The ‘ring exchanges’ didn’t commence with Russia’s invasion. Lots of pre planning and significant financial contribution between Europeans and USA.
The planning was not predicated on use as an offensive weapon, more UA as the destination country for disposing Soviet era weaponry.
See article of 29 April - Ukraine weapon switcheroos are flushing Soviet arms out of Europe.
Ok we can disagree on whether 3000 Abrams tanks and 700,000 US troops along with a large coalition of others was excessive in the Gulf War.
I take it we are in complete agreement that what is currently planned for supply to Ukraine, is grotesquely inadequate and will result in lots more people killed and equipment destroyed.
BTW on a separate issue I have confirmed that contractors were paid for the Abrams supplied to Poland recently in response to the Ukraine war to be Foreign Military Sales versions explicitly with the DU armour replaced by less effective armor. That makes it likely the same is being done for Ukraine instead of supplying from the large US stocks that have the more effective armour. So the delay until monnths after the tanks are needed for Spring offensives (and defenses) is not just for training and logistics but also for weakening the armour.
Seems to me they are not even planning for “just enough” for victory but still in transition from “just enough” to avoid defeat and prolong the war.
It has certainly been demonstrated that they are still dragging their feet about it and only acted now because of German insistance on a joint decision at Rammstein conference.
Mainstream media reports decision to supply any Abrams at all as a major reversal of policy.
If the US had abandoned that policy back in September when they stopped blocking “offensive” weapons in principle, it would have been possible to meet the requirement for 300 tanks in Spring as there would be enough time even with replacement of armour for both logistics, training and the weakening of armour.
That’s the big problem for China. Gaining some beach head might be easy but keeping it not so much. It’s the supplies and lines of communication issue. In UA it’s just an imaginary line on a map; for Taiwan it’s 160km of water with no features to hide behind
Some heavy reading in an essay on Russian nationalism and Ukraine in an essay of 3 January on the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation site
- Making Russia Great Again?
Yeah sorry got my Georgia and Ukraine conflicts missed up
I think that targeted strikes of military capability beyond the 2014 borders is fine but boots on the ground would poke the bear too far
Looks interesting. Will read.
There’s really no room for discussion on the proper way to equip and send troops to die.
Analyzing it post bellum to quible about saving a few million dollars here and there is handicaping future strategic capability planning and abdicating the gov duty to their ppl and their interests - and lives. Many countries do this and rely on partners at the cost of clout and a seat at the big boys/girls table, like Canada.
Yes, it should be studied in order to find efficiency on the deployment of forces but not in capabilities and fighting power.
Absolutely. And see my comments above to realize how we got to this point where there’s virtually no spare capacity above training maintenance levels and the odd stability operation.
Basically agree that allied boots on the ground should be within Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders in the current conflict.
But if there is civil war in Russia use of nuclear weapons is not a plausible result and assistance to the democratic forces by Special Forces such as the Russian and Belarus revolutionaries currently working with Ukraine defence could blur over into other assistance eg at the request of local democratic authorities under attack from fascists.
Latest developments in Russian casualty evacuation. Spectacular results.
ECHR decision opens the door on making russia legally culpable for downing MH17
EDIT: Girkin responds
Disgusting. Morally bankrupt. Soon to go extinct.