Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-25-2023

Was just about to post that interesting article.

Here's another on Abrams production/procurement-

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/01/army-readies-ukraine-abrams-tank-options-policymakers/382202/

Quote:The U.S. has not built new Abrams tanks since the early 1990s. With the Cold War over, thousands of Abrams that were built to fight the Soviet Union were put into storage, according to Dean Lockwood, a military vehicle analyst with Forecast International.

These days, defense contractor General Dynamics remanufactures Abrams tank hulls for the U.S. Army and allies in Lima, Ohio. The overhauls produce “essentially a spanking brand-new tank for about half price,” Lockwood said.

Currently, the U.S. has about 8,000 Abrams, but “significantly less” are battle-ready, he said. The U.S. draws from those tanks in storage and remanufactures them for allies, such as Poland, which is buying upwards of 350 Abrams.

General Dynamics executives said Wednesday that the Abrams production line can meet the demand of sending tanks to Ukraine.

“Staffing is not an issue here. There is plenty of capacity on the combat vehicle side [of the company] both tracked and wheeled [vehicles],” CEO Phebe Novakovic said on the company’s quarterly earnings call. “So to the extent that the U.S. government intends to execute any contracts with respect to some of these bilateral agreements they are developing...it's well within the capacity of the industrial base to accommodate.”


...

The U.S. will likely remove classified electronics from the Abrams before shipping them to Ukraine, similar to what it did with a Stinger missile part last year. Yet Lockwood noted that even a somewhat stripped-down Abrams, if captured by Russian forces, could help Moscow look for vulnerabilities or reverse-engineer NATO technology.

“I suspect there are a lot of people in the Army who are not happy about this whatsoever,” he said.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-25-2023

Sounds like part of the reason for the time gap rather then just sending over the M1s we have in storage or from the marines is the need to spec them with export variant armor, and not depleted uranium armor/ceramics which are still considered classified. 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1...to-ukraine

I have trouble believing that DU armor that has been around for 20-30 years is a national security level secret, but will admit my ignorance on the matter.

(01-25-2023, 08:44 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Was just about to post that interesting article.

Here's another on Abrams production/procurement-

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/01/army-readies-ukraine-abrams-tank-options-policymakers/382202/

Quote:Currently, the U.S. has about 8,000 Abrams, but “significantly less” are battle-ready, he said. The U.S. draws from those tanks in storage and remanufactures them for allies, such as Poland, which is buying upwards of 350 Abrams.

General Dynamics executives said Wednesday that the Abrams production line can meet the demand of sending tanks to Ukraine.
“Staffing is not an issue here. There is plenty of capacity on the combat vehicle side [of the company] both tracked and wheeled [vehicles],” CEO Phebe Novakovic said on the company’s quarterly earnings call. “So to the extent that the U.S. government intends to execute any contracts with respect to some of these bilateral agreements they are developing...it's well within the capacity of the industrial base to accommodate.”
..

The U.S. will likely remove classified electronics from the Abrams before shipping them to Ukraine, similar to what it did with a Stinger missile part last year. Yet Lockwood noted that even a somewhat stripped-down Abrams, if captured by Russian forces, could help Moscow look for vulnerabilities or reverse-engineer NATO technology.

“I suspect there are a lot of people in the Army who are not happy about this whatsoever,” he said.

I don't believe the depleted uranium is what makes the armor "secret". It is rather how the structure is built. That is sensitive and the US has gone to great lengths to keep pieces of it out of potential enemy's hands. If the enemy can test it they can determine what it takes to penetrate it. If they can't, they have to guess. We prefer it that way.

The other, possibly more relevant problem is that most nations consider DU to be a toxic element they don't want in their country. Germany is very much in that camp, but they turn a blind eye to the US tanks in Germany. The German tanks do not carry DU sabot. They use tungsten instead. That argument has been going on for years and not always amicably. Part of the reason for "export armor" is that many countries don't want any part of DU. They think it is radioactive. It basically isn't, but the logic doesn't matter. The word is you get more radiation standing outside the tank in the sun than you do sitting an equal time in the turret. I suspect Ukraine doesn't care one way or the other, but as was said nobody in the US wants to give Russia a free look at how we fab the armor. Like many other things that are secret, it may not be all that special. But if you don't know that, you have to guess how strong it is and guessing low would be literally a fatal mistake. So, ....

The GD comment regarding their capacity is BS. Poland is livid about the delivery dates they got and that is one reason they ordered so much from Korea. They could get it in finite time. GD certainly has the capacity to take the order, and they will deliver, eventually. Quick they haven't demonstrated. Now, maybe they have been sandbagging the foreign customers, including FMS deals, but if so that doesn't say much good about them either.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 01-25-2023

The answer is in the name.  “Depleted” uranium has been depleted of U-235, which is the fissile element.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-25-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-germany-tanks-ukraine-russia-abrams-leopards-015218778.html

Important takeaway:

Quote:Speaking in the Bundestag, or Parliament, on Wednesday, Scholz announced that Germany would send 14 Leopard 2A6 tanks to Ukraine, finally making the decision that seemed more and more inevitable. As significant as Germany’s own pledge, Berlin also agreed to allow the numerous countries in Europe that operate the German tank to export the vehicles to Ukraine. Reporting suggests that the final tally of Leopard 2s destined for Ukraine will be close to 100, though the final details are not yet clear.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius added that a battalion of the newer German 2A6 models would arrive within a period of three months, after Ukrainian crews had been trained on their new vehicles, with a second battalion of the older 2A4s arriving later.

If there isn't some kind of translation error, a NATO Tank battalion contains 56 tanks. Two battalions would be slightly over twice what I thought Germany would do at a maximum, but it does appear the 2A4s are being re-manufactured and are not from current Bundeswehr stocks. Still, that is 112 tanks from Germany alone (eventually).

It is also true that the Swiss are lifting their objection to the export of 35mm ammunition from Germany to Ukraine. This is critical to the Gepard systems Germany has already exported. Ukraine should ask for more, now they can get the ammo. Germany has the systems. They are obsolete in their intended role but are great for shooting down the Iranian drones.  Russia hasn't demonstrated any desire/ability to go after them.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 01-25-2023

I thought that Germany was struggling to get to its 2% GDP defense target. Isn’t an easy solution to just accelerate the replenishment of obsolete systems that it can then send to Ukraine.  Maybe also buff up its deferred maintenance?

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 01-26-2023

(01-23-2023, 10:56 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-shouldn-t-expect-turkey-162513624.html

The problem with Erdoğan has now reached a point it could easily kill the admission of Sweden and Finland. While to some degree I think it was a political calculation by Erdoğan to extract benefits in exchange for his support, he has an unfortunate history of 1) taking things personally, and 2) going so far out on a limb he can't walk it back. The S-400 purchase was in that category. He could have parlayed that into getting what he wanted for local Turkish production of Patriot parts. Instead, he overplayed his hand and got no Patriot parts assembly and was removed from the F-35 co-production effort. He also ended up with a system the Turkish military doesn't have much confidence in.

I greatly fear the recent incident and Erdoğan's response to it puts him in a similar position regarding Sweden's membership request. He isn't going to get the extraditions he wanted, and he isn't going to get an apology from Sweden. He will get an explanation, namely that Sweden has laws and they must follow them, even if at times it is inconvenient. That probably isn't going to work for Erdoğan. Will he just back down after the election? I kind of doubt it given the recent turn of events.

Turns out a freelancer for Russian propaganda site RT is the person who paid for the permit to conduct the public protest / Quran burning. https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/1674639619-russia-affiliated-journalist-paid-for-quran-burning-in-sweden  

I am not saying that the revelation of Russia’s involvement is surprising or would alter Erdogan’s position that Sweden should do more to prevent hate speech.  I just think this is notable and wonder what’s next from the malignant leadership in Russia.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-26-2023

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/26/us-sends-ukraine-advanced-abrams-tanks-00079648

Quote:The U.S. is planning to send Kyiv the Abrams main battle tank in its more advanced M1A2 configuration, rather than the older A1 version that the military has in storage, according to three people with knowledge of the deliberations.

But the 31 tanks slated for Ukraine will not include the secret armor mix that makes the Army’s newest version so lethal, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations.


...

Questions remain over the timeline of when the Abrams tanks can be delivered to Ukraine. The tanks are assembled in one place only — a government-owned, General Dynamics-operated plant in Lima, Ohio. That facility can produce 12 tanks per month, but the line is now full of new tank orders for Taiwan and Poland — orders it would be difficult and likely controversial to put on the backburner.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1618659909490610178?s=20&t=Bg4FK9i2yWfsPnUt7_apJg[/tweet]

This video is pretty funny

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1618626651361017857?s=20&t=xhznq3fImdnXYnlbPxJcxw[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-26-2023

(01-25-2023, 11:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  I thought that Germany was struggling to get to its 2% GDP defense target. Isn’t an easy solution to just accelerate the replenishment of obsolete systems that it can then send to Ukraine.  Maybe also buff up its deferred maintenance?

BC

Absolutely they could do these things, and many others as well. However, their bureaucracy is as bad or worse than ours. Equally bad is their political class who is stalling the voting on expending the funds proposed for these "upgrades". The Greens and the SPD are politically uncomfortable voting to spend money on weapons. Despite the fact they all know that it has to happen, each individual doesn't want their name associated with a "yes" vote. The tank manufacturers are saying they don't have one firm order yet despite all the "noise". That said, these firms have become very profitable doing maintenance on their own products on fixed schedules that are padded to death. These same firms aren't exactly giving out short delivery dates for new purchases or upgrade work either. They are basically "fat and lazy", as the military has been saying for years. The joke is that the military is so conservative that they will "down check" a tank because of a broken tail light and it will remain that way for months because the vendor can't schedule the repair until then :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 01-27-2023

Apparently, Turkey did not supply cluster munitions to Ukraine after all. I don’t have strong feelings on this one way or the other, but I thought this mini thread was noteworthy. 

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1618982008239308803?cxt=HHwWhoDSreHj4_csAAAA

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-27-2023

I agree that we should supply DPICM. I'm not sure I would rely on a Turkish ambassador's denial as proof that Turkey has not supplied the munitions though.

Here is the original article with the allegations. Jack Detsch is a a solid reporter.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/10/turkey-cold-war-cluster-bombs-ukraine/

In any event, more would be better.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-27-2023

These munitions work. Yes, some of them don't explode. The US worked long and hard to increase the number that did, but we never could get it below the arbitrarily imposed threshold, which is (as I remember) 1 or 2 %. IMO this problem is way over blown. War wrecks the land where it is fought. Fighting a war is a horrible, destructive thing. People freezing to death because the infrastructure is destroyed is deadly too. Yes, cleaning up the mess is more difficult when there is unexploded ordinance present, but most sites targeted by DPICM will usually have damaged vehicles containing it in any case. A few bomblets being present does not greatly change the problem. It sucks in any case. The simple fact is that sub-munitions are effective and don't come with inherent disadvantages that make them difficult do use (like poison gas does, for example). These types of weapons will therefore be used, no matter what the prior agreements say.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/1-germanys-defence-fund-not-163227650.html
I never in a million years would have expected this statement from an SPD minister, and probably not ANY German government minister. While not exactly an outright call to restore compulsory military service, it is close.

Quote:Germany's decision to suspend compulsory military service in 2011 was a mistake, he added, saying he was hesitant to place a burden upon young generations but was open to discussing a new model to strengthen the relationship between citizens and the state.

I suspect this won't go anywhere practical, at least for now, but who knows? We may see 5 Pz returned to active service.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 01-27-2023

More accidental deaths...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-deaths-in-indian-jungle-followed-days-of-binge-drinking-11674552165?mod=djemwhatsnews

Quote:Mr. Antov’s death has drawn India into a thicket of international speculation over the demise of wealthy Russians, some with ties to the Kremlin. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at least 19 senior Russian executives have been found dead in their homes and other locations. Two of them were discovered along with the bodies of their wives and children.

Probably a legitimate accident, but the idea of a conspiracy is fun to contemplate.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 01-27-2023

Poland announcing a shipment of 60 tanks. 
14 leopard 2s
30 PT-91 (had to look that up, a domestically produced modernized t-72 variant)
16 modernized T-72s. 


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-28/poland-to-send-60-modernised-pt-91-tanks-to-ukraine/101902426

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 01-28-2023

What do y'all make of and think about Ukraine saying escalation that includes hitting cities inside Russia is inevitable?

Is it saber rattling? Is it part of the plan? Is the recent deluge of tanks and armored vehicles being sent to Ukraine by its allies, along with F-16s now being on the table, indicative of a secret plan to force regime change in Russia?  

I mean gaming this out, I would imagine the western ally countries would know not to do anything that would provoke Russia to use nuclear weapons.  We've heard Russia threaten use of them before while facing far less dire implications than all the armor and fighting vehicles being earmarked for Ukraine over last few weeks. And this is after Ukraine making some big territorial gains in last half of the year.

My assumption is the western allies have reliable intelligence that indicated Russia will not use nuclear weapons, so they feel emboldened to throw even more support to Ukraine that will piss Russia off like nothing else to this point. It makes no sense for Russia to wait until Ukraine is equipped with all this new firepower and using it on Russian forces before they do something to counteract it.  The only tool they have in their toolbox is nuclear weapons at this point. If they aren't gonna use them now, Russia has kind of already lost from a strategic standpoint, because Ukraine will be better supplied than Russia and will reclaim all its territory, at least on paper, with all these new support. If Ukraine also starts hitting at St. Petersburg and Moscow, while Russia loses Crimea and the east, Putin will be ousted for sure.

I just can't help but think the western allies have someone on the inside of the Russian military who has sold out Putin (maybe to be his successor), knows nukes won't be used by Russia, told the western allies, and this has paved the way for more bold aid to Ukraine. No wonder F-16s are now on the table. And I imagine a lot more is too. I just don't see the allied countries investing so much and being unwilling to do still more to ensure Ukraine ultimately prevails. The only question is how long will it take and what will be the cost. I'm hoping the western allies have set a budget and timetable for Ukraine to finish it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 01-28-2023

(01-28-2023, 06:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  What do y'all make of and think about Ukraine saying escalation that includes hitting cities inside Russia is inevitable?

Is it saber rattling? Is it part of the plan? Is the recent deluge of tanks and armored vehicles being sent to Ukraine by its allies, along with F-16s now being on the table, indicative of a secret plan to force regime change in Russia?  

I mean gaming this out, I would imagine the western ally countries would know not to do anything that would provoke Russia to use nuclear weapons.  We've heard Russia threaten use of them before while facing far less dire implications than all the armor and fighting vehicles being earmarked for Ukraine over last few weeks. And this is after Ukraine making some big territorial gains in last half of the year.

My assumption is the western allies have reliable intelligence that indicated Russia will not use nuclear weapons, so they feel emboldened to throw even more support to Ukraine that will piss Russia off like nothing else to this point. It makes no sense for Russia to wait until Ukraine is equipped with all this new firepower and using it on Russian forces before they do something to counteract it.  The only tool they have in their toolbox is nuclear weapons at this point. If they aren't gonna use them now, Russia has kind of already lost from a strategic standpoint, because Ukraine will be better supplied than Russia and will reclaim all its territory, at least on paper, with all these new support. If Ukraine also starts hitting at St. Petersburg and Moscow, while Russia loses Crimea and the east, Putin will be ousted for sure.

I just can't help but think the western allies have someone on the inside of the Russian military who has sold out Putin (maybe to be his successor), knows nukes won't be used by Russia, told the western allies, and this has paved the way for more bold aid to Ukraine. No wonder F-16s are now on the table. And I imagine a lot more is too. I just don't see the allied countries investing so much and being unwilling to do still more to ensure Ukraine ultimately prevails. The only question is how long will it take and what will be the cost. I'm hoping the western allies have set a budget and timetable for Ukraine to finish it.

I am not quite sure what you mean.  Ukraine has been hitting targets inside Russia for a while now.  I don't think they will hit purely civilian targets inside Russia because I don't think attacking purely civilian targets makes sense.  OTOH, are there going to be civilians impacted when they hit military targets?  I assume the answer is yes and that Ukraine won't avoid military targets with civilians around.

I am deeply skeptical that Russia uses nukes.  It makes all of the sense in the world to threaten it.  But using them would cause a massive backlash.

And you can't let Russia threaten anyone it wants just because they have nukes.  They invaded Ukraine.  They are holding Ukrainian territory.  They are the aggressor.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-28-2023

It is quite simply impossible to have "reliable intelligence" that Russia will not use nuclear weapons because the decision to do so will be based on the situation at the time as viewed by Putin. Even if today people close to him (in so far as they exist) are "certain" he won't use such weapons, and even if such people were in contact with our intelligence agencies, Putin could wake up tomorrow and change his mind, especially if "the situation" changes. The question would then become to what extent his orders would be followed, and again, that is something we can't know with any confidence. Even if we had been "assured" that none of the "official" channels would act (pretty much a zero probability event even if in fact they would not), there are always "unofficial" channels in Russia.

The actions of the US are based on an estimate of risk vs benefit. To what degree that assessment is based on an evaluation of Russian "intention" is unknown to me, but I suspect not very much. The risk that Russia would start a nuclear war with the US is always there, but is not greatly increased by what happens in Ukraine. If Russia comes to believe that using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine "makes sense" in their risk vs reward calculation, they will do it. The US is relying on the fact that it is unclear what benefit Russia would achieve. If Russia comes to believe that such action would make Ukraine quit or would make NATO quit helping Ukraine, they will, IMO, use a tactical nuclear weapon. I suspect Russia is quite aware that such use would have the opposite effect and could result in an escalation that would be highly unfavorable to Russia. If Putin becomes convinced that evaluation is wrong and that the US/NATO (or  Ukraine) would fold, a "miscalculation" is possible. The US is operating under the assumption Putin is still getting enough "real" information to prevent such a decision.

The other (and IMO more probable) reason Russia might take such an action would be to stop a Ukrainian attack that is overwhelming the Russian military and that may inflict an outright defeat on Russia. I think Russia would make sure our intelligence agencies observed them making preparations for such an action. The hope would be we would restrain Ukraine. If we can't/don't, Russia would use the weapon. Hopefully before that point is reached the Russian government/army/people would remove Putin.

In any case, both sides are well aware that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine can have unpredictable consequences and that most of those consequences are "bad", some actually "catastrophic". That uncertainty is actually what makes the use unlikely. What could cause it to happen is a false sense of "knowing" the outcome on the part of either side.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-28-2023

Good recent article from RUSI on the issue of Russian nuke usage in the event of a Russian military collapse.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/could-russian-military-collapse-lead-nuclear-war

Quote:For most of us in the West, a wholesale Russian collapse would be a cause for celebration, heralding a rapid end to the war and an alleviation of some of the economic effects which the conflict has engendered – in particular high energy and food costs. However, in reality, a mutiny would entail a few days of very significant risk.

...

Moscow would be in turmoil following the mutiny and the loss of so much territory. Putin would doubtless blame and sack Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and the Army Chief Valery Gerasimov, but his own fingerprints are too firmly on the war to avoid some consequences. This might be the moment when Alexander Bortnikov (Director of the FSB) or Nikolai Patrushev (a previous FSB Director) makes a move to supplant Putin. The strong probability is that any new leader would be from the same ex-KGB stable as Putin and equally or even more hawkish.

Medvedev is right that no nuclear-armed country has ever lost a war of national survival. This would be new territory for the whole world, and it would be a high-risk moment. Furthermore, a power struggle in Moscow would raise questions about the command authority over the Russian nuclear arsenal. In the words of a former senior UK defence official, ‘Mutiny would by definition destroy the reliability of the chain of command’.

This is when bad or even disastrous decisions could be made. The detonation of a nuclear device over the Black Sea or over central Ukraine as a warning shot to stop the Ukrainian advance might even be at the lower end of the spectrum of options presented to a Russian leadership in disarray. A new nationalist leader in Moscow might argue that NATO countries had enabled the Ukrainian success and should therefore be regarded as targets.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-28-2023

(01-28-2023, 10:23 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Good recent article from RUSI on the issue of Russian nuke usage in the event of a Russian military collapse.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/could-russian-military-collapse-lead-nuclear-war

Quote:For most of us in the West, a wholesale Russian collapse would be a cause for celebration, heralding a rapid end to the war and an alleviation of some of the economic effects which the conflict has engendered – in particular high energy and food costs. However, in reality, a mutiny would entail a few days of very significant risk.

...

Moscow would be in turmoil following the mutiny and the loss of so much territory. Putin would doubtless blame and sack Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and the Army Chief Valery Gerasimov, but his own fingerprints are too firmly on the war to avoid some consequences. This might be the moment when Alexander Bortnikov (Director of the FSB) or Nikolai Patrushev (a previous FSB Director) makes a move to supplant Putin. The strong probability is that any new leader would be from the same ex-KGB stable as Putin and equally or even more hawkish.

Medvedev is right that no nuclear-armed country has ever lost a war of national survival. This would be new territory for the whole world, and it would be a high-risk moment. Furthermore, a power struggle in Moscow would raise questions about the command authority over the Russian nuclear arsenal. In the words of a former senior UK defence official, ‘Mutiny would by definition destroy the reliability of the chain of command’.

This is when bad or even disastrous decisions could be made. The detonation of a nuclear device over the Black Sea or over central Ukraine as a warning shot to stop the Ukrainian advance might even be at the lower end of the spectrum of options presented to a Russian leadership in disarray. A new nationalist leader in Moscow might argue that NATO countries had enabled the Ukrainian success and should therefore be regarded as targets.

Good article. It is absolutely correct in pointing out the risks and uncertainties that could accompany a Russian military collapse. The US could have a major role to play in mitigating some of these risks by allowing Russia to get out of Ukraine with it's military still under discipline. Lots of things can happen in Russia as a result of this war, and very few of them are "good", win or lose.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-28-2023

Quote:Is it saber rattling? Is it part of the plan? Is the recent deluge of tanks and armored vehicles being sent to Ukraine by its allies, along with F-16s now being on the table, indicative of a secret plan to force regime change in Russia?

I think this is plainly untrue. If the West was trying to force a rapid Ukrainian victory and Russian collapse, we'd be sending ATACMS, we'd be sending a higher volume of equipment of all types. 

Russian nukes are deterring the US, Biden has been pretty clear from the start he has red lines and while Western aid has certainly amped up, it has done so incrementally. 

The amount of aid is substantial, and Ukraine may very well be able to use it to reclaim all of their territory, but it will take a lot longer and spill a lot more Ukrainian blood without some of the advanced weapons systems that Russian nukes are deterring us from supplying.

And probably if the West assesses a Russian collapse or loss is possible, a slower process may be more manageable than a quick and chaotic one.

----
Interesting video of Moscow residents interviewed on topic of Western tanks being supplied.

[TWEET]
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1619358009301295104?s=20&t=1d0IGrHgRJWhyJzZh9eWBQ[/tweet]

Not usually nodding my head when reading a WSJ opinion article. Ukraine belongs in NATO.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-belongs-in-nato-russia-putin-war-bucharest-summit-tanks-norms-alliance-west-11674847742

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-28-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fix-howitzer-us-offers-help-053828564.html

A bit of a "feel good" article, but it touches on what is going to be a very big problem when a lot of new tanks show up in Ukraine. A tank is at least 500 times as complicated as an M777. One can't underestimate the learning curve to operate the tank at all, let alone fix/maintain it. Right now, the German army can't fix their own tanks. We are now expecting Ukraine to do so after a very "short course" in how to do it. These "chat rooms" are supplying the experienced "old soldier" information on these weapons that Ukraine does not yet have. They will have it, because they are getting it now, the "hard way". The problem is that a tank battle is not a good place to discover you need to call somebody to help you fix your tank.

---