Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am a layperson, and, speaking as a layperson, I think that Ukraine has lasted as long as it has due to Western weapons, and, especially, Western intelligence.

I'm former Air Force, which qualifies as former military to some folks. My opinion is that the Western weapons have played something of a role -- especially the arty and MLRS-type systems giving the Ukrainians range to reach the Russian rear areas -- and Western intelligence has probably played an important role in Ukrainian planning and deployments.

But, and this is a big but, the Ukrainians have three intangibles strongly in their favor: planning (including logistics), leadership (especially in their willingness to devolve authority to junior officers and NCOs, but including their president as well), and the morale and motivation of their troops who are doing the fighting.

Weapons are only as useful as the soldiers who deploy them. The motivations of troops on both sides in this war matter, and I believe that's where you'll see the biggest differences. Remember, the Ukrainians are still fielding and fighting leftover Soviet-era tanks and airplanes. They have gotten a lot of MANPADS, MANPATS, and some artillery including MLRSes from the West, along with a few SPAAGs, but no major SAM systems, no frontline aircraft, no long-range missiles/rockets. The Ukrainians are fighting the Russians, in short, with much the same equipment the Russians are deploying -- and much of that is older.

Keep that in mind while you argue that the West is prolonging the war. I personally believe it's the Ukrainian fighting men and women who are the main impetus behind this prolongation, and that's because they're fighting for home and hearth, kith and kin; they're fighting for survival.

It's also because they're trained and led better. At this point, they probably have better unit-cohesion as well, as the Russians have slapped together the remnants of the Kyiv debacle to pursue victory in the Donbas. That didn't work out so well, which was fairly predictable.

What are the Russians soldiers fighting for? They just want to survive a war that won't benefit them in any way. How is their training? We're seeing fresh conscripts captured six days, and some less, after being inducted. How is their leadership? It's a very top-heavy system that punishes local initiative, and that's been baked into their doctrine for at least seven decades if not longer. Logistics and planning in general? Horribly bad. Based on false assumptions about Ukrainian will, saddled with weak organic supply resources at the divisional and regimental levels, and clearly lacking depth in terms of how to deal with defeat. All of that is not lost on Russian soldiers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They (Ukraine) wanted to join NATO.  If that happens someday, what's to prevent NATO from stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine??

NATO policy itself, which allows nations to decide for themselves whether or not to permit the deployment of nukes on their soil.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're probably more interested now than when they gave them up. Yet another miscalculation.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It seems like Might makes Right.

That seems to be your argument when you argue that because Russia has nukes the West should not support the Ukrainian desire to live free. "Dude, they're stronger than you, they have nukes, just give it up."

[Jehanne]

It seems like Might makes Right.

That seems to be your argument when you argue that because Russia has nukes the West should not support the Ukrainian desire to live free. "Dude, they're stronger than you, they have nukes, just give it up."

You're absolutely correct, of course, at least until you are proven wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They're probably more interested now than when they gave them up.  Yet another miscalculation.

Why bother putting nukes in Ukraine? They're mighty close to the front-lines, and we've got subs basking underwater for that job anyway. Arty on the front lines is generally a matter of Charlie Foxtrot getting involved, especially nuclear artillery.

I see Ukraine in a couple of years fielding older-model M-1A1s, F-16s, perhaps F-15s, and if they join NATO, F-35s. That in itself, backed up by Article Five, would give Moscow one big headache. Will they prefer headache, or decapitation?

[Thumpalumpacus]

That seems to be your argument when you argue that because Russia has nukes the West should not support the Ukrainian desire to live free. "Dude, they're stronger than you, they have nukes, just give it up."

You're absolutely correct, of course, at least until you are proven wrong.

That's rather a non-answer. Do you not see how your arguments actually echo the might-makes-right argument?

Perhaps you could answer that point.

[Jehanne]

You're absolutely correct, of course, at least until you are proven wrong.

That's rather a non-answer. Do you not see how your arguments actually echo the might-makes-right argument?

Perhaps you could answer that point.

World War I, at least initially, got out of hand due to a failed assassination attempt succeeding in the end due to a freak coincidence. Maybe such was inevitable due to other reasons.

Ukraine's freedom & independence is not worth WWIII, nor the risk of such. As far as I am concerned, they are on their own. The West needs to end its proxy war with Russia, sooner than later.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes, it is worth WW3 because if we don't put the foot down here then we might as well roll over now. The West must support Ukraine's struggle until it wins anything else is moral cowardice.

[Jehanne]

Yes, it is worth WW3 because if we don't put the foot down here then we might as well roll over now. The West must support Ukraine's struggle until it wins anything else is moral cowardice.

Be prepared that China may join the fray with the, "Well, it's now or never" attitude. I doubt that they will be targeting Moscow.