What would you give to Ukraine
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,930
Received 2,849 Likes
on
1,218 Posts
Perhaps they should start a “Go fund me” or “Adopt an Artillery Round” program. You could have an appropriate message stencilled on “your” round.
I think the problem here is defining what can realistically be achieved - as the ambition of expelling Russia forcibly from Ukraine (by action on the battlefield) simply isn't going to happen, unfortunately. Russia has too much resource and more importantly, too much support - from powers who will not allow Russia to suffer a complete defeat and who are quietly enjoying the West's discomfiture. Obviously the (Ukrainian's) battle must continue and be supported but how and to what (achievable) end?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 476
Received 304 Likes
on
140 Posts
but to answer the original question; I'd consider delivering those politicians who stand in the way of supplying aid, not because they are against it, but because they consider it ok to hold it hostage for their own projects that their base will find favourable.
Sadly I think there is too much battlefield asymmetry for Ukraine to succeed in a traditional maneuver warfare. There was a brief window a year and a bit ago where a major influx of Western equipment "might" have tipped the balance while Russian forces were still disorganized and not dug in, but that ship has sailed. The only vulnerability is Putin's standing with the general public, particularly in Moscow. The war for all practical purposes does not exist for the average Russian, but that would quickly change if they like most Ukrainians, they are running to the bomb shelters every day. If Ukraine were supplied with a large array of long range precision weapons and told most of the don't fire on Russia restrictions were lifted I think Putin could be driven to the negotiating table pretty quickly due to popular unrest when the war becomes real to the average Russian. However to do that the West would have to call Putin's nuclear bluff, and I just don't see any Western leader willing to do that.
Sadly I think Ukraine has past the point of no return. They don't have the population to defend such a long front line and the massive troop size advantage of the Russians make a game changing break through increasingly less likely even if the Ukrainians were massively rearmed. Putin is right, time is on his side victory is what ever he decides it is. The bigger question is what is his end game ? Will control of existing territory in Ukraine satisfy him or just embolden him in pursuing other territorial conquests like the Baltic nations ?
Sadly I think Ukraine has past the point of no return. They don't have the population to defend such a long front line and the massive troop size advantage of the Russians make a game changing break through increasingly less likely even if the Ukrainians were massively rearmed. Putin is right, time is on his side victory is what ever he decides it is. The bigger question is what is his end game ? Will control of existing territory in Ukraine satisfy him or just embolden him in pursuing other territorial conquests like the Baltic nations ?
The following 2 users liked this post by Big Pistons Forever:
Of course he (or his successor) won't stop. They want to get back all the former occupied countries and their wealth eg Ukraine's gas and minerals. I still hark back to the downed MI-8 helo with NACH BERLIN painted in foot-high white letters along the boom.
Do what the Danes have just done, give them all out artillery. It wont be of much use to us if we don't stop Putin now.
Just a credit card and some topped off account?
Give them strategic and tactical nukes. About 30 should do it for a start.
Or as many as they voluntarily gave to Russia some years ago.
Russia broke their promise and we should help Ukraine to get back to the status quo.
A10's AH64's, Cobra's & derivatives.
I'd also give them free reign at AMARC
I kind of think we should all be very rapidly looking towards an A-10 "Mark 2" with improved survivability and much better self defence capabilities and a fleet order of several hundred units. The other lesson that is coming across clear and loud is that for all the technology that is available to the modern armed forces, you need to be able to replace kit quicker than it seems to be made. Fine in peacetime, but sod all use in a conflict. Also having enough usable reservists so that you can "rotate & replace" onto the battlefield should be ringing loud alarm bells for the MoD, given the historic numbers just for BAOR was 80,000 regulars, in comparison to today's entire army consisting of just under 76,000 plus just over 4,000 Gurkha full timers and around 25,000 reservists.
Should the UK need to pursue diplomacy by more muscular means, at present, I feel we may have an issue. I think we'd need much more units of much simpler & robust equipment [too much complex technology is all too easily jammed & disrupted.] and considerably increased numbers of non electronically jammable, non-internet enabled biological units [i.e. pairs of boots on the ground].
Without wishing to pander to the more rabid anti-immigration factions of the Brexit brigade, I feel that adopting some of the policies of the Roman Empire/Army might provide an instant solution. Serve in the infantry with good conduct for 25 years you get citizenship & full entitlement to social benefits on retirement. Food Board & clothing free while you serve, but I don't think the Roman views on decimation for cowardice would be entirely compatible with current human rights legislation..
I'd also give them free reign at AMARC
I kind of think we should all be very rapidly looking towards an A-10 "Mark 2" with improved survivability and much better self defence capabilities and a fleet order of several hundred units. The other lesson that is coming across clear and loud is that for all the technology that is available to the modern armed forces, you need to be able to replace kit quicker than it seems to be made. Fine in peacetime, but sod all use in a conflict. Also having enough usable reservists so that you can "rotate & replace" onto the battlefield should be ringing loud alarm bells for the MoD, given the historic numbers just for BAOR was 80,000 regulars, in comparison to today's entire army consisting of just under 76,000 plus just over 4,000 Gurkha full timers and around 25,000 reservists.
Should the UK need to pursue diplomacy by more muscular means, at present, I feel we may have an issue. I think we'd need much more units of much simpler & robust equipment [too much complex technology is all too easily jammed & disrupted.] and considerably increased numbers of non electronically jammable, non-internet enabled biological units [i.e. pairs of boots on the ground].
Without wishing to pander to the more rabid anti-immigration factions of the Brexit brigade, I feel that adopting some of the policies of the Roman Empire/Army might provide an instant solution. Serve in the infantry with good conduct for 25 years you get citizenship & full entitlement to social benefits on retirement. Food Board & clothing free while you serve, but I don't think the Roman views on decimation for cowardice would be entirely compatible with current human rights legislation..
Last edited by Donkey497; 18th Feb 2024 at 19:38. Reason: incomplete
The following users liked this post:
NOPE. Completekly mad to hsnd over our fate to another nation in such a desperate situation. Suggest you consult a professional.
The following users liked this post:
Russia found a crashed british Banshee target drone
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/...96190805025146
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/...96190805025146
https://www.twz.com/clandestine-u-k-...ne-for-ukraine
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 476
Received 304 Likes
on
140 Posts
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,930
Received 2,849 Likes
on
1,218 Posts
Can you give back-up for that ? I find it extremely difficult to believe that the EU can sell such basic, cheap munitions outside the the EU when competing with countries like Pakistan.
NOPE. Completekly mad to hsnd over our fate to another nation in such a desperate situation. Suggest you consult a professional.
NOPE. Completekly mad to hsnd over our fate to another nation in such a desperate situation. Suggest you consult a professional.
Re Artillery shells.
Borrell also said the bloc had provided more than 300,000 artillery shells and missiles under the first track of the scheme, which involved EU member states delivering from their own stockpiles.
Borrell suggested that an immediate issue was the export commitments of EU defence manufacturers outside the bloc. “About 40% of the production is being exported to third countries, so it is not a lack of production capacities,” he said.
“It is that they send their products to another market. So maybe what we have to do is to try to shift this production to the priority one, which is the Ukrainians,” he said.
Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry commissioner, said arms companies were making progress in increasing production and that the target of boosting European production of 155 millimetre shells to 1 million a year into the future was possible.
Borrell suggested that an immediate issue was the export commitments of EU defence manufacturers outside the bloc. “About 40% of the production is being exported to third countries, so it is not a lack of production capacities,” he said.
“It is that they send their products to another market. So maybe what we have to do is to try to shift this production to the priority one, which is the Ukrainians,” he said.
Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry commissioner, said arms companies were making progress in increasing production and that the target of boosting European production of 155 millimetre shells to 1 million a year into the future was possible.
I was not suggesting they use them, but the threat that they would may be enough to deter his ambitions, we gave them promises to get rid of their Nukes on the grounds that we would protect them...... How is that going by the way? There are mutterings in Ukraine that they should develop their own, and given they were one of the biggest nuclear powers once they will probably have the know how to do it.
I was not suggesting they use them, but the threat that they would may be enough to deter his ambitions, we gave them promises to get rid of their Nukes on the grounds that we would protect them...... How is that going by the way? There are mutterings in Ukraine that they should develop their own, and given they were one of the biggest nuclear powers once they will probably have the know how to do it.
As far as the protection promise went, I was surprised to read that that was only a memorandum and not a treaty and its value is actually limited. The only concrete and measurable terms are that Ukraine promises never to use or acquire nuclear weapons, and UK, US, Russia promise never to use force ( inc nuclear weapons ) on Ukraine. Those states also gave a commitment to support Ukraine if it was subject to aggresssion and you could certainly argue that the US and UK have done that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...weapon%20state.
Last edited by Tartiflette Fan; 19th Feb 2024 at 17:26.
The following 2 users liked this post by Dan Gerous: