In reply to aircooled :
Aren't Stingers Surface-to-Air missiles? Probably anticipating anti-helicopter action.
In reply to aircooled :
Aren't Stingers Surface-to-Air missiles? Probably anticipating anti-helicopter action.
Yes, they are quite old though (designed in the 80's, but have been updated of course). Infra red guidance, which is potentially easier to spoof then the Starstreaks. Ukrainians will need a lot of anti-air and anti-tank if they want to have a chance.
Russians might historically be freaked out by them since they cause all sorts of issues in Afghanistan for them and where likely a big part about them getting out of there (lost a lot of helicopters).
Right now everything I've seen regarding Russian popular attitudes suggest that they do not think war is likely. This is immaterial when it comes to decision-making, but suggests that the Kremlin may be in for an ugly shock in popular opinion if significant casualties are taken. And that's really all the Western-supplied defensive armaments have to do: threaten enough casualties (and enough time to inflict them) for the Russians to have second thoughts. Given that I think an invasion is not likely - because Putin never intended that as preferred policy - then it's a non-issue. I suppose the false-flag that was mentioned a few days ago might galvanize the Russian people ("Ukrainian" terrorist attack or some such), assuming they believe it. Pretty high risk, though, and as I've said before, Putin doesn't do high risk unless he has to.
IT sounds like now we're sending troops to eastern Europe. *sigh*
Yeah - interesting turn of events. Belarus mobilized troops their border in support of Daddy Vlad. Vlad speaking publicly with Venezuela and Cuba about supporting them with weapons and troops in their countries isn't calming things either.
I don't think the Russian will actually do it. I mean this all started basically 2 months ago. I feel like it would have made a lot more sense if they were going to invade to do it. The longer the Russians take the more weapons the Ukrainian forces will have and the deadly it will be for the Russians.
Live fire exercises off the coast of Ireland? Yeah, that's not training - that's demonstrating for public and media consumption. The Russians have been very, very public about everything thus far, which strongly suggests they are trying to influence, not invade.
Our government is looking at this all wrong. While the world is distracted by Russia vs Ukraine and China vs Taiwan, the U.S. military should seize the opportunity to roll all of our stateside Armor and Naval forces south. We could annex everything from the Panama Canal north in a matter of days and nobody could stop it. Hard pass on Canada, but maybe invite Greenland and Iceland to join as buffer states.
93EXCivic said:I don't think the Russian will actually do it. I mean this all started basically 2 months ago. I feel like it would have made a lot more sense if they were going to invade to do it. The longer the Russians take the more weapons the Ukrainian forces will have and the deadly it will be for the Russians.
I dunno, it took the US about 5 months to actually invade Iraq. I'd like to think there won't be a war though.
red_stapler said:93EXCivic said:I don't think the Russian will actually do it. I mean this all started basically 2 months ago. I feel like it would have made a lot more sense if they were going to invade to do it. The longer the Russians take the more weapons the Ukrainian forces will have and the deadly it will be for the Russians.
I dunno, it took the US about 5 months to actually invade Iraq. I'd like to think there won't be a war though.
I hope you're both right but my gut is telling me otherwise.
red_stapler said:93EXCivic said:I don't think the Russian will actually do it. I mean this all started basically 2 months ago. I feel like it would have made a lot more sense if they were going to invade to do it. The longer the Russians take the more weapons the Ukrainian forces will have and the deadly it will be for the Russians.
I dunno, it took the US about 5 months to actually invade Iraq. I'd like to think there won't be a war though.
Unless I am forgetting something, no one was sending arms to Iraq during that time. Whereas the US and UK are sending lots to Ukraine.
93EXCivic said:red_stapler said:93EXCivic said:I don't think the Russian will actually do it. I mean this all started basically 2 months ago. I feel like it would have made a lot more sense if they were going to invade to do it. The longer the Russians take the more weapons the Ukrainian forces will have and the deadly it will be for the Russians.
I dunno, it took the US about 5 months to actually invade Iraq. I'd like to think there won't be a war though.
Unless I am forgetting something, no one was sending arms to Iraq during that time. Whereas the US and UK are sending lots to Ukraine.
The US was also shipping equipment halfway around the world and negotiating a broad coalition agreement. These are very different situations politically, militarily, and logistically. For reference, the Russian annexation of Crimea was accomplished in about a month, and the time from decision to action was less than a week (very different scale of operations, I know). The Russians are in the neighborhood and can move very quickly when they want to.
red_stapler said:93EXCivic said:I don't think the Russian will actually do it. I mean this all started basically 2 months ago. I feel like it would have made a lot more sense if they were going to invade to do it. The longer the Russians take the more weapons the Ukrainian forces will have and the deadly it will be for the Russians.
I dunno, it took the US about 5 months to actually invade Iraq. I'd like to think there won't be a war though.
Which time?
AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:Our government is looking at this all wrong. While the world is distracted by Russia vs Ukraine and China vs Taiwan, the U.S. military should seize the opportunity to roll all of our stateside Armor and Naval forces south. We could annex everything from the Panama Canal north in a matter of days and nobody could stop it. Hard pass on Canada, but maybe invite Greenland and Iceland to join as buffer states.
Cuba would make a great resort. Nobody there is really happy with the current government and the Cuban ex-patriots in Miami are itching to move back there and start businesses if there is a regime change. Do it!
One thing I just heard today, that may change the way we look at this thing...Ukraine agreed to get rid of its nukes, supposedly under the context of agreements from the US, UK, and Russia that they would not be invaded. If Russia even tries to invade, and nobody else steps in, it basically means that nuclear agreement is worthless. As would be any future agreements by any other countries. The take-away being, if there's to be any hope of pursing nuclear de-escalation, the whole world needs to get behind the Ukraine (or any other country that agrees to get rid of its nukes) and defend them. Much as I hate staining foreign soil with blood from our soldiers, a long term view of this situation may require it.
Still see no need in poking the bear by allowing the Ukraine into NATO, but the message needs to be sent if you agree to give up your nuclear weapons, the world will honor and reward that commitment.
Another thought...given the information previously discussed about Russia's economy being about 1/10th that of the US or China, it would seem like Putin working with China would not exactly be a "merger of equals". Basically, Putin would be Xi's doormat. Given Putin's pride, characterizing their relationship that way seems like it would toss quite a wrench in the works.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
I suspect this is a lot of why the west has largely turned a blind eye to Japan's slow remilitarization. The original agreement was that the US would agree to help defend them if they laid down their arms, I don't think the political will exists today in the US OR Japan for this should one of their neighbors get invadey.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
WRT the non-proliferation issue, I feel like that illusion kind of evaporated when Gadaffi was deposed. Granted, I don't think there was any guarantee of security in Libya's case, and his ultimate downfall was from a domestic rather than foreign threat. Still, contrasting that situation with how the Kim regime has faired, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement for giving up nukes.
As I mentioned earlier, the Ukrainian agreement was worthless the day it was signed, as there was no binding mechanism to ensure Ukrainian security. It was all based on touchy-feely promises of future good will, not workable enforcement protocols.
The US taking a non-negotiable stance on Russian demands is not a productive avenue, particularly on the NATO expansion front. The chances of Ukraine being allowed to join NATO in the next 10-15 years is nearly zero, and it doesn't gain anything for Western security in any case. If you don't give Putin something to claim as a win to his domestic audience, he's going to be forced into taking it. While the US must maintain credibility with its allies, it also has to recognize that if it doesn't want to fight, it has to actually negotiate, not just say no. A carefully crafted agreement could secure Ukraine's borders and give Russia the public "victory" that Putin wants to shore up his position with his domestic audience.
I just learned my friend's daughter's boyfriend who is two months from leaving the military; was called into the office. He assumed it was the usual reenlistment speech. Nope.
You have two choices: You can reenlist and go to Ukraine with fellow soldiers who are as well trained as you, or you can be hijacked into the National Guard and go there with people that have no idea what they're doing.
Joe: "No boots on the ground"?
914Driver said:I just learned my friend's daughter's boyfriend who is two months from leaving the military; was called into the office. He assumed it was the usual reenlistment speech. Nope.
You have two choices: You can reenlist and go to Ukraine with fellow soldiers who are as well trained as you, or you can be hijacked into the National Guard and go there with people that have no idea what they're doing.
Joe: "No boots on the ground"?
I wonder how much of that is a hard sell to get him to reenlist versus anything that is actually coming from the top? It's not like recruitment offices are known for being the most honest.
A few things that I thought were interesting:
eastsideTim said:914Driver said:I just learned my friend's daughter's boyfriend who is two months from leaving the military; was called into the office. He assumed it was the usual reenlistment speech. Nope.
You have two choices: You can reenlist and go to Ukraine with fellow soldiers who are as well trained as you, or you can be hijacked into the National Guard and go there with people that have no idea what they're doing.
Joe: "No boots on the ground"?
I wonder how much of that is a hard sell to get him to reenlist versus anything that is actually coming from the top? It's not like recruitment offices are known for being the most honest.
Ahahahaaa! They sell him a bridge too? Recruiters are always bald-face lying, you can tell because their mouths are open.
02Pilot said:A few of things that I thought were interesting:
Those links were very enlightening. Thanks!
Excuse that this is from the Dailymail. It actually has decent info and updated troop and equipment movement detail.
In reply to eastsideTim :
My recruiter was straight up, it was everything after that went to crap. =~ )
You'll need to log in to post.
