Send in the TANKS!!!
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
I have been arguing exactly that for a while now, and everyone says I am a terrible person for it or something.
I have said for a while, the US should be going to these nations and peoples and telling them "We cant fight every war, and we cant be everywhere, and we cant give you something you must earn. We can open the arsenal, give you access to the means you need. But you must fight for your own freedom."
Seems Ukraine is proving that strategy can work just fine.
It's one of those weird things. During Trump's presidency, this was seen as terrible, now they're doing it during a war.
I mean, it will probably even work even if Ukraine falls in the end. American weapon systems allowed a nation that everyone thought had maybe 2 weeks tops to survive to make it almost a year and still have a conceivable shot of not just surviving, but maybe even winning. It is absolutely no coincidence that now American arms makers are making out their capacity fulfilling orders for nations around the world. And while I [obviously] have severe issues with Biden as a president, he is at least allowing Taiwan to get in some of that action, and they are buying up modern SAM's and Anti-Ship missiles, which I can guarantee you has China sweating nervously (naval landings are already one of the hardest military operations to do, and now their equipment has been shown as a joke thanks to Russia while Taiwan is arming up with army/navy killing American gear).
All we had to do was spend what is effectively pocket-change and allow are industry to do what it was already going to do, and we have utterly destroyed one of our greatest geopolitical rivals. We would be fools to ever set boots on the ground again unless it was in defense of ourselves or a direct ally.
I hadnt heard about this, so I have to ask: Do we know what sort of condition they were in? Because if the Ukrainian forces were mauled, it could indeed be "Had to pull back to sheer quantity of Russians." But if they were still combat effective, it could just be to shorten up supply lines to deal with said Russian horde. After all, from what I have seen the Russians are still suffering extreme losses and attrition around Bakhmut (with some areas being so blasted to hell you could credible get them confused with a WW1 no-mans land photo if you made it black and white), and that is supposed to be the main thrust of the Russian efforts.
Personally, I would give it more 65%-70% the mobilization fails. You cite WW2 as an example of it working, and it did. But you (and a huge amount of people both in the West and in Russia) forget that in WW2, Russia greatly benefitted from American Lend-Lease, especially in.....logistics ("Soviet troops entered Berlin in the back of American trucks, marching on American boots, and riding American trains."- Gregory Zhukov, 1945). Which is rather apropos of modern day woes the Russian army is suffering from. And while it is entirely possible Russia still has some gear left in the tank, the last round of mobilization was met with soldiers being given rusty AK's and them digging T-62's out of deep storage because they were running out of T-72's.
(I will probably make this my last word on the subject if you want to have one last response, but I think there is not a lot extra to talk about on the topic. I did enjoy it though)
Kind of? I will admit that I do listen to him, and I think it is worth it because he did call a lot of stuff long before it happened, so he at least has an idea. But I dont take his word as gospel, because he has also had moments being wrong, as well as moments of being wildly wrong.
It is more that I listen to him, and if it doesnt have actual data to back up what he is saying (generally anything outside of economics), then I go looking for new info based on what he said rather than just taking him at his word. Since we are on the note, my other big Geopolitical sources are George Freidman and Chris Chappell (China Uncensored/America Uncovered), as well as minor sources.
Good to know. Admittedly, while I considered Bakhmut as something Ukraine could win, but once it turned into an artillery slog, that is something the Russians have at least been somewhat successful at.
My main point though was that it doesnt matter if Russia has 10 million soldiers if they cant get into the fight at a rate faster than Ukraine can kill them. You are right, the core Ukrainian forces are effectively "Babies First NATO-army" with the territorials being slightly better armed militamen (with all of the positives and negatives that implies), but if Russian logistics are so bad their soldiers cant get to the fight, or are combat ineffective when they do, it doesnt matter.
That is honestly one of the biggest differences between Russia 1917 and Russia 1945. Both had severe logistical issues in their wars. The Soviets early in Barbarossa were losing to the Germans, even while outnumbering them, due to said supply issues. Then when they entered Lend Lease, and the Americans started throwing trucks and trains at them, it allowed the Soviets to start actually moving their men and their gear, and is pretty much the only reason Deep Battle as a doctrine worked (and Zhukov admitted as much frequently, to the annoyance of Stalin).
Now Russia wants to do Deep Battle, but they have been snorting their own supply of "We Won the Great Patriotic War with no help!" for so long, they forgot about their own logistic issues that were never really solved in the time since the 1950's. This is also before we get to the fact that this is not the Russia of the Soviet era, and their population is probably not up for a continued, protracted war. The mass fleeing in the face of the last round of [partial] mobilization proves that, and I dont see how a second round will change that. In fact, it may make it worse.
To be fair, I still foresee them being a major threat, especially as long as they have their nuclear stockpile. My point was that I just think this war has well and truly place Russia below China on the "Threats to America" list, and barring something coming out of left field, I dont see that changing.