Hummer_I_mean_Hammer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:10 am
I fully support tanks being sent over (although how long before they see any action is anyone’s guess), but can't convince me if they do deploy, and are successful, what's going to stop them once they are on the Ukraine/Russian boarder from going any further?
I think they will be closely monitored by allies. Trackers will be already in the vehicles and I expect they could literally be turned off remotely. That technology is ten years old.
I do suspect your concern has been used in a risk assessment. Risk risk risk is what they do.
bonzosbeard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:28 am
I think they will be closely monitored by allies. Trackers will be already in the vehicles and I expect they could literally be turned off remotely. That technology is ten years old.
I do suspect your concern has been used in a risk assessment. Risk risk risk is what they do.
“Hey ‘cap, come over here…”
“what’s up private?”
“those trackers have gone dead man, we can see our M1’s anymore...”
“no worries, hit the kill switch, that’d teach those MF’ers to mess with uncle Sam…”
M1’s roll across the border, drivers pasted with silly smiles …. “On to Moscow we go..”
Hummer_I_mean_Hammer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:10 am
I fully support tanks being sent over (although how long before they see any action is anyone’s guess), but can't convince me if they do deploy, and are successful, what's going to stop them once they are on the Ukraine/Russian boarder from going any further?
Probably about a million Russians and that to keep those tanks operational requires Western support and if they are used in a “non-approved” way then that support will get cut off very quickly.
MB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:47 am
Probably about a million Russians and that to keep those tanks operational requires Western support and if they are used in a “non-approved” way then that support will get cut off very quickly.
Just saying…. By the time those tanks are battle ready the Ukrainians would have been fighting for two years or more. My concern is that if they were to believe that some sort of ‘indiscretion’ might force NATO into the conflict, then they may well do what is required to make it happen.
We were the same back in the day - things like sinking the French navy or possibly luring German subs to fire on civilian cruise liners to get a suitable public reaction.
Ukraine hasn’t declared war on Iran (or indeed the other way round given Iranian “advisors” are known to have died in Ukrainian strikes).
Both sides seem happy to ignore material support vs boots on the ground beyond a bit of rhetoric.
I don’t see NATO being drawn into this if things continue to go “well” for Ukraine. It would need to be in a situation where it is going badly and that NATO support gets closer to the frontline with all the risks that come with that.
These proxy wars are nothing new. The US directly wiped out 300 Wagner fighters in Syria and nothing happened.
I don’t want to downplay things as bad stuff can happen, but I don’t see it is in Russia’s or NATO’s interest for this to escalate so I don’t see either side engineering an incident.
It's not in NATO's interest to get involved when Ukraine seem to be holding their own and keeping up the resistance.
Yes Ukraine are being heavily supported with supplies but they seem to be draining Russia of their own supplies and man power.
The west are happy to send a few deliveries whilst watching Russia become weaker and show the world that they are not the power house they claim to be without the use of nuclear weapons.
It does kinda feel that the pendulum is swinging slightly towards the Russians.
Ukraine doesn’t really have an answer to this attritional style of fighting and they are losing soldiers who could be better used in the spring. Bakhmut had no real strategic value from what I have read but symbolism is import too.
I guess the unknown is how sustainable this kind of fighting is for Russia. Plenty of reports that Wagner are struggling to recruit to fill their assault units. Even prisoners are saying no now. Would Putin do this with conscripts? That casualties are huge on the Russian side. Well into the tens of thousands
bonzosbeard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 12:26 pm
The tanks will change the game.
Hopefully Bonzo, but it will take a while to get everyone trained up and to get the numbers to where it can make a significant difference. Could be late spring early summer before it can make a difference.
It is just a case of how much damage the Russian attritional tactics do in the meantime.
Looks like someone took out all the drone and ballistic missile producing sites in Iran through a coordinated strike. Probably worth more than a dozen tanks...
From a purely selfish (and callous) view point, it's better for us in the west if the war drags on, the longer it goes on the more Russians die, which in turn means the weaker they become on the world stage.
The Ukraine is Russia's Vietnam, only without the cool soundtrack.......
This is an area where the threat of escalation is real. NLAW's are made in Northern Ireland, technically the same justification would apply if Putin sent a couple of roid heads over to novicheck the place.........
delbert wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:55 pm
This is an area where the threat of escalation is real. NLAW's are made in Northern Ireland, technically the same justification would apply if Putin sent a couple of roid heads over to novicheck the place.........
True and pretty much the way I see it.
The only countenance is there is already beef between Israel and Iran with tangible threats made in both directions.
If those two declared war then we could really be in the sh*t.
US President Joe Biden has ruled out providing F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, despite renewed calls from top Kyiv officials for urgent air support.
Asked on Monday if the US would be sending the planes, Mr Biden said "no". The UK also said it was "not practical" for it to send its aircraft to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, France's Emmanuel Macon said "by definition, nothing is excluded" ahead of meeting a Ukrainian minister.
Ukraine says advanced jets will help protect its skies from Russian attacks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the country's top military officials say there should be no taboos on such military aid - but the US and its partners fear this would lead to further escalation with a nuclear-armed Russia.
On Tuesday, Ukraine's Air Force spokesman Yuriy Ihnat was quoted by the Ukrainska Pravda news website as saying that Kyiv needed up to 200 multi-role fighter jets - such as F-16s - to defend its skies.
more...
The USA will probably pile in when Ukraine have all but won
