Zelensky demands 1% of Nato tanks and planes

[Grand Mal]

I have no problem with the help NATO countries have/are giving him, but his talk was addressing NATO leaders. asking them to give him 1% of their tanks and planes.

Like I said elsewhere, he's trying to protect his people. He's not concerned at the moment with what's politically right for NATO countries, his nation is crawling with an aggressive army of invaders murdering civilians by the hundreds. If the answer is 'no', that's one thing but in the circumstances nobody should say he shouldn't ask.
Looks to me like it's just a case of, "It's not fair to make us uncomfortable about not helping you."

 

[Individual]

Like I said elsewhere, he's trying to protect his people. He's not concerned at the moment with what's politically right for NATO countries, his nation is crawling with an aggressive army of invaders murdering civilians by the hundreds. If the answer is 'no', that's one thing but in the circumstances nobody should say he shouldn't ask.
Looks to me like it's just a case of, "It's not fair to make us uncomfortable about not helping you."

Should have increased their annual military budget spending in 2014. But NATO should just say no, and stay out of it while letting Russia know they would/will respond implicitly as a result of any encroachment upon a member Nation. Individual Nation governments are free to provide what they and their people are willing to provide in the meantime.

 

[Grand Mal]

Should have increased their annual military budget spending in 2014. But NATO should just say no, and stay out of it while letting Russia know they would/will respond implicitly as a result of any encroachment upon a member Nation. Individual Nation governments are free to provide what they and their people are willing to provide in the meantime.

That might well be what Zelenskyy is hoping for, that NATO countries help him on an individual basis, not as a NATO policy action. I'm sure he knows how NATO works. Far as I know he's asking for equipment and arms, not troop support or pilots.

 

[SkyChief]

. . . So far you have failed to show any evidence for your, or Joe's, assertions by pure conjecture. Just because you are afraid isn't evidence for anything. Your opinion is based on a kind of argument that could have been made earlier using the equally unsupported fear that Javelins and Stingers and troop training might trigger WWIII.

You're alarmed by a hobgoblin of your own fear driven imagination.

There is no evidence needed. Biden's decision to not supply Ukraine with planes and tanks is based on Critical Thinking - i.e., objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form sound judgment.

There are no "hobgoblins" here - that's a silly argument.

Putin is desperate to regain control of Ukraine. Desperate people do desperate things. If we supplied Ukraine with offensive weapons, Putin would be justified to retaliate. However, if we just supply Ukraine with defensive weapons, (e.g., STINGERS, Javelins), then Putin has no grounds to retaliate.

 

[Individual]

That might well be what Zelenskyy is hoping for, that NATO countries help him on an individual basis, not as a NATO policy action. I'm sure he knows how NATO works. Far as I know he's asking for equipment and arms, not troop support or pilots.

Yes, but directing his ask at NATO.

 

[maxparrish]

I have no problem with the help NATO countries have/are giving him, but his talk was addressing NATO leaders. asking them to give him 1% of their tanks and planes.

Yes, that is a rhetorical device, a way of communicating how little one is asking for compared to the gains that might be achieved. There isn't an exact number, just enough tanks and planes to improve the chances of driving the Russians out.

Given Nato's inventory of active and stored tanks, it appears to me that it could very easily supply 200 to 300 tanks that are stored, Leopards and Le Clerics most likely, without having a thimble of impact on active tank forces. Same for Migs and SU's, as well as shore-based missiles, medium range ballistic missiles, and earlier generation SAMS (Hawk missile batteries).

The provision of captured vehicles is becoming harder as Russians are no longer advancing in the North into ambushes, and Southern and Eastern troops are far more reliable. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine loses the initiative due to material losses.

So if you want them to lose, don't. If you want them to win, do.

I'ts that simple.

 

[Individual]

Yes, that is a rhetorical device, a way of communicating how little one is asking for compared to the gains that might be achieved. There isn't an exact number, just enough tanks and planes to improve the chances of driving the Russians out.

Given Nato's inventory of active and stored tanks, it appears to me that it could very easily supply 200 to 300 tanks that are stored, Leopards and Le Clerics most likely, without having a thimble of impact on active tank forces. Same for Migs and SU's, as well as shore-based missiles, medium range ballistic missiles, and earlier generation SAMS (Hawk missile batteries).

The provision of captured vehicles is becoming harder as Russians are no longer advancing in the North, and Southern and Eastern troops are far more reliable. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine loses the initiative due to material losses.

So if you want them to lose, don't. If you want them to win, do.

I'ts that simple.

And that would more directly involve NATO. Instead NATO is moving some forces to member Nations as their response allowing governments of member Nations to do what they feel they need to do. It IS just that simple, and NATO just stands ready to respond IF Russia gives cause for that to occur.

 

[maxparrish]

There is no evidence needed. Biden's decision to not supply Ukraine with planes and tanks is based on Critical Thinking - i.e., objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form sound judgment.

There are no "hobgoblins" here - that's a silly argument.

Putin is desperate to regain control of Ukraine. Desperate people do desperate things. If we supplied Ukraine with offensive weapons, Putin would be justified to retaliate. However, if we just supply Ukraine with defensive weapons, (e.g., STINGERS, Javelins), then Putin has no grounds to retaliate.

What is "silly" is that you keep repeating an assertion that is unsupported by a thimble of empirical evidence, apparently believing that if you say it enough times it will become a stronger claim.

Sorry friend, that dog won't hunt.

Once more, please show us the "objective analysis" and the "evaluation" that demonstrates Joe made a sound judgement?

And, BTW, telling us that Putin is desperate, and sometimes desperate people do desperate things does not show us whether or not he would launch WIII with or without the arrival of so-called "offensive weapons". All your saying is that you've somehow read Putin's mind that he is desperate, and you somehow also know that means he won't launch WWIII if we keep doing the same as now, but will launch WWIII if we do even a little more.

So how do you know that? You don't. You don't even know if Putin even recognizes the arbitrary Biden-esque distinction between defensive and offensive weapons. In fact the administration itself has been unable to define it.

Your problem appears to be your inability to grasp that Putin isn't concerned with escalation, he is concerned with winning. If he can't win in any circumstance he will continue to escalate this war as far as necessary to win. He will bring in more troops, he will switch to leveling cities with bombers (as he did at Gronzy and Allepo), he will massively use theromobarics, he will bomb NATO supplied convoys, and if all that does not work, he will use chemicals.

The only thing he is very unlikely to do, is use nuclear bombs and launch WWIII because he still believes that NATO would do that to Russia.

"Not winning" or outright "losing" is what triggers Putin, not this childish abstract nonsense over "defensive" and "offensive" instruments of death.

 

[maxparrish]

And that would more directly involve NATO. Instead NATO is moving some forces to member Nations as their response allowing governments of member Nations to do what they feel they need to do. It IS just that simple, and NATO just stands ready to respond IF Russia gives cause for that to occur.

Nato is already involved, no matter how you characterize it. It has announced, through Biden, that it (or we) will provide the weapons for Ukraine to defend themselves. Nato (we) have already set up convoys that cross sovereign borders carrying deadly weapons, shells, fuel, food, and other lethal military supplies. We are in the process of shipping S-300 SAMS to Ukraine. The ONLY thing we have drawn a redline at is that their will not be Nato combat or American troops driving offensive tanks and other combat vehicles into combat with Russian forces.

And if we wish to see Ukraine bleed for many more months before possibly losing, just do what we have been involved doing but stop doing more.

But if we think a far better outcome is to win, to drive the Russians out of Ukraine, then the quality and effectiveness of the weapons supplied has to improve.

"It's just that simple."

 

[Grand Mal]

Yes, but directing his ask at NATO.

Yes. NATO countries.
Are you really saying that the leader of a country that has been brutally invaded by an aggressive foreign army that is deliberately targeting his civilian countrymen should moderate his requests for help? He should consider the politics involved?
Listen. Every NATO country can decide what their response to this should be. It's not a NATO thing, It's a Poland and Greece and Britain and America and whatever else thing.
And Zelenskyy is asking for help to save his people and his country.

 

[Individual]

Nato is already involved, no matter how you characterize it. It has announced, through Biden, that it (or we) will provide the weapons for Ukraine to defend themselves. Nato (we) have already set up convoys that cross sovereign borders carrying deadly weapons, shells, fuel, food, and other lethal military supplies. We are in the process of shipping S-300 SAMS to Ukraine. The ONLY thing we have drawn a redline at is that their will not be Nato combat or American troops driving offensive tanks and other combat vehicles into combat with Russian forces.

And if we wish to see Ukraine bleed for many more months before possibly losing, just do what we have been involved doing but stop doing more.

But if we think a far better outcome is to win, to drive the Russians out of Ukraine, then the quality and effectiveness of the weapons supplied has to improve.

"It's just that simple."

If true, then NATO is doing enough already. They simply shouldn't allow this to become a major European war.

 

[SkyChief]

. . . Your problem appears to be your inability to grasp that Putin isn't concerned with escalation, he is concerned with winning. If he can't win in any circumstance he will continue to escalate this war as far as necessary to win. . . .

This makes zero sense.

Biden is doing everything he needs to be doing - i.e., avoiding a 3rd world war.

Zelensky is doing everything he needs to be doing - i.e., standing his ground and asking for every bit of help he can muster.

The stakes are high. Missteps could (and likely would) lead to a global disaster.

Biden just recently got the U.S. out of the longest war in the history of our country - he ended the war in Afghanistan. Biden succeeded where three prior presidents failed. This achievement cannot be erased or downplayed.

Biden must keep the U.S. out of the Ukranian war. Biden has been clear that the U.S. will NOT go to war with Russia - even a proxy war. He has made many blunders in the past 14 months, but this will not be one of them.

 

[maxparrish]

If true, then NATO is doing enough already. They simply shouldn't allow this to become a major European war.

Excuse us? What point is there in "just doing enough" if it prolongs a war in a stalemate that destroys Ukraine? That is rather sadistic, don't you think?

 

[maxparrish]

This makes zero sense.

Biden is doing everything he needs to be doing - i.e., avoiding a 3rd world war.

If that is all he needs to be doing, he's doing a piss poor job of it. By your own measure of what he needs to dos, he should never have helped Ukraine, encouraged NATO countries to impose sanctions or done anything to make Putin desperate, right? The best way to avoid the risk of a 3rd world war over the Ukraine was to do nothing and now to cut and run.

Obviously you haven't thought this out.

The stakes are high. Missteps could (and likely would) lead to a global disaster.

You mean the misstep of getting involved in the first place and risking a global disaster? Or perhaps you don't see the "mistep" of being half in, and half out of a conflict? Biden may well cause a global war by allowing this war to drag on in a stalemate, and Ukraine still loses if Putin gets as desperate as you say he is. So you must believe that we should cut and run now, right?

Your "yardstick" seems to be entirely unmoored to anything other than your emotions of the moment about Biden.

Biden just recently got the U.S. out of the longest war in the history of our country - he ended the war in Afghanistan. Biden succeeded where three prior presidents failed. This achievement cannot be erased or downplayed.

Actually Trump got the agreement to get the US out of the war, and Biden executed it very poorly - it was a widely acknowledge debacle that likely contributed to Putin's belief that now was the time to strike.

Biden must keep the U.S. out of the Ukranian war. Biden has been clear that the U.S. will NOT go to war with Russia - even a proxy war. He has made many blunders in the past 14 months, but this will not be one of them.

Then why are we in it and why are you supporting his actions? We are in a proxy war with Russia, whether we want to recognize it or not. Russia believes it, and is acting accordingly.

Look SkyChief, you either support a war with the objective of victory, or you get out of a war to cut your losses and run. If we are not in this conflict for Ukraine (and Nato) to win, we shouldn't be in it at all.

If you don't get the lessons of Korea and Vietnam, you are doomed to repeat it...with or without boots on the ground.

 

[SkyChief]

. . . If you don't get the lessons of Korea and Vietnam, you are doomed to repeat it...with or without boots on the ground.

The lessons gleaned from the Korean and Vietnam wars are quite clear.

The U.S. should NOT waste American lives intervening in foreign civil wars.

PERIOD.

 

[maxparrish]

The lessons gleaned from the Korean and Vietnam wars are quite clear.

The U.S. should NOT waste American lives in foreign civil wars.

PERIOD.

Your droplet of learnings from these wars are painfully clichéd, as well as extraordinarily superficial.

I suggest you start with:

On Strategy, A critical analysis of the Vietnam War by H.G. Summers (Col.)
Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMasters

And for those who wish to explore an interesting analysis in mid war, find a used copy of:

No Exit from Vietnam by Sir Robert Thompson.

 

[Individual]

Excuse us? What point is there in "just doing enough" if it prolongs a war in a stalemate that destroys Ukraine? That is rather sadistic, don't you think?

You're excused. Probably could end it with a massive attack on Moscow, but I'd prefer not. Sadistic? No.