All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

https://english.elpais.com/internationa ... tanks.html

That's great.

What's Putin's plan when the NATO tanks arrive, and he's got even MORE unfortified land to defend if his offensive is "successful"?

Or like Putin, you're not thinking about that?

Or do you think NATO will let Putin take Kiev?

Putin's problem, as I keep telling you, is that he can't keep land that doesn't want to be held.

[old salt]

https://english.elpais.com/internationa ... tanks.html

That's great.

What's Putin's plan when the NATO tanks arrive, and he's got even MORE unfortified land to defend if his offensive is "successful"?

Or like Putin, you're not thinking about that?

Or do you think NATO will let Putin take Kiev?

Putin's problem, as I keep telling you, is that he can't keep land that doesn't want to be held.

Will NATO forces intervene, if necessary, to prevent Russian forces from taking Kiev ?

[a fan]

https://english.elpais.com/internationa ... tanks.html

That's great.

What's Putin's plan when the NATO tanks arrive, and he's got even MORE unfortified land to defend if his offensive is "successful"?

Or like Putin, you're not thinking about that?

Or do you think NATO will let Putin take Kiev?

Putin's problem, as I keep telling you, is that he can't keep land that doesn't want to be held.

Will NATO forces intervene, if necessary, to prevent Russian forces from taking Kiev ?

You didn't answer my questions.

[old salt]

Obvious question: why do we have only one company making these tanks? That's a fine deal if you're General Dynamics.

The Abrams is slated to be in service until at least 2050. Keeping the production line in operation, refurbishing older models, is part of our military industrial base. Remember in 2013 when the Army wanted to cut tank construction to stay within sequester caps, & Congress wouldn't let them.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-shee ... rams-tank/
Dec 4, 2013 - The M1 “Abrams” tank is a third generation main battle tank developed by General Dynamics and currently used by the US Army. Replacing the Army’s aging M60 tank in 1980, the M1 was originally conceived for use in tank warfare with the Soviet Union. The first combat deployment of the M1 was in the first gulf war in 1991.

Since its introduction, over 9,000 M1s have been delivered in three base variants; the original M1 design and its upgraded variants, the M1A1 and the M1A2. ...The Army has a fleet of around 2,300 M1 tanks; the majority of which are M1A2s. 3,000 M1s are currently stationed in an Army depot near the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California in reserve.

The Army began refurbishing its M1A2 fleet to the newest M1A2 SEPv2 standard in 2007. The SEPv2 (System Enhancement Package – Version 2) includes an array of enhancements to the base M1A2 variant.

In May, the Army argued that $1.3 billion could be saved in the FY2012 defense budget if refurbishment work at the Lima plant in Ohio was frozen until the M1A3 variant became operational in 2017.
The Army estimated that shutting down the plant and then reopening it would cost $800,000, whereas keeping plant production running would cost $2.1 billion.
Of the 2,400 M1A2s, roughly two-thirds were already upgraded to the M1A2SEPv2 variant.
137 congressmen from both parties responded to this proposal by sending a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh claiming that the proposal would dangerously harm the country’s “industrial base.”
Congress subsequently decided to include an extra $255 million in the FY 2012 defense budget to upgrade 49 M1A2s.
In February, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno told the House Appropriations Committee that $3 billion would be wasted on refurbishing “280 tanks that we simply do not need.”
In April, 173 democratic and republican representatives sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta criticizing the administration for ignoring the M1 industrial base and urging him to continue supporting their decision to upgrade more tanks.
Congress decided to include $136 million in the FY 2013 defense budget for 33 further M1A2 upgrades.
In March 2013, Gen. Odierno told the Associated Press that “if we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way.”
In April, Deputy Director of the Army Budget Office David Welch restated the Army position when he said that “the Army is on record saying we do not require any additional M1A2s.”
In May, 120 House members sent a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh stating they were “deeply concerned to learn that the Army has once again failed to fund production of the [Abrams] tank.”
In June, the House Armed Services Committee earmarked an extra $168 million for further refurbishment in the FY 2014 budget request. This brought total funding for the M1 upgrade program to $346 million in the House version of the FY 2014 budget.
Congressional supporters have argued that the Lima plant shutdown resulting from a freeze in funding would destroy the M1’s industrial base. Without a continuous production line, many of the high skilled workers will leave for other jobs, while subcontractors that supply materials and tools for the plant will go out of business. The US would be left vulnerable in an event of war and this, they argue, poses a national security risk.
The lack of support from congressmen whose states would be less economically affected by a funding freeze suggests that congressional support has less to do with national security and more to do with pork-barrel politics.
A quarter of the members who signed the 2012 letter to Secretary Panetta were from Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. A shutdown of the Lima plant would economically affect these states the most.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, General Dynamics has donated $5.3 million to current members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and defense appropriations subcommittees since January 2001.
137 House members who signed the 2012 letter to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have together received more than $2 million in donations from General Dynamics.
In May, the White House released a response to the proposed FY 2014 House budget. It stated that the administration “objects to the $321 million […] for unneeded upgrades to the M-1 Abrams tank.”
Sequestration requires US defense spending to be cut by $487 billion over the next ten years. This pressure will most likely strengthen the Army’s resolve to freeze funding for M1A2 refurbishment as it attempts to save money where it can for its higher priority programs. The sequester will also force many House and Senate members to review their past support as the cuts begin to hurt other areas of the budget which are of even higher value. These factors, combined with administration opposition, could spell an end for M1A2 refurbishment funding in the near future.

[old salt]

https://english.elpais.com/internationa ... tanks.html

That's great.

What's Putin's plan when the NATO tanks arrive, and he's got even MORE unfortified land to defend if his offensive is "successful"?

Or like Putin, you're not thinking about that?

Or do you think NATO will let Putin take Kiev?

Putin's problem, as I keep telling you, is that he can't keep land that doesn't want to be held.

Will NATO forces intervene, if necessary, to prevent Russian forces from taking Kiev ?

You didn't answer my questions.

Were those questions ? I read them as just more incoherent ranting.
I don't see NATO intervening militarily, even IF Putin threatens Kyiv, which I don't think he will.
I see his objective to be consolidating the territory he now holds, which he is flooding with more troops to occupy & defend.
Putin has held Crimea & the LPR/DPR enclaves in Donbass since 2014.

[a fan]

https://english.elpais.com/internationa ... tanks.html

That's great.

What's Putin's plan when the NATO tanks arrive, and he's got even MORE unfortified land to defend if his offensive is "successful"?

Or like Putin, you're not thinking about that?

Or do you think NATO will let Putin take Kiev?

Putin's problem, as I keep telling you, is that he can't keep land that doesn't want to be held.

Will NATO forces intervene, if necessary, to prevent Russian forces from taking Kiev ?

You didn't answer my questions.

Were those questions ? I read them as just more incoherent ranting.

Translation for those at home: ten seconds ago, Old Salt was bragging (yes, bragging) that "time was not on Ukraine's side". Then cites "some guy" telling us that a Russian offensive was surely imminent this spring.

When I point out that Putin can't do that, and move his weak *ss troops away from the current somewhat decent fortifications, because in the long term, they can't depend on the muddy winter to slow counter attacks without building new fortifications.....he realizes I'm right, and then breaks away from his previous assertion "time isn't on Ukraine's side", and claims I was making incoherent rants.

He can't concede that a fellow poster made a coherent point. We can't have that, can we?

....and all of this, of course, because he desperately wants to prove that "Biden is doing it wrong".

Naturally, it could be pretty easy to argue that Biden played both Germany and Poland to get them to pony up these tanks. But nope, that's un-possible in Old Salt's world, where no matter what someone with a D does by their name does....it's wrong.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://english.elpais.com/internationa ... tanks.html

That's great.

What's Putin's plan when the NATO tanks arrive, and he's got even MORE unfortified land to defend if his offensive is "successful"?

Or like Putin, you're not thinking about that?

Or do you think NATO will let Putin take Kiev?

Putin's problem, as I keep telling you, is that he can't keep land that doesn't want to be held.

Will NATO forces intervene, if necessary, to prevent Russian forces from taking Kiev ?

You didn't answer my questions.

Were those questions ? I read them as just more incoherent ranting.

Translation for those at home: ten seconds ago, Old Salt was bragging (yes, bragging) that "time was not on Ukraine's side". Then cites "some guy" telling us that a Russian offensive was surely imminent this spring.

When I point out that Putin can't do that, and move his weak *ss troops away from the current somewhat decent fortifications, because in the long term, they can't depend on the muddy winter to slow counter attacks without building new fortifications.....he realizes I'm right, and then breaks away from his previous assertion "time isn't on Ukraine's side", and claims I was making incoherent rants.

He can't concede that a fellow poster made a coherent point. We can't have that, can we?

....and all of this, of course, because he desperately wants to prove that "Biden is doing it wrong".

Naturally, it could be pretty easy to argue that Biden played both Germany and Poland to get them to pony up these tanks. But nope, that's un-possible in Old Salt's world, where no matter what someone with a D does by their name does....it's wrong.

Sad.

[old salt]

https://english.elpais.com/internationa ... tanks.html

That's great.

What's Putin's plan when the NATO tanks arrive, and he's got even MORE unfortified land to defend if his offensive is "successful"?

Or like Putin, you're not thinking about that?

Or do you think NATO will let Putin take Kiev?

Putin's problem, as I keep telling you, is that he can't keep land that doesn't want to be held.

Will NATO forces intervene, if necessary, to prevent Russian forces from taking Kiev ?

You didn't answer my questions.

Were those questions ? I read them as just more incoherent ranting.

Translation for those at home: ten seconds ago, Old Salt was bragging (yes, bragging) that "time was not on Ukraine's side". Then cites "some guy" telling us that a Russian offensive was surely imminent this spring.

When I point out that Putin can't do that, and move his weak *ss troops away from the current somewhat decent fortifications, because in the long term, they can't depend on the muddy winter to slow counter attacks without building new fortifications.....he realizes I'm right, and then breaks away from his previous assertion "time isn't on Ukraine's side", and claims I was making incoherent rants.

He can't concede that a fellow poster made a coherent point. We can't have that, can we?

....and all of this, of course, because he desperately wants to prove that "Biden is doing it wrong".

Naturally, it could be pretty easy to argue that Biden played both Germany and Poland to get them to pony up these tanks. But nope, that's un-possible in Old Salt's world, where no matter what someone with a D does by their name does....it's wrong.

Now you're just making sh!t up again. I'm telling you that Russian forces have been digging in to defend the territory they now hold & are likely building for an offensive in the E. Time is not on Ukraine's side because Russia is building it's force level. That's why "some guy" (Gen Milley) advises that Ukraine needs to start their counter offensive as soon as they are able. My criticism was of the Germans, not Biden or anyone with a D by their name. Biden didn't play anybody. Poland wanted to donate some Leopards regardless, they're already getting Abrams. We gave into Germany's feckless demands, which will delay 31 Abrams getting to Taiwan or Poland if Ukraine gets them straight off the production line instead of existing stocks of Marine M1A1's which the Poles are already recieving for training & to replace the T-91's & T-72's they've already donated.
Warning that time is not on Ukraine's side is not bragging. You're a sick twist.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-sp ... yd-austin/

Next few months crucial for Ukraine's spring counteroffensive, top Pentagon officials say

The next few months are crucial to the success of any Ukrainian counteroffensive in the spring, according to the top officials at the Pentagon.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday said there is "a window of opportunity" ahead of the spring to get Ukraine the capabilities they need to go on the offensive.

Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley were at Ramstein air base in Germany this week to attend a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, where representatives from 54 nations gathered to discuss the equipment and training Ukraine would need to expel Russia from its territory.

Milley told reporters after the meeting that militarily it would be "very, very difficult" for Ukraine to completely push Russia out of Ukraine this year.

However, he suggested that Ukrainians could execute a successful operation to reclaim some of the Russian-occupied territory, depending on the training and new equipment they receive in the next few months.

He also said it would be a "very heavy lift" to get the equipment to the Ukrainians and then trained on both how to use the equipment and how to maneuver together on the battlefield.

Last weekend, the U.S. started its training of approximately 500 Ukrainians per month on combined arms maneuvers — that is, how to operate among battalion-sized groups and coordinate between air and ground...

"We have a window of opportunity here, you know, between now and the spring when they commence their operation, their counteroffensive," Austin said Friday. "And that's not a long time, and we have to pull together the right capabilities."

I'm not the only one trying to make sense of the source & timing of the 31 Abrams tanks headed for Ukraine (eventually).
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/01/wha ... questions/

What, where, how: After the Abrams-for-Ukraine announcement, a host of questions

In picking the precise type of M1 tank to send, the US must choose between giving Ukraine the best tech possible and risking the capture of secrets by Russia.

In the wake of the dramatic announcement by President Joe Biden this week that American-made Abrams main battle tanks will be sent to Ukraine, the White House and the Pentagon have left a myriad of questions unanswered. What specific kind of Abrams will be fending off Russian forces? When exactly will these tanks be delivered and ready for combat? And what kind of process did the Pentagon go through, or is still going through, to come to those decisions?

Statements from senior military officials suggest key details remain unresolved — including the specific variant and sub-variant of the Abrams in play. The same day as Biden’s announcement, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology Douglas Bush told reporters that he was still creating a laundry list of options for Pentagon officials to consider before deciding which way to go.

“It’s not just the tanks,” he said. “We have to be able to [deliver] tanks, support equipment, the training, the ammunition, the fuel… It’s really a bigger picture.”

Just a day later, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters the Defense Department had settled on the M1A2 variant. The decision was made, in part, because the US does not have an “excess” of Abrams tanks of the earlier, less sophisticated M1A1 model in its stock, she said.

Later that day, however, a Pentagon spokesperson told Breaking Defense, “While we’re not able to provide specific details on the specifications of the variant at this time, it is our intent to procure the M1A2 tank through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) funding even as we consider several other options.” That wording suggests the question of the M1A2 remained at least partly open, as is the question of which of several sub-variants the US was comfortable giving Kyiv.

As for the delivery timeline, a senior administration official told reporters the same day as Biden’s announcement that it would take “months as opposed to weeks” to deliver the vehicles to Ukraine. In the meantime, the US would establish a comprehensive training program for Ukrainian forces and set up the necessary maintenance and logistics infrastructure. Beyond that, exact estimates on when Ukrainian crews could be manning Abrams in combat were scarce, as was information about exactly where the tanks would come from.

In the meantime, the Ukrainians are expected to more quickly absorb and fight with German Leopard tanks, whose transfer was announced the same day as the Abrams. But while the Pentagon deliberates and plans, there’s time to look at some options. What Abrams models are available, where are they, and how fast could they get to Ukraine?

If the Pentagon sticks to its current plan and uses USAI for the Abrams, that means it won’t be pulling from active US stocks like a presidential drawdown would, so Army tanks in the US are most likely safe.

But if plans change, perhaps the fastest way to get Abrams tanks to Ukraine would be for the US to pull from its Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) already in Europe. Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of US Army forces in Europe, said the US should have all the equipment for two US Army armored brigades — including about 87 late-model M1A2 tanks each — already on the continent. APS stockpiles are intended for Army units to roll out in an emergency, but, Hodges argued, aiding Ukraine should qualify. (Biden said the US plans to send Ukraine 31 Abrams tanks, enough for one Ukrainian battalion.)

“If the administration had the sense of urgency to help Ukraine win, then they’d bring Ukrainian tank crews and commanders to Poland or Germany to match them up with these tanks for training and then put them on a train to Ukraine to be employed how and where and when the Ukrainian General Staff is ready,” he wrote in a Jan. 26 email to Breaking Defense. “This could all happen within the next two or three months.”

Older versions could also be available, because the Marine Corps disbanded its tank fleet in 2021 and transferred more than 400 M1A1s to the Army. The state of these vehicles is not publicly known, but the US State Department is currently selling some of those to countries including Poland, the first European nation to receive a US Abrams tank deal.

Warsaw announced earlier this month that it inked a deal to begin receiving 116 M1A1s later this year, in addition to a previous deal for 250 upgraded M1A2s that are expected to be delivered mid-decade. Poland’s announcement showcases the relative speed of delivery for the legacy M1A1s versus the M1A2 tanks. (The US Army has not responded to questions about the latter’s current production timeline.)

A host of factors come into play for production delivery dates, industry officials have explained in the past: The process is traditionally like a queue, so when an order comes in, it gets in line behind other deals. In this case, Ukraine would be getting in line behind existing US orders, including ones from countries like Poland and Taiwan. But here’s the catch: The administration can re-prioritize the queue and bump Ukraine up ahead of other countries already waiting for years.

The State Department did not immediately respond to questions about the Abrams tank production line and whether this week’s Ukraine announcement has any bearing on other orders for M1A1s or M1A2s.

Singh and other defense officials have also used the word “new” when referring to M1 Abrams bound for Ukraine. However, they probably don’t mean that in its most literal sense. The Army is not producing new tanks, but instead it is working with prime contractor General Dynamics, and other industry partners, on upgrades to existing hulls, drawn from a vast surplus of M1s demobilized after the Cold War. Establishing a production line for “new” Abrams would certainly be one way to delay delivery for years.

The Devil In The Sub-Variant Details

In order to figure where the tanks should come from, the Pentagon first has to decide which types of tanks to give Ukraine.

The administration has obscured the details, likely in part on purpose to keep the Russians guessing, and in part because policy has changed so fast that at least some officials seemed to be getting whiplash. But there’s also a delicate balance to be kept between providing maximum performance to Ukraine and exposing American secrets to capture by Russia.

While all M1 Abrams models use the same AGT1500 engine, they vary widely in their armor, electronics, and even weapons. The original M1 introduced in 1980 had an already-obsolescent 105 mm main gun, but as soon as possible the Army swapped it out for the much more potent Rheinmetall 120 mm, also used on most Leopard 2s. (If any 105 mm M1s still exist, they’re in deep storage and would take months to overhaul.)

The first upgunned model was the M1A1, made in several subvariants with steadily stronger armor — M1 armor is modular, so you can replace outdated or battle-damaged slabs for new ones — and better electronics, such as GPS navigation and intelligence-sharing networks.

The latest variant is the M1A2 — the one Ukraine will get, at least based on most recent statements — which keeps the 120 mm main gun, modified to take new types of ammunition, but radically upgrades the electronics. The most important upgrade was a high-tech targeting system called the Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer. In essence, the CITV is a mini turret atop the main turret, with its own set of sensors able to swivel in any direction, so while the gunner is lining up one target, the tank commander is already scanning for the next. Since most tank battles since World War II come down to who shoots (accurately) first, the A2’s “hunter-killer” system is a lethally important upgrade over the M1A1 — not to mention most of the Soviet-era tanks Russia and Ukraine still use.

The basic M1A2 has been upgraded several times, especially its electronics, which have become more modern and easier to maintain with every overhaul. The first System Enhancement Package improved the armor. SEPv2, the current mainstay model, focused on improved computers, network communications, and second-generation infrared sights. SEPv3, in production since 2018, upgrades protection against roadside bombs and adds an armor-protected Auxiliary Power Unit to keep running all the tank’s electronics while the gas-guzzling engine is turned off. (Earlier Abrams had an APU kludged on outside the armor, where a stray bullet could turn it to scrap). SEPv4, now in development, features a new laser sight and third-generation infrared sensors. Both SEPv3 and v4 are compatible with the Trophy Active Protection System, a kind of mini-missile defense that shoots down incoming anti-tank missiles and RPGs, but Trophy is in short supply and made in Israel, which has generally not allowed weapons exports to Ukraine.

Sources are cagey about other details related to the upgrades because so much of it is classified, and the US has to weigh its desire to give Ukraine the best tanks available with the limited numbers of the very latest models and the danger of one falling into hostile hands.

The US is especially sensitive about the M1’s armor, which for all current variants reportedly includes plates of ultra-dense depleted uranium. DU is non-radioactive — in fact, it’s less reactive than regular uranium, because all the radioactive isotopes have been removed to make nuclear fuel, which is why it’s called “depleted” — but it’s potentially toxic if ingested or inhaled, as could happen to the tank crew if an enemy round slams through the plate. (In that case, though, the crew has more immediate problems).

So every Abrams sold to foreign customers, even close allies like Australia, has the depleted uranium armor removed. Some of the older M1A1s being prepped for export, say to Poland, may have already had this process performed. But the more modern M1A2s all have the DU plates, and swapping them out adds weeks to the delivery timeline.

In the end, it could be many days or weeks before all these details are settled. In the meantime, the conversation appears to have moved on to what’s the next key weapon system for Ukraine’s fight against Russian invaders.

[a fan]

Now you're just making sh!t up again.

Nope. Quoted you directly. And read the ENTIRE citation you gave......telling us a spring attack was coming from Russia.

You agreed with this assessment, telling me time's not on Ukraine's side.

I pointed out that Russia can't sustain an attack to hold new unfortified land....it's all they can do to hold what they have. How do I know? The freaking draft, that's how.

Then you change you mind, and now tell me they're not going on an offensive, and are digging in.

I'm telling you that Russian forces have been digging in to defend the territory they now hold & are likely building for an offensive in the E. Time is not on Ukraine's side because Russia is building it's force level

With old men, and little ammo.....you know, the entire reason Putin's offensive stalled in the first place.

That's why "some guy" (Gen Milley) advises that Ukraine needs to start their counter offensive as soon as they are able.

In other news: water is wet. Obviously they're waiting for winter to end (mud), and for better weapons. Now how do I know this, and you don't?

My criticism was of the Germans, not Biden or anyone with a D by their name.

Right. Then in your next paragraph, you're.....Blaming Biden for shorting Poland and Taiwan. Who do you think you're fooling with your nonstop silliness?

...... We gave into Germany's feckless demands which will delay 31 Abrams getting to Taiwan or Poland if Ukraine gets them straight off the production line instead of existing stocks of Marine M1A1's which the Poles are already recieving for training & to replace the T-91's & T-72's they've already donated.

Warning that time is not on Ukraine's side is not bragging. You're a sick twist.

You're wrong. And so is Milley. I love that you military wonks think you're magic, and are never wrong.

This is same team.....including you....... that's been telling us Putin is a brilliant chessmaster and strategist, and everyone else in Europe couple with Dem Presidents are the one's that are "doing it wrong". Oh, and that Putin...who ran out of bullets and supplies after a few months of war against a 8th rate power......doesn't need money to fund his stupid 1980's adventurism.

You've been WAY OFF on pretty much everything Putin. And so have American military and foreign policy wonks. Yet you both want to pretend that the rest of us are idiots for daring to have an opinion, and you have it allllll figured out. Sure you do.

[old salt]

Now you're just making sh!t up again.

Nope. Quoted you directly. And read the ENTIRE citation you gave......telling us a spring attack was coming from Russia.

You agreed with this assessment, telling me time's not on Ukraine's side.

I pointed out that Russia can't sustain an attack to hold new unfortified land....it's all they can do to hold what they have. How do I know? The freaking draft, that's how.

Then you change you mind, and now tell me they're not going on an offensive, and are digging in.
...you're a moron. They're doing both.

I'm telling you that Russian forces have been digging in to defend the territory they now hold & are likely building for an offensive in the E. Time is not on Ukraine's side because Russia is building it's force level

With old men, and little ammo.....you know, the entire reason Putin's offensive stalled in the first place.

That's why "some guy" (Gen Milley) advises that Ukraine needs to start their counter offensive as soon as they are able.

In other news: water is wet. Obviously they're waiting for winter to end (mud), and for better weapons. Now how do I know this, and you don't?
The ground is frozen in winter. The mud comes in the spring. Armies can operate in both.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-k ... a-64545653
A Ukrainian official warned on Saturday that Russia was likely to be preparing a new wave of attacks, probably timed to coincide with the February 24 anniversary of Moscow's decision to invade Ukraine.
Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov told Radio Svoboda, the Russian-language arm of US broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, that it was "no secret" that Russia's army was preparing its next attempted advances.
Danilov said that the main target was most likely to bring the breakaway eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk completely under Russian control.

My criticism was of the Germans, not Biden or anyone with a D by their name.

Right. Then in your next paragraph, you're.....Blaming Biden for shorting Poland and Taiwan. Who do you think you're fooling with your nonstop silliness? I'm still trying to figure out what the Biden Admin is doing, as is the defense media. They're asking the same questions I'm asking. Where are the 31 tanks coming from ? What needs to be done to get them ready ? When will they be delivered ? How will they be equipped ? Will they delay delivery of tanks slated for Taiwan & Poland ? The DoD spokesperson was clueless, stonewalling or both.

...... We gave into Germany's feckless demands which will delay 31 Abrams getting to Taiwan or Poland if Ukraine gets them straight off the production line instead of existing stocks of Marine M1A1's which the Poles are already recieving for training & to replace the T-91's & T-72's they've already donated.

Warning that time is not on Ukraine's side is not bragging. You're a sick twist.

You're wrong. And so is Milley. I love that you military wonks think you're magic, and are never wrong.

This is same team.....including you....... that's been telling us Putin is a brilliant chessmaster and strategist, and everyone else in Europe couple with Dem Presidents are the one's that are "doing it wrong". Oh, and that Putin...who ran out of bullets and supplies after a few months of war against a 8th rate power......doesn't need money to fund his stupid 1980's adventurism.

You've been WAY OFF on pretty much everything Putin. And so have American military and foreign policy wonks. Yet you both want to pretend that the rest of us are idiots for daring to have an opinion, and you have it allllll figured out. Sure you do.
This from the foreign policy genius who told us Putin was inconsequential because his GDP was smaller than Italy's.
For someone so insignificant, he's sure turned the world upside down.

[MDlaxfan76]

I dunno how to interpret all this back and forth.

I'd like to understand from each of you whether you think that the Biden Admin has a simple problem set and if they'd only do just (what?) all would be hunky dorry.

Me, I think this is more than merely military strategy and capabilities, it also involves all sorts of political persuasion. Multilateralism is hard, not easy, and much more complicated than autocracy, given that each of our allies faces specific political challenges based on each country's perspectives, whether economic, historical, or existential.

But ok, it's hard.
IMO, we're doing a pretty darn good job of managing a really hard job diplomatically.

But on the military side, I think those who are saying that the sooner the West/NATO gets ALL of the necessary technology and firepower advantage to Ukraine, the less it will cost in lives and treasure to Ukraine and the West are right.

More, faster.

Yes, Russia has the capacity and Putin has the amorality to do even worse atrocities to Ukraine and potentially to its neighbors and the world for that matter, but there is no real choice but to defeat his military aggression forcefully and completely. There will be no 'peace' otherwise. Continued death and destruction.

I predicted Abrams would be committed when other posters were saying no way we'd do that, wrong tool for the problem...but my point was that it was for the diplomacy, to move Germany and others to commit 'offensive capabilities' in the face of all sorts of pressures to not do so.

I don't care whether the Abrams are there in two months or 6 months or even longer, what matters is that the Leopards, Challengers, will be. And the West is now, finally, signaling that we're in it for the long term, winter cold and terror will not work, the allies are resolved.

And militarily, from the US in particular, what will matter much more than the Abrams that aren't likely going to get there in time for a spring defense and summer push forward, are longer range precision strike capabilities, whether artillery, missile, drone, or fighter jets.

That's where need to keep pushing forward. The tanks were a breakthrough in commitment, the more important elements will be strikes from the air, and the fast moving tactical systems on the ground, not our heavy Abrams...

[PizzaSnake]

I dunno how to interpret all this back and forth.

I'd like to understand from each of you whether you think that the Biden Admin has a simple problem set and if they'd only do just (what?) all would be hunky dorry.

Me, I think this is more than merely military strategy and capabilities, it also involves all sorts of political persuasion. Multilateralism is hard, not easy, and much more complicated than autocracy, given that each of our allies faces specific political challenges based on each country's perspectives, whether economic, historical, or existential.

But ok, it's hard.
IMO, we're doing a pretty darn good job of managing a really hard job diplomatically.

But on the military side, I think those who are saying that the sooner the West/NATO gets ALL of the necessary technology and firepower advantage to Ukraine, the less it will cost in lives and treasure to Ukraine and the West are right.

More, faster.

Yes, Russia has the capacity and Putin has the amorality to do even worse atrocities to Ukraine and potentially to its neighbors and the world for that matter, but there is no real choice but to defeat his military aggression forcefully and completely. There will be no 'peace' otherwise. Continued death and destruction.

I predicted Abrams would be committed when other posters were saying no way we'd do that, wrong tool for the problem...but my point was that it was for the diplomacy, to move Germany and others to commit 'offensive capabilities' in the face of all sorts of pressures to not do so.

I don't care whether the Abrams are there in two months or 6 months or even longer, what matters is that the Leopards, Challengers, will be. And the West is now, finally, signaling that we're in it for the long term, winter cold and terror will not work, the allies are resolved.

And militarily, from the US in particular, what will matter much more than the Abrams that aren't likely going to get there in time for a spring defense and summer push forward, are longer range precision strike capabilities, whether artillery, missile, drone, or fighter jets.

That's where need to keep pushing forward. The tanks were a breakthrough in commitment, the more important elements will be strikes from the air, and the fast moving tactical systems on the ground, not our heavy Abrams...

ATACMS now. Kerch Bridge and other logistics routes negated. Wildcard is whether or not Ukraine would stick with targets within, or reasonably close to their borders and avoid excessive collateral damage and casualties.

Now, as you rightly observe, easy to say, maybe harder to "do" in terms of unanimity within the NATO community.

However, the longer this goes on the harder it will become to defeat the Russian military, which will undoubtedly find increasing ways to source materiel (see Wagner's supplies from North Korea). I'd be surprised if Russia isn't recalling munitions they've sold to Africa and other clients similar to our drawdown of ammunition from depots in Israel.

Speaking of a hard child/client to manage, Biden has his hands full with Israel, who has a complicated equation given the situation in northern Syria and the Iranian-backed forces there. My, the 1953 replacement of Mohammad Mosaddegh sure is the gift that keeps on giving...

[a fan]

you're a moron. They're doing both.

Good. I hope they're as bad at military strategy as you are, and are just as pompous. Head right out in the open to unfortified positions where the US military has been working on the strategy to counter that for months now. Putin is fighting US on the ground military minds that have 20+ years of real combat experience. Best of luck if he's dumb enough to do that.

I'm the one who told you that you need money to wage war...money that Putin doesn't have, and you mocked me for over a decade.

Now it comes to where the rubber meets the road, and Putin runs out of all the sh*t you need to wage war in a matter of weeks, if not days, stalling his 1980's invasion plan, thinking he's still the Soviet Union. And rather than say "well, you called it.....you were right, Putin doesn't have what he needs to defeat even a minor league team, let alone challenge NATO", you call me a moron.

And how's that sub base that you thought was so awesome workin' out for Putin, Old Salt? He gonna shoot torpedoes at the Ukrainian troops?

I'm still trying to figure out what the Biden Admin is doing, as is the defense media. They're asking the same questions I'm asking.

When the POTUS had a little R by his name, you called it "strategic ambiguity".....now that the D shows up? This is no longer a good thing, and you're throwing stones because you think that Biden should give Putin our full plans in Ukraine.

Why the F would anyone tell Putin when the tanks are arriving? How stupid have we become that that sounds like a good idea, OS?

NATO is now pot committed. So if Putin ups the ante with weapons from elsewhere? What do you think Biden will do? No one will accept Putin taking Kiev....so that's out.

This from the foreign policy genius who told us Putin was inconsequential because his GDP was smaller than Italy's.
For someone so insignificant, he's sure turned the world upside down.

What I told you---and you can't get through your head because your giant ego can't stand that you've been dead wrong about Putin for over a decade-----is: "Why doesn't the US invade Canada?" You're seeing why, but are too freaking stubborn to pay attention to what anyone says but yourself.

Yep, it's causing all sorts of trade problems. Which is why the US doesn't invade Canada.

Mexico? If they wanted? Could invade America if they thought the same way that you and Putin do.

And what would happen? The same thing that's happening to Putin.......they'd lose the war, but yep, to your point.,.......there would be a BUNCH of short term global economic damage to all parties because trade between Mexico and the US would cease, and Global Corporations with plants in Mexico would pull up stakes and find new trading partners. But both short and long term, now the Mexico has burned their trading bridges? They'd be F'ed.

Just like Putin. But sure, keep pretending like I didn't tell you what was coming for Putin years ago...and here we are, watching what I told you would happen in real time. You were wrong. I was right. And if Putin doesn't fix this soon? The EU and multinational corporations will pivot away from trade with Russia fully.....and then it's two generations of Russians that are F'ed, instead of just one.

I listen to you, and have learned a ton. You'd think I'd earned a bit of respect when you saw Putin's army stalled out, out of ammo and with a sh(t logistics system because they don't have the money that the US does to do this stuff. Tip of the hat, at least.

[old salt]

I dunno how to interpret all this back and forth.

I'd like to understand from each of you whether you think that the Biden Admin has a simple problem set and if they'd only do just (what?) all would be hunky dorry.

But on the military side, I think those who are saying that the sooner the West/NATO gets ALL of the necessary technology and firepower advantage to Ukraine, the less it will cost in lives and treasure to Ukraine and the West are right.

Yes, Russia has the capacity and Putin has the amorality to do even worse atrocities to Ukraine and potentially to its neighbors and the world for that matter, but there is no real choice but to defeat his military aggression forcefully and completely. There will be no 'peace' otherwise. Continued death and destruction.

And militarily, from the US in particular, what will matter much more than the Abrams that aren't likely going to get there in time for a spring defense and summer push forward, are longer range precision strike capabilities, whether artillery, missile, drone, or fighter jets.

That's where need to keep pushing forward. The tanks were a breakthrough in commitment, the more important elements will be strikes from the air, and the fast moving tactical systems on the ground, not our heavy Abrams...

Based on the weapons we are providing, it's hard to know what Biden's military objective is. When he began authorizing military aid, he & his admin said it was to drive Russia back to the Feb 2022, pre-invasion borders & to ensure Ukraine's survival as a nation. There was no commitment to drive the Russians out of Crimea & the separatist enclaves in the Donbas. That distinction is no longer clear in the Biden admin public statements. We now seem to support every claim that Zelensky makes to restore the pre-2014 borders.

Considering the weapons we've been holding back (ATACMS, fighter jets, & main battle tanks), it appeared that we were not willing to provide what was needed to recapture Crimea. Zelensky is clearly pushing for that. Biden needs to level with the American people & let us know how far he's willing to go in enabling Ukraine to retake Crimea, because that is clearly crossing a red line. In 2014, the reaction to the bloodless annexation of Crimea from the EU, NATO & the Obama/Biden admin was essentially "ho hum". We'll levy sanctions & here's some MRE's & blankets.

We (the US & NATO) have enabled Ukraine to secure their independence. Have we signed up to enable them to restore their pre-2014 borders ? That's a question that Biden needs to answer (clearly) & a public debate the citizens of the US & our allies need to have...now.
Is it really worth the risk to enable Ukraine to retake Crimea ? What would that portend for the long term stability of the region ?
Crimea as a NATO naval base ? Be careful what you wish for.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... -rcna61755

A Biden admin official recently told members of Congress that Ukraine has the military capability to take back Crimea

No offensive is imminent, but officials worry that a large-scale attack that threatens Russia’s hold on the peninsula could push Putin to use nuclear weapons.

Dec. 16, 2022, 6:30 A

A Biden administration official recently told members of Congress that Ukraine has the military capability to retake Crimea, but some officials are concerned any large-scale offensive that threatens Russia’s hold on the peninsula could push Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons, say two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The late November Ukraine briefing to some members of Congress included discussion of the reasons Ukraine will continue to need U.S. weapons and equipment for the foreseeable future. The two officials said a Biden official, when asked during the briefing about continued support for the Ukrainian military and whether it would try to retake Crimea, responded that Ukraine now has the ability to take it back.

Asked about the response, a U.S. official said that Ukraine has no near-term objective to retake Crimea and that a military offensive is not imminent but did acknowledge that Ukraine has shown resilience and perseverance throughout the war. Administration officials say they believe three recent deadly drone strikes against Russian military bases were carried out by Ukrainians, although they say it’s still not clear whether the Zelenskyy government ordered them directly.

Washington and other governments have provided Kyiv with more powerful weapons, including HIMARS artillery, that have inflicted serious damage on Russian forces. U.S. and Western perceptions of Ukraine’s armed forces have changed since the February invasion, when U.S. and European officials worried Russian troops and tanks would crush their adversaries in a matter of days or weeks. Senior U.S. military officers and Western governments say Ukraine has shown ingenuity and grit in fighting a larger, better-armed military and quickly incorporated new weapons systems provided by NATO members.

The Ukrainians “continue to shock the world with how well they’re performing on the battlefield,” a U.S. official said.
The Biden official’s apparent confidence in Ukraine’s abilities comes as the administration debates whether to grant the continued requests of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government for more powerful weaponry, like ATACMS missile systems and tanks, and as Ukraine says Russia is preparing to send 200,000 fresh troops to attack Kyiv.

A spokesperson for the National Security Council declined to comment.

‘The red line’
No Ukrainian offensive in Crimea is believed to be imminent, officials and experts say, mainly because the current fight does not support it.

Ukraine is struggling and has lost some ground around Bakhmut in the east. The two sides are in a virtual standstill there, and U.S. officials assess that based on where the Ukrainian troops and battlefield lines are now, the Ukrainian military will move northeast in the coming months, rather than south to Crimea.

“A lot would have to happen militarily first” before Ukraine could begin a real offensive to retake Crimea, a U.S. official said.

Some administration officials, however, are privately discussing what could happen if Ukraine launches an offensive into Crimea, which Russia has held since 2014, and U.S. officials are concerned Putin could feel backed into a corner.

“Putin may react more strongly to Crimea,” a U.S. official said.
A central concern is that a real threat to Russian control could push Putin to use a dirty bomb or other nuclear device, one former and two current officials said. “That’s the red line,” a former U.S. official said.
Three U.S. officials stressed that the U.S. has not seen any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb right now.

In addition, a real fight for Crimea would include heavy battlefield losses on both sides, and taking it back would be a daunting task for Ukrainian forces because of the heavy Russian military presence and the difficult geography, military experts say. Bloody battles were fought over the area in the Russia civil war and World War II.

The peninsula, which juts south into the Black Sea, is connected to mainland Ukraine by a narrow isthmus. Russia has up to 70,000 troops defending the peninsula’s northern approaches, and they are dug in, two U.S. officials said.

The Ukrainians would have better prospects attacking other Russian targets on the mainland in eastern Ukraine, where Russian troops are more exposed, experts and a U.S. official said.

If Ukraine made more advances against Russian forces in eastern and southern Ukraine, it could be better placed to eventually strike at Crimea, experts and a U.S. official said.

Unclaimed attacks
Some Biden administration officials are already concerned about continued Ukrainian strikes inside Russia that could provoke a stronger response from Putin and spread the conflict to Ukraine’s neighbors.

A series of unclaimed attacks have targeted Russian forces in Crimea since July, including a drone strike that hit Russia’s Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol and explosions at a suspected Russian ammunition dump. In October, Ukraine indirectly claimed credit for damaging the Kerch Bridge in eastern Crimea, which connects it to mainland Russia.

While administration officials believe Ukrainians carried out the three recent drone strikes against Russian bases, they don’t think they were made with drones provided by the U.S.

The White House was surprised by the strikes, two U.S. officials and a U.S. defense official said, creating a moment of frustration with the government in Kyiv, as occurred after the Kerch Bridge attack and the killing of the daughter of a close Putin ally. But other officials said that the frustration has been going on since the invasion and that in some cases it helps the U.S. to have plausible deniability about an incident.

U.S. officials concede that Ukraine has taken a series of escalatory actions against Russia without informing the U.S. or Western allies in advance.

A U.S. official said Ukraine does make its own battlefield decisions, but the White House is confident that Ukraine would not begin an extensive operation like re-taking Crimea without notifying the U.S. in advance.

Attacks deep inside Russian territory, which the Kremlin has blamed on Ukraine, have also raised concerns in Washington and European capitals that Kyiv could overplay its hand and provoke more escalatory action from Russia and derail any chance of peace talks, Western officials said.

Nuclear tensions with Russia spiked in October, but they have since calmed considerably, the officials said, and there are no U.S. intelligence assessments that Putin plans to use a nuclear weapon at this time.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, National Intelligence Director Avril Haines and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, held a closed briefing for House members on Ukraine on Thursday morning.

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree, Salty.

It would be diplomatic malpractice to state the US goals as more important than Ukraine's, not to mention getting out beyond where the multilateral negotiations are ready for such commitments.

Moreover, your claim that Ukraine is "secure" is BS...they won't be secure until Russia backs off, their civilians are bombed daily in war crimes, and there's zero basis to suggest that Putin will ever stop in his goal to recreate a Russian empire. There is no truce that will hold until the Russian aggression is completely and irrefutably destroyed...not simply stymied for awhile.

And of course, Crimea is Ukraine. It's internationally recognized as such; there is no way the West should over rule that recognition by denying Ukraine capacities to retake their own territory.

I think what will happen is continued increases in military capacity commitments. I think we'll see ATACMS first, but there's a lot of sentiment among some of the allies to provide fighter jets, which they have.

[cradleandshoot]

So in the middle of this discussion about MBTs why isn't the discussion even focused on FFG anti tank weapons? The MBT is an impressive offensive weapon. It is also a BFFT out in the open. What is more threatening, 31 Abrams tanks or a few thousand state of the art anti tank missiles? It doesn't take months and months to train an anti tank crew. Give em a week or so and they will be up to speed.

[get it to x]

So in the middle of this discussion about MBTs why isn't the discussion even focused on FFG anti tank weapons? The MBT is an impressive offensive weapon. It is also a BFFT out in the open. What is more threatening, 31 Abrams tanks or a few thousand state of the art anti tank missiles? It doesn't take months and months to train an anti tank crew. Give em a week or so and they will be up to speed.

General Dynamics.

[cradleandshoot]

So in the middle of this discussion about MBTs why isn't the discussion even focused on FFG anti tank weapons? The MBT is an impressive offensive weapon. It is also a BFFT out in the open. What is more threatening, 31 Abrams tanks or a few thousand state of the art anti tank missiles? It doesn't take months and months to train an anti tank crew. Give em a week or so and they will be up to speed.

General Dynamics.

Give me a 1000 FFG anti tank weapons for every M1 Abrams promised. You can move them overnight wherever you need em. How long does it take to move 6 M1s where you need them the most? David slayed Goliath with a sling shot and a stone. You can hear a cumbersome MBT for miles. You can't hear or see a FFG weapon until it is crawling up your rear end. The right tool for the job doesn't have to weigh 60 tons.

So if you wanna go old school we still have a huge inventory of TOW missiles and launchers in stock. The TOW missiles can still defeat any armored vehicle in existence. For bonus does anybody out there know the huge advantage these old school anti tank missiles have over modern technology? R. Lee Ermey just talked about it last hour on Mail Call you maggots. RIP R Lee.

[MDlaxfan76]

For cradle:
We sent 17,000 such in six days.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/p ... apons.html

lots of other allies did as well: https://militaryleak.com/2022/03/03/spa ... o-ukraine/

They mattered a lot.

[old salt]

I disagree, Salty.

Moreover, your claim that Ukraine is "secure" is BS...they won't be secure until Russia backs off, their civilians are bombed daily in war crimes, and there's zero basis to suggest that Putin will ever stop in his goal to recreate a Russian empire. There is no truce that will hold until the Russian aggression is completely and irrefutably destroyed...not simply stymied for awhile.

And of course, Crimea is Ukraine. It's internationally recognized as such; there is no way the West should over rule that recognition by denying Ukraine capacities to retake their own territory.

The US & the international community looked the other way on Crimea for 8 years, they will do so again if it means peace, even temporarily.

Ukraine can be armed sufficiently to defend their borders & deter further Russian invasions.
Had they not demonstrated that ability, we would not be providing them the military aid that we are.
Good luck on completely & irrefutably destroying anything.