"a naive western war against Russia" Topic

This is an opinion piece, and doubtless some here will have a different opinion.

link

What effect, then, will it have on Putin's resolve and Russian public opinion when the German Foreign Minister casually declares war against Russia, and when Germany dispatches its most modern tanks to fight on Ukrainian battlefields? The question answers itself. These intemperate actions are a fulfillment of the worst Russian nightmare: of an aggressive Western campaign to invade and destroy Russia herself (of which Ukraine is a part, in most Russian minds). It is a repeat, in fact, of the German tactics of World War II, which sought to use Ukrainian "nationalists" as cannon fodder against Soviet Russian forces. All this is confirmation, from the Russian point of view, of the extremely high stakes for which they are fighting, and of the fact that they, not Ukraine, are the nation that is targeted for destruction.

'Sigh' more kookbabble from yet another RWNJ.

Instead of calling names, why not explain with what parts you disagree and why?

machinehead, perhaps you know enough about the Russian culture to refute the assertion the OP makes, that they are -- I won't say paranoid because Hitler DID invade them -- notably concerned about western threats in general, and German in particular? ARE you dismissing as "kookbabble" the idea that Russia's historical experiences give them -- justifiably or not -- a lively fear of external threats? Yes, this is from a conservative source; do you dismiss all such out of hand? If so, congratulations on a closed mind.

Looking forward to your response, unless you just made a drive-by comment.

The article is not unreasonable. How would the US react if the Warsaw Pact had brought Mexico, Cuba and Central America into it? How did the US react when the Russians put nuclear missiles in Cuba in the 60's. We all nearly had to put our heads between our legs and kiss our as#es goodbye. Those missiles are much more powerful today.

The Russians are paranoid. They always have been. Some justified, some not. Yes Putin is possibly 4 rounds short of a full load.

But because you express concerns, does not make you a supporter of Russia or Putin. That is as cheap as pulling the "racist" card.

I expressed other concerns listed below in another ultra modern thread and I believe they are valid concerns. FYI, I heard there were multiple drone attacks in Iran yesterday including a munitions plant. Will that be another flash point?

(From previous thread)

Just a question. Don't all these weapons we are sending to the Ukraine,have to be replaced for our own troops?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States announced on Wednesday it will supply Ukraine with 31 advanced M1 Abrams tanks worth $400 USD USD million in a matter of months, a decision that helped break a diplomatic logjam with Germany over how best to help Kyiv in its war against Russia.
The total cost of a single Abrams tanks can vary, and can be over $10 USD USD million per tanks when including training and sustainment. "
Then those tanks need rounds. I assume again from our arsenals
"It really depends on ammo type. Abrams and other NATO tanks use 120mm ammo. And ammo for german cannon costs ca. 5000 USD. Soo… it's A LOT!!!"
I don't know how dated this is.
"120mm Rheinmetall APFSDS: Weight 50kg; Price $800 USD USD (S/R)
120mm Rheinmetall APFSDSDU: Weight 50kg; Price $1,200 USD USD (R/R)
120mm Rheinmetall APFSDSDU M-829A3: Weight 50kg; Price $1,500 USD USD (R/R)
120mm Rheinmetall HEAT: Weight 50kg; Price $800 USD USD (C/S)
120mm Rheinmetall HE: Weight 50kg; Price $800 USD USD (R/R)
120mm Rheinmetall WP: Weight 50kg; Price $1,000 USD USD (R/R)
120mm Rheinmetall MPAT: Weight 50kg; Price: $4,000 USD USD (R/-).
120mm Rheinmetall STAFF (SMart Top Attack Fire & Forget): Weight 50kg; Price $3,000 USD USD (S/R).
120mm Rheinmetall APERS: Weight 50kg; Price $850 USD USD (R/-)
120mm Israeli LAHAT: Weight 50kg; Price $20,000 USD USD (R/-). .
120mm Raytheon TERM-CE (Tank Extended Range Munition-Chemical Energy): Weight 50kg; Price $30,000 USD USD (R/-).
120mm Alliant TERM-KE (Tank Extended Range Munition-Kinetic Energy) XM-1007: Weight 50kg; Price $30,000 USD USD (-/-)
120mm TERM-TA: Weight 50kg; Price $15,000 USD USD (-/-).

120mm Rifled L-11 APFSDSDU: Weight 50kg, Price $1,500 USD USD (R/R)
120mm Rifled L-11 APFSDS: Weight 50kg; Price $800 USD USD (S/R)
120mm Rifled L-11 HESH: Weight 50kg; Price $1,000 USD USD (S/R)
120mm Rifled L-11 APDS: Weight 50kg; Price $650 USD USD (R/R)"
But we can assume a pretty penny.
Maintenance parts? Again from our inventories?

I think Abrams use aviation fuel. Does the Ukraine have that? Will the Ukraine have that, or do we supply the fuel. I've heard other fuel can be used, but again is the US supplying it? Ie more cost.

This does not include the billions in both money and weapons we have already supplied. Also weakening our own military. Russia is not our only enemy. Are those enemies getting weaker at the same time? What happens if we have a war with Iran? Would are troops be scrapping for replacements, once they deplete their initial allotments? God forbid a war with China.

"In 2022, the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed nearly $50 USD USD billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute. The historic sums are helping a broad set of Ukrainian people and institutions, including refugees, law enforcement, and independent radio broadcasters, though most of the aid has been military-related. Dozens of other countries, including most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union, are also providing large aid packages to Ukraine."

Subject: How Much Aid Has the U.S. Sent Ukraine? Here Are Six Charts. | Council on Foreign Relations

link


When must we say enough? 
What if this war drags on years, like Iraq/Iran did?
I'm am trying to be a realists here. At some point this decision will have to be faced. Especially with a country who already is trillions of dollars in debt and that debt growing by the minute.
I know thoughts like this are not popular right now, but 
Are we we cutting off our nose to spite our face?

The only way this stops is if Putin is deposed (that does not seem likely right now), he dies suddenly ( we can hope), the Ukrainians drive the Russians out ( very doubtful), the Russians get most of the lands they occupied (probably how it will end, in a draw), a world war breaking out (with all the countries in alliances, just like WW1 and WW2, that is a possibility sadly).

The article I originally linked was mid December. I believe we passed another multi billion dollar package since. That does not include the Abrams. Did I not hear patriots were being supplied recently?

US debt as of this morning according to news on TV, 31 Trillion dollars. I think that is more than the government brings in, in one year in revenue. Imagine you making 60,000 a year, but spending 75000 a year, every year. Who funds that extra 15000? At what interest? For how long? How long can that last?

I know I am in a minority currently in these views, but I feel the concerns must be expressed.

A few articles. The first experiences my main concern. The second another example of the depletion of those arms.

Subject: US disarms itself to aid Ukraine | Washington Examiner


link

Subject: Strykers, Bradleys likely in huge US aid package for Ukraine


link

Since I wrote the above:


Subject: Air Force general predicts war with China in 2025: 'I hope I am wrong' | Fox News


link

Subject: (((Tendar))) on Twitter: "The strikes on Iran are extremely distributed all over the country. No less than 7 large cities have been struck. The Iranian security council has been convened for an emergency session. #Iran t.co/wlMZ4sMWvF / Twitter

link

This is a lot to be concerned about.

Last time German tanks were in Ukraine it did not turn out very well for Germany!

True, but it did not turn out well for Russia, either, unless millions of deaths are unimportant.

The article raises some entirely valid points but doesn't touch on the key questions around is Putin's invasion justifiable? Is it okay for a country to engage in a war of aggression that is based on a lie? Nor does it go to the logical conclusions of a return to spheres of influence.

What will the Russian people think when Ukraine stops attacking when they recover the rest of Ukraine?
How can Putang spin it when Ukraine/NATO calls for peace then. Will it finally sink in that Russia was the attacker.

Both the West and China will be in a stronger position.
What China did learn is the US/NATO are strong and have the will to stand firm.

"Instead of calling names, why not explain with what parts you disagree and why?"

Because name calling is easier and doesn't require the individual to have to sit still for longer than a minute and actually think (and use critical thinking skills if they have them), and write up an intelligent, readable, mature response.

That's why.

The really big question, which the OP and also 35ths pieces, raise is, HOW DOES THIS CONFLICT END?

MAYBE Putin's death ends it. Maybe. Depends on to what extent Putin represents Russia's interests (real or imagined). If it is all an ego trip, that's one thing, but if Russian nationalism and paranoia really are determinative, then it doesn't end with new leadership.

I think we can agree that Ukraine is not going to be conquered and integrated into Mother Russia. But does Russia give up?

You know, we've seen before, the Russian military shattered and humiliated and driven with massive losses. In fact we've seen that twice, at least. Remind me who won, in 1812 and in 1945? Yes, it is clear that the Russian war machine was rusty and out-of-date. But the next one that they are probably building now won't be.

Plus, nukes come into play when a nation possessing them considers itself to be at existential risk. I do not know when that point is reached for Russia; does anyone?

IS US and western policy naive? Maybe so, maybe so.

Machinehead, waiting to hear from you.

JMc, yes, a Ukrainian halt, or offer of ceasefire, once they have recovered their lost territory WOULD signal as you suggest, I think.

But what if the Russians, as a nation, really do see Ukraine as part of Russia, a break-away province, and remain determined to recover it? HOW LONG does US and western aid have to keep going?

ROU, I think we "all" agree it was NOT justified, but the Russians may not be part of that "all." Historically we dealt with aggressors through regime change, in Germany twice, and Japan, and Iraq. With mixed results. But regime change isn't going to happen as long as the old Soviet nuclear arsenal exists. (At least that would be a very dangerous assumption to make!)

A nation that supplies arms to a country at war is no longer neutral under international law. The list of 19th century British warships includes many that were ordered by Turkey, but when they were ready to deliver Turkey was at war with someone so the British government bought the ship instead – to delivery it would be illegal for a neutral country.

There is one technicality with the present Russo-Ukrainian War – Russia says it is not a war.

…

Being paranoid or feeling provoked does not excuse an illegal invasion of another country, such as the outrageous US invasion of Granada.

…

"Putin will argue that the United States and NATO are "in" Ukraine for one reason and one reason only: to weaken Russia, which is the greatest obstacle to Western hegemony worldwide. The West will regard this assertion as the purest nonsense, of course, but the problem is that, from the Russian perspective, it seems eminently plausible. "

Putin is responsible for his own paranoia.
The West is helping Ukraine to weaken Russia in order to free Ukraine and teach Russia not to invade other countries.

Do you want to give in to nuclear blackmail whenever it is threatened?

If there was a desire for Western hegemony it is China that is the greatest obstacle. The article is showing a Russian bias here.

…

I hope those that worry about the USA's expense on military aid to Ukraine have been worried about the grants to Egypt over the past decades, that I posted about at TMP link

U.S. Military Assistance to Egypt: Separating Fact from Fiction, by POMED, July 30, 2020.
"The US has provided the Egyptian military with $51.00 USD billion in military aid since 1979 [to 2020].
Since 1985, all U.S. military aid to Egypt has been provided as grants (which do not have to be repaid).
And in 1990, the George H.W. Bush administration forgave all of Egypt's military debt – $7.10 USD billion – in the lead up to the First Gulf War."

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

In order to understand what finally induced Russia to conduct its "special military operation" incursion into Ukraine in Feb 2022, it is necessary to understand what transpired in the Ukraine (and in particular the ethnically Russian regions like the Donbas region) starting with the Maidan coup in 2014. It's a question that NO ONE wants to acknowledge or answer – other to claim that Putin simply decided for no rational reason to invade Ukraine thirty-odd years after the voluntary dissolution of the USSR and Ukraine's establishment as an independent state.

Once again, for emphasis, this crisis/conflict did not just arise from nothing a year ago.

- – -

As for Druzhina's above $$$ post –
U.S. Military Assistance to Egypt: Separating Fact from Fiction, by POMED, July 30, 2020.
"The US has provided the Egyptian military with $51.00 USD USD USD billion in military aid since 1979 [to 2020].
Since 1985, all U.S. military aid to Egypt has been provided as grants (which do not have to be repaid).
And in 1990, the George H.W. Bush administration forgave all of Egypt's military debt – $7.10 USD USD USD billion – in the lead up to the First Gulf War."

A dispassionate reading of the above indicates that the USA provided USD 51 billion in military aid to Egypt from 1979-2020 – a period of 21 years. That make ~ USD 2.4 bllion per yer

By comparison, the USA has provided USD 100 billion (or more) in the past ELEVEN MONTHS ….. with no promise or expectation of repayment that I am aware of. And that does not count what the EU/NATO states have contributed

B

After understanding what induced the illegal invasion, what do you propose should be done next? Let Russia absorb Ukraine into Russia?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Too funny.

The Germans are helping a country that's been invaded without any REAL pretext of legitimacy by the invader, and they're the problem.

Putin is the new "Hitler" wannabe.

I'd give the Ukrainians back their nukes that they gave up in exchange for security assurances by the USA and Russians, just for grins. Then, let them "negotiate" from a position of strength with the Russians for the latter's removal of their forces from ALL Ukrainian lands, including even Crimea.

Druzhina, the approved (but rare) response to black mail is "publish and be damned!" But is "launch and be damned" really what we want?

Is a desire not to provoke a nuclear war really "pro-Russia?" How about pro-sanity?

Thresher, do WE have the Ukrainian nukes? If so, and we arm Ukraine with them, does that make a nuclear war more or less likely?

(Btw, the Granadan invasion was a step to winning the Cold War. All honor to Reagan for doing it.)

Many of us grew up under threat of nuclear war, but it was managed because the nuclear powers were few and stable and generally sane. Anybody want to argue Putin is currently sane? And now we have several times more nations with nukes, some of them motivated by irrationality. I think Biden's advisors, and some here, take a far too cavalier attitude towards a real and present danger.

There is no "American Greatness" in this link. To blame the Ukraine and the US, and, not to mention, other NATO nations is an intellectual absurdity. The reason why NATO (including the US) is helping Ukraine is because no one wants an aggressive Russia on its doorstep. Russia must learn now that it cannot arbitrarily invade its neighbors without repercussions.

For Russia, the only way to win is to conquer Ukraine, or, at the least, to be allowed to take over all the terrain it wants. The only way for Ukraine to win is to show Russia it can't do that, but it needs help to do that.

vAfter understanding what induced the illegal invasion, what do you propose should be done next? Let Russia absorb Ukraine into Russia?

Druzhina,
First we will need to investigate what the ethnic Russian civilian population of the Donbas have suffered from 2014 onward at the hands of the post-coup Ukrainian regimes; come back and tell me what you discover.

Then we can discuss US/EU/NATO policy toward the Russia Federation after the break-up of the USSR. That is another issue. Perhaps we can draw some lessons from recent NATO "peace-keeping operations" in the Middle East.

B

The Germans are helping a country that's been invaded without any REAL pretext of legitimacy by the invader, and they're the problem.

Hi Thresher,
I invite you to join the above-mentioned exercise with Druzhina.

B

Ooh, ooh, Tankies! Point and laugh, point and laugh!

"A word of advice for all those "realists" among Western elites who oppose support for #Ukraine: Finally, once and for all bury the Yalta mindset. Understand the Russia is no more entitled to a sphere of influence than a gangster is entitled to keep the spoils of a robbery."
link

"It wasn't until the invasion of Ukraine that the Western countries started to talk about Russia as an imperialistic country. It took all these years to get these definitions into Western discourse even though Eastern-European countries have been trying to get rid of colonialist traces of Soviet Union for past twenty years – Russia actively harnessing this process.

We on the Eastern border of Russia have learned it takes ages to become a subject in Western discourse and therefore this Eastern European decolonization process haven't really caught Western eyes. Even though Western countries understand that slavery is one of the reasons behind the problems many countries have in Africa, they expected Eastern Europe to become modern democracies in an instant.

It's because the West didn't recognize the colonialist nature of Soviet occupation and due to that it did not recognize the process when Russia returned to its practice."

--Finnish-Estonian author Sofi Oksanen

Blutarski, I would like to see a genuine plebiscite to allow ethnic-Russians or others to have self determination.

The Russians are not allowing self determination for Ukraine.

Putin's paranoia is a separate issue to his professed desire to protect ethnic-Russians.

"Then we can discuss US/EU/NATO policy toward the Russia Federation after the break-up of the USSR."
We have discussed this.

After understanding what induced the illegal invasion, what do you propose should be done next? Let Russia absorb Ukraine into Russia? Or just avoid the question by repeating that it needs to be understood what induced Russia to invade?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

My quarrel with current US/NATO policy is that it seems to be without limits or exits. Putin is a bad man, maybe nuts, nd possessed of a large nuclear arsenal. Of course I am sympathetic to the Ukraine, at least to the people. But I doubt that our policy, and all of its implications and ramifications, have been well thought out. We do not need another Forever War, and certainly not against a SECONDARY adversary.

I suspect the Ukrainian nukes have been demil'ed, so we'd need to loan them some of ours.

Which country is next to be attacked and/or invaded, if Ukraine falls?

The USA and NATO/EU nations know that is the REAL question, which is why Finland and Sweden have applied for NATO membership, and so many, many nations are providing expensive, and limited weapons, vehicles, and ammunition to support the "good guys" in this fight.

Perhaps if the ethnic Russians don't like they way they are being treated in post-coup Ukraine, they should move across the border into Russian territory, instead of fighting a guerrilla war inside of Ukraine, even though they are supported by the Russians and Putin.

The Ukrainian people, including millions of their citizens ARE being treated VERY BADLY as well by Putin and his military machine, to the point that war crimes are occurring on a daily basis in that country, which I'll note, was attacked without provocation.

Also, it seems the Ukrainians are seemingly attacking primarily military personnel, and have NOT, unlike Russia, resorted to extensive and widespread attacks on Russia's cities, civilians, and their infrastructure. Perhaps they should, in order to REALLY bring home the horrors of war to the Russian people, but I suppose if they did, Putin might indeed then use nukes on them, as he's promised to do, over and over again.

Putin needs to be eliminated by any means necessary, in order to resolve this conflict.

Last time German tanks were in Ukraine it did not turn out very well for Germany!

That was a long time ago. The German Leos in the Ukraine's hands after training the crews, etc. Should have no problem handling the remaining Russian Armor. And they won't be alone, other NATO, etc. MBTs, AFVs etc. will be there operating alongside the Leos.

Machine Head is still trying to figure out how to explain the Ukrainian loss of Bahkmut

I'm have not found a reliable source that backs this up ?

I think Abrams use aviation fuel. Does the Ukraine have that? Will the Ukraine have that, or do we supply the fuel. I've heard other fuel can be used,

It is multi-fueled, IIRC, like some other US vehicles. Regardless, with the M1, the US will supply the parts to the Ukraine's Maint. Tms. As it will the ammo, etc. and if need be the fuel. Probably the US already has a Forward Supply Point in Poland. The US has forward deployed units in Poland, and has for some time. Including US M1s.

Having run log/maint. for a Mech Bn and Mech Hvy Bde. I know how the log/maint. end will work. Not only I but those of higher rank, etc. have said the same – The M1 will do fine. The Ukraine knows how to fight combined arms modern mobile maneuver warfare. The Russians not so much. That is why they have suffered so many losses since they crossed the border.

My concern is how long it will take to get the M1s to the Ukraine. There are US M1 units is Germany as well. They should take some of those M1, rail load them and send them to Poland. The Ukraine can take them. After training the crews, etc. There are many M1s in storage that can be made fully mission capable from those stocks, IMO. And send them to replace those from the US units in Germany.

The Ukraine's M1 crews and maint tms, etc. can train in Poland. Like has happened and is happening now. With other weapons systems. IMO the US could get M1s to Ukraine much quicker than it is saying.

Hmmm ? Is the US leadership still afraid of Putin ? Yes, he has nukes but so does NATO …

Raylev3 +1

And I don't know how anyone can paint the picture any different … Russian invade a neighbor for no real reason. Russia is the bad guy, no questions asked IMO.

"Don't all these weapons we are sending to the Ukraine,have to be replaced for our own troops?"

No we have thousands of armored vehicles in storage from the end of the Cold War when the US and most of the West unilaterally disarmed. So we could send Ukraine a thousand Abrams tanks and still have plenty. Also the Abrams has been continually upgraded since it's fielding 40 years ago. The new ones are much better. Ukraine will get an older version.

Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for the Russians, UK, and US respecting their sovereignty. IIRC the US paid for the Russians to dismantle the nuclear weapons and take the bits back to Russia for recycling.

Since that time Russia has invaded or supported insurgencies in Chechnya twice, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine three times. NATO has conquered and retained territory from no nations in Europe since the end of the Cold War.

Germany has not declared war against Russia. That is Russian propaganda and hyperbole. NATO and many other nations are helping Ukraine to fight against invaders.

In the Korean War Russian pilots flew missions in Russian jets against the USA. In the Vietnam War Russian experts built and operated the air defense systems of North Vietnam. In both of these instances American lives were lost as a direct result of Soviet/ Russian combat action.

The moment the last Russian solider leaves occupied Ukraine this war will be over. It's all up to Putin to end it.

Norway, Sweden, Spain, Israel, Ireland and many others have sent military and humanitarian aid. It would seem unlikely that a country run by Nazis would get aid from Israel.

Other nations are providing aid to NATO nations so they can then forward equipment to Ukraine. South Korea is exporting arms to Poland who will then send Polish weapons to Ukraine.

Russia keeps nibbling at their border states for decades and it's time to stop them from waging aggressive war against peaceful neighbors. Ukraine is willing to fight and as long as their troops are staffing the weapons I am willing to send them whatever they need.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Do we have "thousands" of tanks in storage

carnot, why do use "we" as if you are a citizen of the USA?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Actually, the Ukrainians ARE winning by fighting the Russians to a stalemate, and causing them to withdraw in a number of areas, not to mention all of their troop and materiel losses in the last year.

Many didn't give the Ukrainians two weeks to last against the Russian onslaught, but they've proven to be very crafty and capable fighters, embarrassing the Russian military and Putin on many occasions.

"Since that time Russia has invaded or supported insurgencies in Chechnya twice, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine three times. NATO has conquered and retained territory from no nations in Europe since the end of the Cold War".

Not to forget ALL of the countries they invaded and occupied during the Cold War, which has caused so much bad blood in the region, and is why so many people and countries are supplying an incredible array of military weaponry and ordnance to the Ukrainian people.

They don't want to be back under the Russian boot again.

After reading the article my first reaction was that there is American greatness but then there is American Greatness.

I am pretty sure that my father, who had plenty of combat experience in WW2, would support fighting the Russians via Ukraine and saving the Ukrainians from another bunch of war criminals. So would my uncles, also combat vets. I always felt like they pretty much agreed what was right and what was wrong and they stepped up. Like many millions of others. The Greatest Generation, IMO, would not support backing off in Ukraine. This does not mean I do not respect others's rights to another opinion. I am sticking with an old fashioned world view.

IMO, American Greatness is a string of sound bites about politics and fighting the next election. The people it belittles in DC live everyday with the tension of possible nuclear war, end game scenarios, intel assessments, budgets and equipment, a thousand other things as they try to balance out what the price of our commitment to sovereignty, the rule of law, and peace for Ukraine is worth. Far from perfect, no less corrupt than the predecessors perhaps. Maybe our policy is doing okay with this balance and is not naive at all.

The bigger picture for me is many elites on all sides having their way with ordinary folks and thinking we don't get it. So Congress, raise the debt ceiling like you did every single time for the last President, and help the Ukrainians get this fight over with ASAP.

With all due respect,I get it about the money and how serious that is. But when your roof is on fire you take care of that first. If Putin wins, the house will catch next.

I don't think the sanctioned Russian economy is building a new war machine. I wonder how their munitions and budget are holding up?

It's a complex region with diverse populations. Once Russia invaded, tortured and killed civilians, executed prisoners, destroyed homes and families, that mattered a lot less. However it started, IMO there is only one way to stop this kind of aggressor.

doc mcb wrote "ROU, I think we "all" agree it was NOT justified".

That is an assumption that may not hold up. There is "justification" being expressed.

and "I think we can agree that Ukraine is not going to be conquered and integrated into Mother Russia."

Not if the support is cut off as some wish, because of the expense.

If the amount of aid going to Ukraine is the objection rather than because it won't be paid back, we could look at value for money. Does Egypt receive money so it doesn't attack Israel, or some other reason? Israel gets much more, is there value for money there? Giving money & kind to Ukraine buys the destruction of the Russian army – a tangible benefit.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Well, if Ukraine can't get EU membership, and if we end up spending Trillions there too, perhaps they can apply for US statehood.

Seems those in DC want to add/make some new ones, and not ALL are integral to the North American continent, so win/win, or Win/Win/Win???

That would certainly give Vladimir Putin a severe case of heartburn – perhaps even a fatal one.

Russia seems to me to be more "on the brink of collapse" militarily, since they're begging the Chinese for weapons, and getting them from Iran as well.

Apparently, they are running very short of their own stocks of ordnance, as well as some other things.

For those who haven't seen it, this is the clip of the
German Foreign Minister saying 'We are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other'

…

carnot, my handle is Muscovite. I am not American, I am Australian. Are you American?

Thresher01 +1

Druzhina
14th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

If the West does not draw the line in Ukraine, where do you draw it? Greece? Poland? Germany? The Atlantic Ocean? Canada?

How many places should Russia be allowed to invade before the West takes decisive action?

Can Russia have the old Soviet Union back and we not care?

Comparing US aid to Egypt from 1979 to aid to Ukraine is very different. In 1979 the dollar was worth a lot more, so the money must be adjusted for inflation to really be valuable. And Egypt and Israel have lived in peace with each other since then so its probably worth the cost.

Yes the US has thousands of tanks in storage. And it does not take years to learn how to use them. Ukraine already knows how to fight using tanks, they just have to transition to the new tanks, US or German or whatever. That takes six months or less.

link

This website says over 2,000 Abrams in storage.
link

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

"As an Australian I'd expect you should be more concerned with what China is about to do than Russia."

YouTube link

"Here's how it ends.

The Russians push south from the north, cuts Ukraine in half, isolating the eastern forces from resupply. The Ukrainian leadership gathers the millions they've stolen and flee the country"

Russia.bot.exe has spoken.

This just looks to me like another Forever War that we have no plan, or intention, to win. We merely want the Ukrainians not to lose. Because what does winning look like, when the enemy has a large nuclear arsenal (and possibly deranged)? It is a war to be "managed" by the keen minds who brought us Afghanistan.

"You know, we've seen before, the Russian military shattered and humiliated and driven with massive losses. In fact we've seen that twice, at least. Remind me who won, in 1812 and in 1945? Yes, it is clear that the Russian war machine was rusty and out-of-date. But the next one that they are probably building now won't be."

doc mcb, if I understand you correctly you are only discussing the American governmental acts and warn against a Russia that will act against the USA. But what act would you expect ? We in Europe, on the other hand, are surely in danger. Putin has made it quite clear that he wants the old "Soviet-republics" back. Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia WILL be taken if Putin is not stopped. Remember the taking of the Crimea, Georgia, Kaliningrad ? Remember the killing of 293 innocent citizens (MH-17). Remember all those recent news about war crimes committed by the Russians ? (Whether or not Ukraine committed war crimes too is of course irrelevant as a counter argument). Last remark: the essential difference between now and 1812 an 1945 is that Russia was attacked, not the attacker.

Doc, I am not sure you can say that the Russian military was shattered and humiliated in 1812 and 1945. The humiliation turned out to be the fate of the French and the Germans. From Borodino to Stalingrad the Russians were resilient, relentless, ruthless and unbeatable in the end.

They are still ruthless, and should not be underestimated, but they can and should be pushed out of Ukraine. This kind of brutal aggression is the reason we have soldiers. Sometimes only armies can restore peace. The Allies can make the difference and get this done, the sooner the better, less death and destruction in the long run. That's how the war ends.

If Putin is only interested in acquiring the eastern part of Ukraine, then why is Russia fomenting rebellion in Moldova. link

Tort, the Russian army was surely shattered in 1941 and 42 when the panzers were on the outskirts of Moscow. Don't think anybody can argue otherwise. And in 1812 Nappy BURNED Moscow, iirc. Yes, the Russians came back, which is exactly my POINT.

I am, I think, as committed to checking aggression as you or anyone (and my daddy was a WWII vet too). The question is not whether we were justified in supporting Ukraine but HOW IT ENDS and HOW WE GET OUT. We were justified in going after the Taliban after 9/11, too; how did that work out?

I've little doubt that our elites (including the industrial-military complex) are perfectly willing to "manage" another twenty-year war, but the rest of us need to be asking questions.

it takes months and perhaps years to train to use a sophisticated tank in general and the M1 in particular.

No … 6 months at best. Including crews & Maint Tms. Like I said, the Mech Heavy Infantry Bde I was assigned. Had a Tank Bn, with 1 M1IP Co. & 3 M60A1 Cos. NET[New Equipment Training] for any weapons system AFAIK takes no where near that. Even if you came right off the block.

As I said, when I was an M113 Co Cde attached to that Tank Bn as well as I was a Mech Bn then later Bde Maint. Officer. I have more than a working knowledge of topics like this.

Were you in the US Army and trained on M1s ?

And when they[whoever they are?] say the M1 is too sophisticated and hard to learn how to operate, supply & maintain, etc. We gave the Iraqis M1s. They managed to use the M1s with no problems, AFAIK. They are MBTs not the Starship Enterprise.

If the Iraqis could use & maintain the M1s. The Ukrainians can as well. I think we all know the Ukrainians are better soldiers, etc. than the Iraqis. The Historical record clearly shows that.

You can send all the equipment you want to Ukraine but if the political leadership overrides military judgement, i.e. Bakhmut, and you cannot replace your battlefield losses in a war of attrition, you will lose and the Ukrainians are losing.

As I have said before I'll take the reports from RET US ARMY GENs and some very reliable experts over that assessment. At least one RET US ARMY GEN has recently been on the ground in the Ukraine. And near the front, etc. He believes as do many other RET US ARMY GENs do … the Ukraine will win this conflict. I'd say RET US ARMY GENs are more trained, experienced and qualified than anyone here.

The Russians push south from the north, cuts Ukraine in half, isolating the eastern forces from resupply. The Ukrainian leadership gathers the millions they've stolen and flee the country.

Poland occupies western Ukraine as a protectorate and Putin says good riddance to the troublesome Ukrainians in the west.

Where did this assessment come from ? Would make the base for a Clancey novel[if he was not dead of course, he can't be a "ghost writer"!] …

They don't want to be back under the Russian boot again.

That is the bottom line …Ukraine or any former WP nations don't want that to happen again. That is one big reason many former WP joined NATO. It was not a picnic to be under Stalin's/Russia's boot.

There is an older woman at the Y I talk. She grew up in East Germany, Torgua IIRC. She told me how it was under Russia's boot. Yes, no picnic at all …

We in Europe, on the other hand, are surely in danger. Putin has made it quite clear that he wants the old "Soviet-republics" back. Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia WILL be taken if Putin is not stopped.

So very true … Putin thought the fall of the USSR was the worst even in modern history. He is obviously biased, etc. Once KGB always KGB.

Understand the Russia is no more entitled to a sphere of influence than a gangster is entitled to keep the spoils of a robbery."

So very true … some here it sounds like are trying to justify Putin's Invasion. There is no way you can reasonably do this. Russia has real no claim on the Ukraine. Maybe be in the past, but this is 2023.

I think many of you are being much too alarmist with regard to Putin's ambitions.

I don't think that is totally true. However, Putin's attack on the Ukraine and his rhetoric, etc. makes him and Russia a threat. Will he go into NATO nations next ? Unlikely … but his invasion of the Ukraine alone demonstrates he is the aggressor and a threat. There has not been this big of a war in Europe since WWII.

Carnot +1

Here's another piece from another conservative site, arguing FOR the Ukrainian support. (Conservatives are far from monolithic on this -- and many other -- questions.)

link

Critics of America's support for Ukraine often cite the latter's corruption as a rationale not to provide assistance. Ukraine has struggled under the burden of corruption, but that does not override the fact that a Russian victory over Ukraine would be harmful to U.S. national security interests — two things can be true at the same time in a complicated world.

Still haven't heard back from machinehead.

Oh, and those of you who freely label opposing views as Russian bots should be ashamed of yourselves.

Justifying invasion and understanding motivations are two different things. I understand some of the Russian motivations for what they do, but I don't justify it. I condemn them and what they did and are doing in the highest terms. They act like Nazis themselves currently.

But I do understand their paranoia. As I said, we would feel the same if Mexico was in the Warsaw Pact of old. Anyone actually from the US disagree? Again, how did we react to the Cuban Missile crisis? How have we reacted in the past to violations of the Monroe Doctrine?

I do fear for our own military, as I have read many stories recently about lack of parts for our equipment maintenance and reduction in field training because it would deplete inventories. Is this because of money, parts and equipment going to the Ukraine? I have to believe that has something to do with it.

I also fear for our overspending and debt, with no end in sight. They are already in debate about another debt ceiling increase.

Now maybe if we stop giving financial aid and shelter, to the over 20 million plus illegal aliens currently in our country, we could then free that tax money up for further use in the Ukraine. Yes, I know there is waste as well, but this is a legitimate unnecessary expenditure that can be stopped and at that same time, shut that sieve of a border down. But I am sure the current powers will not let that happen.

Last question, to those overseas? Would you be as vehement with support both militarily and with your money, if Taiwan or Vietnam was invaded by China? Or again, would the US be forced to shoulder the heavier expenditures. Also how many major European countries have increased their military budgets significantly recently? I would think a fear of Russia would entail that, especially in Germany.

I am really not trying to be contentious. I am just asking things that need to be considered, without emotions. Take the emotions out of the equation and consider it.

Most of us condemn Russia and especially Putin, I do.

two things can be true at the same time in a complicated world.

So true but unfortunately human beings have a terrible habit of reaching for the perceived simple answer ever if its utter BS. Though in this particular case I'd suggest its very much a case of "if your for it I'm against it" and no deeper reason.

I would expect the UK to step if the CCP went after Taiwan militarily. Hopefully stepping up in Ukraine may make that less likely.

The big unanswerable is what would have happened if the West had allowed Ukraine to fold?

Given our current sorry state of ideological conflict, it is certainly true that there are those whose views I automatically reject, because I have no trust in their veracity, see no evidence of any good faith, and reject their values as inimical to my own. That was not true fifty years ago when many on the Left (organized labor, for example) saw Soviet Communism clearly as the threat it was. Plenty of Cold Warriors in Truman's and JFK's Democratic party. Politics really did end at the water's edge. (Of course, the bipartisan buy-in to containment ended us in VietNam, but it also preserved western Europe.)

I agree that allowing Putin to absorb Ukraine would have been very bad, just as letting Hitler have Czechoslovakia was very bad.

But the question NOW is how it ends. And the answer seems to be "it doesn't."

I am not asking that the US stop in their support for the Ukraine. I am asking that our leaders stop making this emotional and do it from a more realistic expeditionary perspective. Every expenditure has been going through pretty much successfully. But we make no cuts to offset them. We have to be much more controlled in what we do. Also since it is in their back yards, I would expect Europe to step up and pick up any slack that we might leave. Increasing their own military expenditures and cut back in other areas.

Right now we all seem to be acting like the US did under Johnson. Try to finance a war and a new domestic policy, without balancing either one. That didn't work out well at all.