Latest Thread

Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

R

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,806
Reactions
14 2,767
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Two significant issues that will face the Ukrainian Forces moving forward.

1). Lack of armored vehicles for the purpose of offensives. Ukraine has plenty of "manpower" to execute defensive strategies, however, what they need to be able to do is make meaningful counter offensives. They're a nimble ground force as it stands, and they're using their geographical knowledge to their advantage, to ambush and cut off the much more cumbersome Russian offensive. With the help of Western / European infantry weapons, they're doing significant damage to Putin's invading force. That said, they lack the ability to replace their tanks, troop carriers and fighting vehicles for the sake of counter offensives. The attrition rate is high and they don't have near the ability that Russia does to simply ship more in from elsewhere. In order to sustain counter attacks and force Russia out of the country, they need more resources. Unfortunately, NATO is not likely to supply those "offensive" weapons, for the same reasons they wouldn't supply Poland's Mig-29's, because they're afraid of Putin viewing such an action as escalation. The truth is that the West would rather bleed Russia dry economically, through a prolonged war, than actually provide Ukraine with the tools it needs to drive the Russian Army out of their country. Despite capturing a significant amount of Russian armor, Ukraine needs more, provided by friendly forces.

Poland has about 700, T-72's, Slovakia and other surrounding NATO countries possess some as well. These countries also have thousands of fighting vehicles that the Ukrainians already know how to use. If NATO really wanted a Ukraine victory, they'd backfill the Eastern Europeans with their own Leopards, Abrams, Challengers and Leclercs, along with the manning for them, and they'd help facilitate the transfer of Eastern European armor to Ukraine. That would truly turn the tide of this war from a conventional standpoint.

2). Ukraine has plenty of manpower. The problem with it is that most the "warm bodies" have little military experience, cannot be easily integrated with army regulars without detracting from their combat effectiveness and cannot easily be armed. We think that we've sent a lot of armament to the Ukrainians, but the truth is that we've sent very little of what would actually be needed to properly arm the territorial defense force in large numbers. We need to see shipments of 50,000 thousand rifles and machines guns, not 5000. We need to see shipments of 50 million rounds of ammunition, not 5 million. We're arming Ukrainians for an insurgency, we ought to be arming them for a war.

The weapons that the West and NATO are providing the territorial defense forces are ideal to help with small ambushes and create annoying defenses in small communities, but we're not preparing adequate soldiers, properly equipped to form new battalions for the purpose of offensive operations and counter attacks that can overwhelm and slaughter Russian Forces. The United States spent $300 million dollars per day in Afghanistan, a war it fought for 20 years. If the all of NATO and the EU is not willing to spend $300 million dollars per day, combined, to arm and bolster Ukraine, we're not putting forth a great effort. We have the money. It's about $10 million dollars per day, from 30 supporting countries. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Especially with European security on the line. We pledge a few hundred millions dollars "here and there" maybe a billion dollars once in a while. That's not even close to enough. The Ukrainians need and deserve our best foot forward. I'd like to see $10 billion dollars in support announced in the next week. No questions asked. Get them what they need. I also want to see thousands of their men taken to Poland, Latvia, Finland, Romania, etc, etc and quickly trained by NATO military forces that are already present there. Every couple weeks they should be shipping 1000 new Ukrainian soldiers, fully kitted and equipped, back to Ukraine, to help in the war effort.

Tanks. Infantry fighting vehicles.
Ballistic missiles. Anti-ship missiles. Anti-air weapons, both portable and long range defensive. Drones. Night vision. Ammunition. Send as much of it as they need, while they have the Russians stalemated. Otherwise, a month from now, Russia will have worn them down considerably.

While we're at it, the West should be funding a well paid, 20,000-30,000 strong battle group of paid volunteers, with prior military experience. Ukraine has enough to worry about to have to worry about funding and organizing such a fighting force. NATO needs to take that burden off their hands and fund it, equip it and deploy it, for them.
 
Last edited:
McCool

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Relic said:
Two significant issues that will face the Ukrainian Forces moving forward.

1). Lack of armored vehicles for the purpose of offensives. Ukraine has plenty of "manpower" to execute defensive strategies, however, what they need to be able to do is make meaningful counter offensives. They're a nimble ground force as it stands, and they're using their geographical knowledge to their advantage, to ambush and cut off the much more cumbersome Russian offensive. With the help of Western / European infantry weapons, they're doing significant damage to Putin's invading force. That said, they lack the ability to replace their tanks, troop carriers and fighting vehicles for the sake of counter offensives. The attrition rate is high and they don't have near the ability that Russia does to simply ship more in from elsewhere. In order to sustain counter attacks and force Russia out of the country, they need more resources. Unfortunately, NATO is not likely to supply those "offensive" weapons, for the same reasons they wouldn't supply Poland's Mig-29's, because they're afraid of Putin viewing such an action as escalation. The truth is that the West would rather bleed Russia dry economically, through a prolonged war, than actually provide Ukraine with the tools it needs to drive the Russian Army out of their country. Despite capturing a significant amount of Russian armor, Ukraine needs more, provided by friendly forces.

Poland has about 700, T-72's, Slovakia and other surrounding NATO countries possess some as well. These countries also have thousands of fighting vehicles that the Ukrainians already know how to use. If NATO really wanted a Ukraine victory, they'd backfill the Eastern Europeans with their own Leopards, Abrams, Challengers and Leclercs, along with the manning for them, and they'd help facilitate the transfer of Eastern European armor to Ukraine. That would truly turn the tide of this war from a conventional standpoint.

2). Ukraine has plenty of manpower. The problem with it is that most the "warm bodies" have little military experience, cannot be easily integrated with army regulars without detracting from their combat effectiveness and cannot easily be armed. We think that we've sent a lot of armament to the Ukrainians, but the truth is that we've sent very little of what would actually be needed to properly arm the territorial defense force in large numbers. We need to see shipments of 50,000 thousand rifles and machines guns, not 5000. We need to see shipments of 50 million rounds of ammunition, not 5 million. We're arming Ukrainians for an insurgency, we ought to be arming them for a war.

The weapons that the West and NATO are providing the territorial defense forces are ideal to help with small ambushes and create annoying defenses in small communities, but we're not preparing adequate soldiers, properly equipped to form new battalions for the purpose of offensive operations and counter attacks that can overwhelm and slaughter Russian Forces. The United States spent $300 million dollars per day in Afghanistan, a war it fought for 20 years. If the all of NATO and the EU is not willing to spend $300 million dollars per day, combined, to arm and bolster Ukraine, we're not putting forth a great effort. We have the money. It's about $10 million dollars per day, from 30 supporting countries. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Especially with European security on the line. We pledge a few hundred millions dollars "here and there" maybe a billion dollars once in a while. That's not even close to enough. The Ukrainians need and deserve our best foot forward. I'd like to see $10 billion dollars in support announced in the next week. No questions asked. Get them what they need. I also want to see thousands of their men taken to Poland, Latvia, Finland, Romania, etc, etc and quickly trained by NATO military forces that are already present there. Every couple weeks they should be shipping 1000 new Ukrainian soldiers, fully kitted and equipped, back to Ukraine, to help in the war effort.

Tanks. Infantry fighting vehicles.
Ballistic missiles. Anti-ship missiles. Anti-air weapons, both portable and long range defensive. Drones. Night vision. Ammunition. Send as much of it as they need, while they have the Russians stalemated. Otherwise, a month from now, Russia will have worn them down considerably.

While we're at it, the West should be funding a well paid, 20,000-30,000 strong battle group of paid volunteers, with prior military experience. Ukraine has enough to worry about to have to worry about funding and organizing such a fighting force. NATO needs to take that burden off their hands and fund it, equip it and deploy it, for them.
Click to expand...


I think NATO will escalate, just remember even hours before the invasion there were serious doubts on Russia's intention in Ukraine. Everyone was in full shock that Putin will go full crazy invading Ukraine. Europe has gone from outright refusing weapons shipment as in the case of Germany to sending Panzerfaust 3 in a matter of days.

Earlier the PM of Estonia wrote this.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | I’m the Prime Minister of Estonia. Putin Can’t Think He’s Won This War. (Published 2022)

At NATO, our focus should be simple.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

I think there are already consensus that Putin will no longer be allowed to win just like he is allowed to win in Georgia and Syria. The reason why the West has only send personal attack weapons are the urgency, not hesitation. There are serious fears in the early days of war that Kyiv will fall in 72 hours time. And the West prolly think its too late to send more advanced weapons system. The idea in the initial phase of war is to absorb Russian military punch before going for counter attack, hence only defensive weapons are shipped.

Now that Russia has proven to be a hollow military, the resolve will rise. We're seeing Switchblade loitering munitions send, maybe in the future they'll send Predators who knows.

US and its NATO allies has a lot of military stockpiles ranging from M113, Humvee, MRAPs from the Afghan war that would not suit them in high end great power competition but could help save life in Ukraine. As for tanks, NATO are pretty low on tanks right now maybe with the exception of the US, Turkey, Poland and Greece. The UK, French, Italian and German military might have some of the most advanced models but they're low on quantity and couldn't satisfy the defense of NATO.

But who knows , I'm just an observer lol
 
G

goldsilver

Committed member
Messages
150
Reactions
460
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Israel
McCool said:
There are serious fears in the early days of war that Kyiv will fall in 72 hours time. And the West prolly think its too late to send more advanced weapons system. The idea in the initial phase of war is to absorb Russian military punch before going for counter attack, hence only defensive weapons are shipped.
Click to expand...
Another couple of reasons:

1) To avoid a situation like the Afghanistan withdrawal, where billions of dollars worth of Western weapons are left behind by a surrendering Ukrainian army and captured by the Russians.
2) For Russia to exhaust its precision missiles and list of targets in Ukraine in the initial days of the war, where Western supplied weapons may have been targeted.
 
McCool

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
goldsilver said:
Another couple of reasons:

1) To avoid a situation like the Afghanistan withdrawal, where billions of dollars worth of Western weapons are left behind by a surrendering Ukrainian army and captured by the Russians.
2) For Russia to exhaust its precision missiles and list of targets in Ukraine in the initial days of the war, where Western supplied weapons may have been targeted.
Click to expand...
yeah the Afghans are a letdown. All those $$$$ investment and the first fire shot by the Talibs they all run like chicken. Same with the Iraqi army in 2014. But from the look of it Ukraine aren't lacking in resolve.
 
Ryder

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,857
Reactions
6 18,707
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
After the vdv debacle I doubt a landing from sea will work if the Russians dont provide proper support.

Cream of the crop their Russian paratroopers got killed while a sea landing into Odessa would lead to Russian marines meeting the same fate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Follow us on social media

Latest posts

About us

Welcome to the one and only hub of defence news and discussion. With a growing community of defence enthusiasts and analysts, Defence Hub is the premier location for international defence updates.

Newest members

Top Bottom