy, wargaming, geopolitics, etc. to answer this. I too want to understand how America arming and training a Ukrainian man to fight Russia is so strategically/diplomatically different from an American man fighting Russia. The degree of indirection seems so minor, how is it so different from direct engagement? Why/how does Russia/U.S. not treat it like direct engagement? I don't understand.
This is standard proxy war stuff, and isn't even close to what's been going on in the middle east. Like, not too long ago Wagner forces actually had a direct shoot out with the US military in Syria. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...
The episode where the Russian jet sprayed fuel on the US drone? Standard cold war tactic that was very common in the 80s. Russians have been ramming and harassing US vehicles for decades. Here's a video of Russians harassing a US convoy of sorts in Syria a few years ago: https://youtube.com/shorts/hSGv02qQfhQ?feature=share
Both sides have been flagrantly arming and training opposing factions in these proxy wars for decades as well. Modern Ukraine looks a lot like a reversed Vietnam, actually, and the US never declared war on Russia for that either.
Neither side wants direct confrontation with the other, so they play games like this. Ukraine is a bit tame compared to the other recent/ongoing proxy wars. The flashpoint is that it's happening in Europe, which makes every move very public and sensationalised, and adds more pressure to the situation in general.
So most of this talk of "violations" and escalation is in some sense naive, because the actual red lines have been carved in the sand outside of the public eye over the past half century. What we understand as a clear escalation is often just par for the course in the minds of the people involved in these conflicts.
The episode where the Russian jet sprayed fuel on the US drone? Standard cold war tactic that was very common in the 80s. Russians have been ramming and harassing US vehicles for decades. Here's a video of Russians harassing a US convoy of sorts in Syria a few years ago: https://youtube.com/shorts/hSGv02qQfhQ?feature=share
Both sides have been flagrantly arming and training opposing factions in these proxy wars for decades as well. Modern Ukraine looks a lot like a reversed Vietnam, actually, and the US never declared war on Russia for that either.
Neither side wants direct confrontation with the other, so they play games like this. Ukraine is a bit tame compared to the other recent/ongoing proxy wars. The flashpoint is that it's happening in Europe, which makes every move very public and sensationalised, and adds more pressure to the situation in general.
So most of this talk of "violations" and escalation is in some sense naive, because the actual red lines have been carved in the sand outside of the public eye over the past half century. What we understand as a clear escalation is often just par for the course in the minds of the people involved in these conflicts.
> Everyone downvoting this should be completely ashamed of themselves.
> we strive for a higher level of discourse here
I am not ashamed. TexanFeller's comment is not contributing to the discussion, he fearmongers with nukes to advocate for the subjugation of a country.
It could just be that it's his honest opinion, but I've seen too many similar comments always using whataboutism and/or nuclear fearmongering.
> we strive for a higher level of discourse here
I am not ashamed. TexanFeller's comment is not contributing to the discussion, he fearmongers with nukes to advocate for the subjugation of a country.
It could just be that it's his honest opinion, but I've seen too many similar comments always using whataboutism and/or nuclear fearmongering.
> he fearmongers with nukes to advocate for the subjugation of a country
I have concerns about going to war with a nuclear power therefore I'm pro-Russia and wish for the subjugation of Ukraine? Obviously manipulative and ridiculous framing.
I have concerns about going to war with a nuclear power therefore I'm pro-Russia and wish for the subjugation of Ukraine? Obviously manipulative and ridiculous framing.
Appeasement also has its issues. There is no guarantee that Russia would stop at Ukraine just like Germany didn't stop with Czechoslovakia. If Russia successfully annexed Ukraine, it would grow stronger with all of Ukraine's resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
We didn't do anything when they annexed Georgia and Crimea and here we are. It's certainly concerning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
We didn't do anything when they annexed Georgia and Crimea and here we are. It's certainly concerning.
>How is there not more debate about backing a country with enough nukes to destroy life on earth into a corner?
That's exactly what Russia was counting on. Should we (by we, I mean the rest of the world) just let them annex whatever land they want, with no consequences or resistance?
That's exactly what Russia was counting on. Should we (by we, I mean the rest of the world) just let them annex whatever land they want, with no consequences or resistance?
> Should we (by we, I mean the rest of the world) just let them annex whatever land they want
There's no "whatever land". The war is going for a particular land with particular significance to Russia, similarly to Panama's significance to the US [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
There's no "whatever land". The war is going for a particular land with particular significance to Russia, similarly to Panama's significance to the US [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
> The war is going for a particular land with particular significance
As Putin himself said, Russia has no borders, so the orcs' goal is to subjugate everyone.
What history does Russia have in Romania (it still occupies Transnistria)?
What history does Russia have in Crimea (orcs only became the majority because of the execution/expulsion of the natives https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_P... )
> similarly to Panama's significance to the US
Why is it that Russians are the most jingoistic "Americans"? Whenever someone points out what Russia is doing, they immediately praise the US for doing a lesser version of the same thing.
If there's a similar significance does that mean you'll leave Ukraine afterwards?
As Putin himself said, Russia has no borders, so the orcs' goal is to subjugate everyone.
What history does Russia have in Romania (it still occupies Transnistria)?
What history does Russia have in Crimea (orcs only became the majority because of the execution/expulsion of the natives https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_P... )
> similarly to Panama's significance to the US
Why is it that Russians are the most jingoistic "Americans"? Whenever someone points out what Russia is doing, they immediately praise the US for doing a lesser version of the same thing.
If there's a similar significance does that mean you'll leave Ukraine afterwards?
It's counter productive to get into debates with people who call one side of the conflict as "orcs", it just shows that you've got skin in the game to object to everything that doesn't align with "Ukraine's right and is winning" narrative. But just to show your bias once again here's a few points:
> What history does Russia have in Romania (it still occupies Transnistria)?
It has the same common history with Carpathian Ruthenia land that Ukraine isn't willing to return to Hungary and Romania.
> Whenever someone points out what Russia is doing, they immediately praise the US for doing a lesser version of the same thing.
That's to show you that double-standards exist and that nobody seems to care as long as it serves their agenda.
> What history does Russia have in Romania (it still occupies Transnistria)?
It has the same common history with Carpathian Ruthenia land that Ukraine isn't willing to return to Hungary and Romania.
> Whenever someone points out what Russia is doing, they immediately praise the US for doing a lesser version of the same thing.
That's to show you that double-standards exist and that nobody seems to care as long as it serves their agenda.
> Should we (by we, I mean the rest of the world) just let them annex whatever land they want, with no consequences or resistance?
Yeah why is it our problem?
Yeah why is it our problem?
Because Russia has stated when they started this phase of the war that they want NATO to return to its borders before the fall of communism. This means reoccupying all the eastern European countries that are part of NATO.
Assuming you believe in honoring the alliance, it's a lot easier to provide Ukraine with ammunition than to let it fall and have to send American troops to fight in Poland/Romania/etc.
Assuming you believe in honoring the alliance, it's a lot easier to provide Ukraine with ammunition than to let it fall and have to send American troops to fight in Poland/Romania/etc.
We've had longstanding, well defined, and agreed upon hard lines that we drew for invading NATO allies bordering Russia. We did not have a treaty with or a policy for Ukraine before the invasion. Biden refused to draw a hard line when he had a chance before the invasion, he was explicitly asked. We knew this was coming and could have drawn a line, but didn't.
In the Cold War days, we had numerous proxy wars. Korea and Vietnam are examples. Same with Afghanistan I (boy, that chicken came home to roost).
Chile and Iran were egregious examples of the US sticking our oar in.
It’s been over a generation of peace, so people have forgotten them.
Chile and Iran were egregious examples of the US sticking our oar in.
It’s been over a generation of peace, so people have forgotten them.
Proxy wars are wars not fought by ones own military. Korea and Vietnam were faught by americans and thus arent a proxy war for the USA.
For instance the ukraine and russia war is a proxy war for the USA but is not for russia, as russia is fighting.
For instance the ukraine and russia war is a proxy war for the USA but is not for russia, as russia is fighting.
No, they were proxy wars. It’s just that Russia and China were playing the part we’re playing with Ukraine.
How do you escalate from a full blown invasion which flattens cities with artillery and targets civilians with impunity? I suggest that the only alternative to this "escalation" is to lie down and die and take the consequences.
"Let Pudding take whatever he wants, maybe it will calm him down".
Worked with adolf
This won't be the first or last of proxy wars. The notable thing is that it is being fought in Europe, right on the boundary between NATO and Russia, so the stakes (and the risks) are way higher
There is a long and storied history of the US and Russia / the Soviet Union providing, uh, "advisors" and equipment to enemies of their enemies.
Soviet pilots fought in Korea and Vietnam (to a much lesser degree). There are stories of Soviet special forces, infantry instructors, etc. participating in Vietnam as well. Vietnam received tons of anti-air missiles and systems, not to speak of the fighter jets, tanks, guns, and more.
The US trained and armed fighters in Afghanistan. It wouldn't surprise me to learn US special forces popped in from time to time.
Those are more well known--especially the Korean War and Afghan war shenanigans--but there are many others that are more obscure.
The US, UK, etc. funded and trained a number of independence and / or revolutionary movements in the Eastern Bloc and China. The Baltic states, for example, had some level of guerilla war for a bit until the Soviets cracked down.
The Soviets, of course, funded all sorts of, shall we say, interesting characters in the West.
More recently, Iranian forces fought against American forces in Iraq. Syria has seen the US and Russia square off in a few incidents.
The question in my mind is: what level of support is too much support? How do we reason about that?
What level of support deters additional territorial conquest? Does territorial conquest in and of itself increase the risk of Armageddon?
This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see in some Cold War era RAND Corporation white paper.
I worry we have lost some of our Cold War worries in the public consciousness. Being the top dog for so long has made us feel invincible.
But I also think we've forgotten that the Cold War was cold, not frozen, and there are valuable game theoretic discussions to be had or revisited
Soviet pilots fought in Korea and Vietnam (to a much lesser degree). There are stories of Soviet special forces, infantry instructors, etc. participating in Vietnam as well. Vietnam received tons of anti-air missiles and systems, not to speak of the fighter jets, tanks, guns, and more.
The US trained and armed fighters in Afghanistan. It wouldn't surprise me to learn US special forces popped in from time to time.
Those are more well known--especially the Korean War and Afghan war shenanigans--but there are many others that are more obscure.
The US, UK, etc. funded and trained a number of independence and / or revolutionary movements in the Eastern Bloc and China. The Baltic states, for example, had some level of guerilla war for a bit until the Soviets cracked down.
The Soviets, of course, funded all sorts of, shall we say, interesting characters in the West.
More recently, Iranian forces fought against American forces in Iraq. Syria has seen the US and Russia square off in a few incidents.
The question in my mind is: what level of support is too much support? How do we reason about that?
What level of support deters additional territorial conquest? Does territorial conquest in and of itself increase the risk of Armageddon?
This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see in some Cold War era RAND Corporation white paper.
I worry we have lost some of our Cold War worries in the public consciousness. Being the top dog for so long has made us feel invincible.
But I also think we've forgotten that the Cold War was cold, not frozen, and there are valuable game theoretic discussions to be had or revisited
Much like Afghanistan in the 80s. Vietnam in the 70s. Various other proxy wars.
Same as martial coach not in war with bully of a child they’re teaching.
RedCondor(3)
flagged. this is totally irrelevant for HN and brings out the worst sort of comments.
Too late, too little.
It was never just about the Abrams it was mostly about unleashing Leopard tanks from other NATO countries (in addition to Challenger 2). Although the number of Leopard tanks sent by Germany so far is pretty small (18/88 promised) combined with 8 from Canada and 10 from Spain. There's about 2000 floating around Europe total. Still it was a big step forward.
The Abrams is powerful but it's expensive and logistically difficult to operate with jet fuel and trailing supply vehicles designed for a modern American army.
I'm most interested in the hundreds of Bradley's and other IFVs showing up.
The Abrams is powerful but it's expensive and logistically difficult to operate with jet fuel and trailing supply vehicles designed for a modern American army.
I'm most interested in the hundreds of Bradley's and other IFVs showing up.
All NATO gas turbines, including the M1's engine, are rated to run on a variety of hydrocarbons including diesel and petrol / gasoline. There is a performance penalty but not significantly.
Everyone always says this exact thing that M1 can run on desiel but no one actually expects them to when they get them and being the first wide scale deployment test in real world operations seems awfully risky
31 tanks will not make a difference in a war where Russia lost more than 3000 tanks in a year. US has thousands of unused Abrams in storage. Time for the Biden administration to step up for real.
The unique geography of the Isthmus of Perekop into Crimea actually makes it so that 31 tanks really could turn the war. At it's narrowest, it's ~4 miles wide (~120 yards per side of each tank), flat as a pancake, no cover or so much as a molehill. It's really the only way into Crimea for Ukraine too (it gets a bit complicated). Two and a half football field lengths between each tank is a bit crowded, if anything.
Yeah, yeah, defenses, and I agree. The last time the Nazis and Soviets fought over it, ~250k casualties resulted (I think).
It's a hell of a choke-point.
But 31 Abrams is just about enough to do it, right order of magnitude in the least.
Yeah, yeah, defenses, and I agree. The last time the Nazis and Soviets fought over it, ~250k casualties resulted (I think).
It's a hell of a choke-point.
But 31 Abrams is just about enough to do it, right order of magnitude in the least.
Some weird comments and up/down voting going on in this thread, hijacked perhaps or Western "socialists" doing their contradictory SIMPing for imperial Russia?
It would be best to arm Ukraine to the extent required (missiles, planes etc) to reclaim all their territory vs reactively doing just enough to keep them in the fight.