Is Ukraine about to have a war?
I find your post difficult to understand. When you write " They end when there is no fuel, food, energy, weapons or will left to fight them" you make it sound as if this is mutual exhaustion and the opponents have fought themselves to a standstill and then subsequently quote WW2 as an example. I can't agree with that. The Allies finished by steam-rollering the Germans into unconditional surrender. That is exactly the opposite of what you claim. I would agree with you on the other wars.
Late March means less than 8 weeks, or two months if you like. That's very fast, unless of course they have already prepared all the equipment that needs to be changed as UKR ones (at least comms) and the crews are already trained/in training. At least the crews must've been chosen and on their way to training already.
Then we get to the more general threat of a nuclear exchange. If the tea lady on the 6th floor in Defence knows it will happen, we would like to be told who the targets are; my survival bunker needs refurbishing.
They totally underestimated the 'West'. And we are a not totally unguilty for this. The general image we left as a whole was obsiously to heterogeneous, pondering, split, selfish, undecisive. Now, Russia has found out that when it counts the 'West' can act quite united. And if they count 1 + 1 they would find that the capability gap is orders of magnitudes bigger than they probably expected in their worst nightmares. They are worried over 150 Leopards + Abrams. The 'West' has >5000 of those. 30 HIMARS (w/o ATACMS) +20 CAESARs + 15 PzH2000 + a few more modern howitzers cause Havoc with them. The 'West' has hundreds of each of those. And this covers only the 'weak spot' of the 'West', i.e. its land forces. The real strength of the 'West' is its Air Force. With totally overwhelming disparity: 1000+ Top Gen 5 Fighters vs. 5- 10 dubious ones. 1400 Gen4.5 Fighters vs. 220 (+ 150 Gen4.5 Bombers). + >3000 Gen 4 Fighters vs 200 + 270 Gen 4 Bombers. And this is not even considering real world capability.
They are up sh*t creek without a paddle and they know it. That's why also this guy was keeping the implicit nuclear threat up. It's their last straw.
The following 3 users liked this post by henra:
Also very very wrong regarding the Great War. "The Hundred Days" was a vindication of the way the citizen armies of GB, the Dominions, France [once it pulled itself together after the mutinies] and the fresh USA had learned and applied the lessons of all-arms cooperation, and the concept of exploiting a schwerpunkt. Germany had exhausted itself in its last throw of the dice in March and April, the population was near starvation, and the Eastern front was a mess. Mutual inability to continue the war did not happen. I doubt if it ever does.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 477
Received 342 Likes
on
158 Posts
The following 2 users liked this post by Sue Vêtements:
Canada sends four Leopards and a training team to Ukraine.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cana...says-1.6247335
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cana...says-1.6247335
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
The following users liked this post:
Every time one thinks one has seen it all... the Russkies take incompetence yet a step further.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Just watched that Interview:
I found it hard to work out the fact that Dmitiri Trenin said right at the end, "That the stakes are so much higher for Russia, I think that Russia will prevail over the West".
Well, he might be right. However, given the numbers as Henra is claiming in #13987 (just above), how can Russia win?
Is Dmitiri another example of the Russian Motherland mindset (shown by many recent interviews of the normal Russian public), being superior, never failing, always strong, always survive?
Or was the talk of 'maybe' Nuclear weapons being used as a last means for Russia to PREVAIL...?
I found it hard to work out the fact that Dmitiri Trenin said right at the end, "That the stakes are so much higher for Russia, I think that Russia will prevail over the West".
Well, he might be right. However, given the numbers as Henra is claiming in #13987 (just above), how can Russia win?
Is Dmitiri another example of the Russian Motherland mindset (shown by many recent interviews of the normal Russian public), being superior, never failing, always strong, always survive?
Or was the talk of 'maybe' Nuclear weapons being used as a last means for Russia to PREVAIL...?
US sends the beefed up A2 version of the Abrams. Good.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Just how sad is this regardless of sides.
I wasn't sure about WW1, so had a quick read up. Given that the war ended in an armistice and not a surrender, that the the aggressor nation was not physically invaded and (imo ) both sides were exhausted ( American influx excluded ) then I would say that is in line with uxb's premise.
A slower read would reveal that there was a BAOR occupying the Rhineland in 1919, that Germany was starving and that massive reparations were exacted.
the British Army, mostly conscripts, led by very experienced NCOs and officers was far from exhausted. Tempered in tbe flames.
The following users liked this post:
I only need room for my wives. As the tea person is a fount of knowledge I want a hotline to him/ her/ they/ it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Langleybaston
Thanks for that correction my mother was born in an American hospital in the French part of the occupied territory, grandfather having been gassed earlier in WWI was now part of the army of occupation.
Clive R
Thanks for that correction my mother was born in an American hospital in the French part of the occupied territory, grandfather having been gassed earlier in WWI was now part of the army of occupation.
Clive R
Guest
I wasn't sure about WW1, so had a quick read up. Given that the war ended in an armistice and not a surrender, that the the aggressor nation was not physically invaded and (imo ) both sides were exhausted ( American influx excluded ) then I would say that is in line with uxb's premise.
It's only fair that the Z-team gets tanks as donation as well 
The even broader picture is the respective governments' ability and willingness to care for soldiers' dependents. In this respect, the British led the field, with compulsory allotments from soldiers pay, and dependents' allowances based on status and age. By contrast, the French and Germans were not "Welfare State". This also applied to death benefits, disablement, wounds etc.
That is emphatically NOT to claim that British soldiers and dependents were particularly well paid or treated, just better than others. Apart from minor incidents [in the scale of things] the British army was not subjected to mutinies, mass desertions and malingering. A huge subject, a long way from aviation, but has some bearing on UKR versus RUS, and the welfare systems in place.