Originally Posted by
Baldeep Inminj
I have explained this before, got ridiculed, but whatever - I shall repeat the answer to your question.
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
I just wonder why you feel the need to keep repeating it.
\Six months ago I thought the same , but am now no longer certain. Nearly all countries except the US had decisively reduced stocks of all kinds, so major supplies not only had a significant monetary cost, but also a strategic one that ill-prepared civilian politicians had to judge. This then quickly became merged with the vision that the ramifications of this conflict meant a significantly different - and more costly - political/military landscape, and so I am not surprised that the politicos are not rushing to do things. It may be that rushing would be the best policy, but that is not generally their nature and they are completely without experience in this landscape..