It certainly looks like we are on the brink of war.
I know the current administration is hell bent on destroying this nation from within, but I hadn't quite calculated that they would think the destruction is going so slowly that they need to get us entangled in a war with a nuclear power.
We just authorized sending tanks to Ukraine.
There is no way Russia sees this move as anything but an act of war (they're already retaliating in Ukraine). I'm sure in their mind, financing and small arms aid up to this point was borderline. And now Ukraine is renewing their ask for air support as well. I have few doubts we will provide it. Lots of articles here, all supporting these thoughts. Read through them as you have time. It does not look promising.
Russia retaliates with mass missile attack on Ukraine after tanks promise | First Thing
Ssending tanks is seen as growing ‘direct involvement in the conflict’ from US and Nato, Kremlin says. Plus, how did America’s eggs get absurdly expensive?
Kremlin says U.S.-supplied tanks will 'burn' in Ukraine
The Kremlin said on Wednesday that any Abrams battle tanks supplied to Ukraine by the United States would "burn", dismissing the expected delivery as an expensive folly.
Ukraine got its tanks. Now it wants jet fighters too
Discussions are underway about supplying Kyiv with modern aircraft, despite Western fears of escalation.
Defense Leaders Pledge New Ukraine Support
Following the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said the nations are working together very smoothly to deliver to Ukraine the equipment it needs to defend
-
Mr. Perfect: 30380294497947/comments/
Don, I don't know that many Russian leaders disagree with Putin on this. Most of them want their kingdom back. They may disagree with the method, but I doubt they disagree with the goal.
Those that did disagree are not around any more.
15 -
Don, normally I agree with your thoughts and analysis, but I feel this go around is much different and much more dangerous.
3 -
I believe you folks are correct regarding the Russian leaders. This is why I referenced a military revolt/coup. While it is very possible Putin has sufficient numbers of loyalists in the upper echelons of the military, there are any numbers of rumors where military leadership is not liking the path Putin is taking.
A few quick and decisive victories in Ukraine may bring all into the fold. A few quick and decisive setbacks may do the opposite.
We need to remember that Biden basically green-lighted a limited incursion into Ukraine. Putin fell for it, perhaps thinking Biden actually knew what he was saying. There can be no such confusion regarding an expansion of the war outside of Ukraine, regardless of what weaponry we supply.
3 -
Don, my point is the leaders would put it down. Most likely proactively.
0 -
I would be a lot more comfortable if Europe stepped up to defend Ukraine against the immoral invasion by Putin. They can send their blood and treasure to help their neighbor. There should be a lot more Russian citizens against this invasion but they do not know the truth. Europe has cost a lot of American blood and treasure in the pas century. It is past time for Europe to pay for its own defense and come to the aid of European nations under attack by a bully like Putin.
9 -
The problem is that when it comes to war nowadays one can never chance, let alone afford, a misstep. There is something awry here as more and more Nato members seem to be clamoring for more escalation, crossing the "red" line. The fact that the chairman of Nato's military committee states that the alliance is ready for a direct confrontation with Russia is disturbing and patently absurd as the alliance, for decades, has failed to live up to its military obligations with Germany being amongst the worst offenders. All of the equipment supplied from Nato members has come from existing stockpiles which weakens them, so I don't see how the chairman thinks the Alliance is ready. If he truly believes it, he's delusional, if it's just blather, it's dangerous and risks potential escalatory missteps. Don't forget that four of the powers directly or indirectly involved in this conflict are nuclear armed.
3 -
The only way to win a fight is to close on the enemy with overwhelming force and destroy him.
9 -
jimdeere: 30380294497947/comments/
The only way to win a fight is to close on the enemy with overwhelming force and destroy him.
No argument there. But what we're seeing is dangerous. When it comes to major weapons systems being provided the numbers are ridiculously small, for example 14 used German Leopard 2 tanks and 12-14 used British Challenger tanks. Makes for good headlines I guess but in real terms that equates to 2 old school armored companies. Might win an engagement or two in the short term but will have no impact on either the tactical or strategic picture. 31 Abrams tanks that'll take 1-2 years to deliver. Again, it makes headlines but nothing else, wouldn't even equip an old school armored battalion. It was hinted at in the beginning that this conflict could take years, that appears to be how it's playing out.
0 -
Well.......
The Oligarchs put the Little Stalin INTO power.
Perhaps if life becomes a bit too tough for them........as in loosing a few too many mega yachts........maybe they would remove him FROM power.
Probably just wishful thinking.........but it would solve soooo many people's problems.
Well......except for one person's. I'm sure there's no shortage of windows at the Kremlin. 🤔
0 -
jimdeere: 30380294497947/comments/
The only way to win a fight is to close on the enemy with overwhelming force and destroy him.
To clarify a bit, the only way to win a fight with an enemy invader is to close on the enemy with overwhelming force and destroy him. If you are taking the battle TO the enemy, you can not simply win this way. You must also be prepared to occupy.
0 -
And about tanks in general, if you paid attention to Russia's efforts at the beginning of their invasion. They lost a lot of tanks. IMO, the armored tank is an obsolete weapon in modern warfare.
6 -
If they were obsolete, they would have been phased out long ago. Sometimes it's not the weapon being employed in a battle but "how" it's being employed.
6 -
Sure hope you meant "deployed" with the cost of such weapons I'd hate to think we have to also pay the machines to do their job... 🤣
6 -
wifetrained: 30380294497947/comments/
If they were obsolete, they would have been phased out long ago. Sometimes it's not the weapon being employed in a battle but "how" it's being employed.
Correct.
3 -
Somethings about this conflict never made any sense from the get-go.
3 -
Mr. Perfect: 30380294497947/comments/
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11377288#Comment_11377288
Correct.
They are obsolete against a military such as Russia! They will be blown up as soon as they hit the battlefield!
All the tanks do is drag US and NATO into a war that we have no business being in!
6 -
We will never truly know what's going on over there..the Smith-Mundt act of 2012 made sure of that...
0 -
It's not meant for us to know; it's only meant for us to blindly support it.
3 -
Don, I hope your still following this thread as I do think highly of your thoughts and analysis. Portugal has just announced that they would supply Leopard 1 tanks as had Germany and possibly Belgium. All reside in storage; none are operational and would require refurbishment which could take upwards of a year plus. As this weapons platform has been out of production for decades it safe to assume a number of them will have to be cannibalized for parts just to make whatever number being supplied operational. An even larger number will have to be parted out to provide additional logistical support. So, the time required to make this work is at least a year or more thereby extending the conflict.
The Abrams tanks that were pledged all have to be new production because of the armor issue and could take a least 1-2 years to deliver once production has started at some point in the future. Again, how much longer does this extend the conflict? How long before the United States has it's "Gulf of Tonkin" incident" and the country is dragged into another conflict of unknown duration and with the most dire of consequences seeing that 3 of the current participants that are directly or indirectly involved are nuclear armed. France will make it 4 if they act on providing weapons and support.
The Baltic states have been pushing hard to "cross the red line" and while that's understandable considering their history with Russia, still is quite dangerous. None of the Baltic State have an armed force capable of defending their own territory from a Russian onslaught let alone engage in offensive operations without an article 5 declaration. Heck none of their respective Air Force's, combined, have a single combat aircraft. And just how many Nato states are really willing to go to the "dance", how many could we rely on. Turkey boasts the largest armed force in the alliance, but Turkey seems to be, and act, more foe than friend and has for decades been at loggerheads with Greece, another Nato member, over Cyprus and the Aegean Sea. And they have been cozying up to the Russians for years so who knows just how reliable they would actually be. Should they even be allowed to stay within the Alliance. Problematic to say the least since there's a convoluted method for acceptance but none at all when it comes to expulsions. Weird huh?
We won't supply F-16 fighters because we say it could be a "provocative escalation", but Nato members can send them and somehow, it's not a "provocative escalation". Poland has already agreed to supply them, and the Dutch are considering it. How long to deliver them, how long to train crews and maintenance personnel, what about the logistics, how many years does this extend the conflict? None of these aircraft are new builds, many are decades old with thousands of hours on the airframes. How long can they be utilized before they themselves need to be replaced and what could be viewed as an effective replacement but not a potentially "provocative escalation"? Of those fighters' jets, how many themselves require refurbishment, at what level can this work be done? If it's depot level, then it could take months if not years to complete depending on the airframes condition, and at what cost, who's paying?
The Abrams issue is interesting in that the number to be provided, 31, is probably the minimum needed just to set up a training establishment to train tank crews and maintenance personnel. Unless that's already being done somewhere in Nato territory. Even still the number involved would effectively equip 2 armored companies and that would have little to no effect on the tactical picture. You would need hundreds, in fact several hundred, to have any effect and since there's only one production line in this country which has a massive backlog of orders and again, we are looking at years of conflict. Talk about a catch 22 scenario.
That seems to be what the plan was from the start, your thought?
3 -
IMO, the delay in getting first line NATO tanks into the theater involves the removal of highly sensitive equipment from the tanks so those that will w inevitably fall into Russian hands do not show them our actual capabilities.
Lima has not built a new Abrams from the ground up for decades, so the ‘new builds’ will be refurbished tanks set up to a lower standard than what the US Army receives. From that standpoint, the delay makes sense. By extension, the Leopards and Challengers will be configured in the same manner. The same may also be true for F-16s and/or other aircraft.
The primary goal today would then be a signal to Russia that we are in this for the long haul. Putin is then faced with deciding whether he can win an ongoing war of attrition, go for broke in the next 6 months, or make some effort to save face with a negotiated settlement. Anyone who thinks they can answer that for him is just guessing.
0 -
So you don't think we'll have a "gulf of Tonkin" incident that would compel our direct involvement?
No question that this is currently a war of attrition. That said, it only involves, at the moment, the Ukrainians and the Russians while everyone else is dancing on the fringes. Just not too sure how long that can play out. Russia has a long history when it comes to its blatant disregard to casualties or the massive losses of equipment.
I can understand the time lag to a point but really wonder if it's just a tactic to drag the conflict out. It seems odd that announcements regarding equipment being supplied, current condition, time to repair/refurbish are being made in the open knowing the Russians are listening and reading. Declaring the intent to drag this out for as long as it takes may not only antagonize them, but they may also simply decide not to play that game and up the ante. Then what??? Call or raise.
0 -
I don’t see a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, as I think (hope) that after the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq, the American psyche will resist a manufactured or hyped reason to enter another war.
The greater probability is that Russia will attack supply lines within the border of a NATO country, leaving the west with a real conundrum. Do we honor a commitment to go to war to protect the sovereign territory of a NATO partner when the attack is specifically targeted to a military asset with a known and obvious destination? If Putin takes out a train carrying Leopard tanks just inside Romania or Slovakia e route to Ukraine, does NATO declare war on Russia?
Perhaps more importantly, should it?
0 -
I believe an attack on supply lines in a country that is a part of NATO carrying military equipment to Ukraine would draw us in, especially if any Americans were killed. One only has to look back on history. The sinking of the Lusitania is actually what brought about us interning WW1, there were 130 I believe Americans killed. It brought about anti German sentiment that later brought us in to the war.
If Putin did decide to try and attack supply lines. I’m sure he would try and do it covertly, if not, and he used his military, I believe that would test NATOs resolve. Things could get bad real quick.
0 -
Don McManus: 30380294497947/comments/
I don’t see a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, as I think (hope) that after the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq, the American psyche will resist a manufactured or hyped reason to enter another war.
The greater probability is that Russia will attack supply lines within the border of a NATO country, leaving the west with a real conundrum. Do we honor a commitment to go to war to protect the sovereign territory of a NATO partner when the attack is specifically targeted to a military asset with a known and obvious destination? If Putin takes out a train carrying Leopard tanks just inside Romania or Slovakia e route to Ukraine, does NATO declare war on Russia?
Perhaps more importantly, should it?
Food for thought no doubt. I fear that the longer this conflict is dragged out the greater the risk of escalation to the point of outright war. As a 20 yr. vet I look at this conflict, the way it's played out to date, the rhetoric from all parties and something just doesn't sit right. I smell a rat.
6 -
Don't know if this is true..can someone confirm it..?? https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRGre1Vk/
3 -
The sinking of the Lusitania shifted support on the war towards the allies and it and the hyping of the Zimmerman telegram that galvanized the US to declare war. The main reason, which has an application here, is that Wilson wanted to bring peace to the world and establish what we now think of as a one world government.
Putin is a disrupter who cannot be brought into the fold. He needs to be resisted to the point of either his committing of National suicide or forceable removal. Ukraine is the unlucky field upon which this is taking place.
3 -
Don McManus: 30380294497947/comments/
The sinking of the Lusitania shifted support on the war towards the allies and it and the hyping of the Zimmerman telegram that galvanized the US to declare war. The main reason, which has an application here, is that Wilson wanted to bring peace to the world and establish what we now think of as a one world government.
Putin is a disrupter who cannot be brought into the fold. He needs to be resisted to the point of either his committing of National suicide or forceable removal. Ukraine is the unlucky field upon which this is taking place.
I don't know Don, maybe I've burned out too many brain cells as I'm not seeing the linkage here. Public opinion was squarely on the side of Ukraine from the very start, nothing else would have been needed. It's almost to the level of mounting a crusade against the Russians, but one where we weren't "directly" involved (wink wink). What concerns me are the numbers, the ever-increasing timelines and the probable chance of a misstep.
If your assumption is correct, that the Biden Administration basically green lighted a limited Russian incursion then one can also make the assumption that it was a designed trap to get a conflict going in the first place as the reported numbers in the initial assault force made absolutely no sense from a tactical perspective let alone a strategic one. It would also explain the slobbering lovefest for Zelensky, the resulting hatred for Putin and the ultimate goal of regime change in Moscow.
0 -
I do not think Biden green lighted it on purpose. I believe that during a meeting with his national security team, the discussion was that we would adopt a graduated approach to Russian aggression, and Biden did not understand that the graduated response was not for public consumption and stupidly blurted it out. The day he said it I turned to my wife and said 'That idiot just told Putin that it was OK to invade Ukraine'.
That said, while public support has been strongly with Ukraine from the start, I don't think there was anyone who thought the Russian advance would have been as poorly executed as it was, and most believed that Ukraine was going to cease to exist as a sovereign nation within months if not weeks. Once we saw that the Russian juggernaut was somewhat of a paper tiger, the policy shifted to containment and feeding enough weaponry to stop any further advance. Now that Ukraine has shown the ability to advance with the help of western intel and military machinery and weapons, the policy has again shifted with us now committing to offensive weaponry so that Ukraine may be in a position to regain territory.
The stopping of the initial invasion was an international embarrassment for Putin. The long running stalemate was more of an embarrassment, and the expulsion of Russian troops will be an embarrassment that will likely end his Presidency. The policy of the US and our allies as influenced by the current expansion of one-world government thinking has evolved with the failures of the Russian military, I believe, and to a great extent is moving towards the removal of Putin as President of Russia, not by direct force of course, rather making the costs of his decisions too high for the Russian military and to a lessor degree the Russian people, to bear.
0 -
What do you think will happen if Ukraine attempts to retake the Crimean Peninsula?
0 -
The elites in this country were part of the Peace, Love, and Understanding crowd of the '60's and '70's. That has evolved into War, Hate, and Censorship.
6
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
109 comments