The US and Germany have decided to send tanks to Ukraine. Is this a good thing or not?

Question

Leopard23 · Accepted Answer

Putin isn't crazy, he's very clever but he's just one man. The US government has had some of the brightest minds working on how to drag Russia into a war it either can't win or can't afford, even if Russia conquers the whole of Ukraine it has still lost. Something similar happened in the 80s which culminated with the collapse of the soviet union and soviet economy.

If you look at the Russian army in Ukraine they are using outdated equipment, no body armour etc and their tanks, planes and helicopters are constantly being taken out by hand held rockets. These tanks will be a game changer not because they have better armour, bigger guns or faster but because of the sensor and targeting sensors on them. They will wipe out Russian tanks before they even fire a shot and tank destroyer units? They will see them easy through thermal imaging, night vision, motion doctors and various warning systems before they fire a shot.

exitseven · Accepted Answer

I think 20Billion is enough for a while. Let the other NATO countries bankroll this thing for a while.

nightdrot · Answer

Yes. Not because the United States has an interest in Ukraine winning the war against Russia. Indeed, Ukraine is not apt to win outright. Rather, because the USA has an interest in Ukraine not losing the war. In that context it being important to add that the US has interests in Ukraine, but such interests are secondary and derivative.

Best to start by recalling that through most of American history, Ukraine was part of Imperial Russia and from 1920 to 1991 the Soviet Union. This having no noticeable or deleterious impact on the American global strategic position.

Ukraine's current significance to the USA is rather based on its impact on several NATO allies. This especially true of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania and to a lesser extent Hungary. The loss of Ukraine to Russia, absent American security assurances to those aforementioned states, would undermine their strategic position and likely result in the collapse of NATO.

Please also note that the dispute over Ukraine has already, in any case, divided NATO. Britain has been aggressive about sending weapons and diplomatic support to Ukraine. By contrast, tanks notwithstanding, Germany is seeking to develop its economic and trade ties with Russia, while using NATO security assurances to protect its own security interests. France, (with some sotto voce help from Italy) in all this, has been quietly seeking to entangle Russia more deeply in Europe, thereby making it a counterweight to German influence in the EU.

Put simply, there is a tangle of conflicting interests not just between NATO and Russia, but within NATO. Thus, to use an extreme example, for the United States to step in with a direct military intervention would likely please Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK, but it would shatter German ties with NATO. This then effectively render NATO "null and void" as it is the fastest strategic access point to eastern Europe, including Russia.

Further, any confrontation between the United States and Russia plays out to the strategic advantage of the People's Republic of China. If the Americans and Russians are engaged in a conflict, (again, assuming that it does not go nuclear in which events all bets are off), China is left a free hand toward Taiwan and the South China Sea, This also meaning, in effect, that the USA would be abandoning Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand.

Put simply, the United States cannot walk away from Ukraine, but its interests require that it avoid war. Consequently, there is little beyond diplomatic and economic sanctions that the United States can offer, and even the extent of these are not obvious. A direct military conflict between the USA and Russia would split NATO, to the latter's advantage, and give China a free hand.

This is a game of three dimensional chess and not simply a test of wills. The historic interests of the major European powers are at play and in this case American direct interests are secondary. For the USA, this is about reassuring NATO's eastern flank, balancing the interests of NATO's other major members - the UK, France, Germany and Italy - in order to keep the alliance whole.

This is, as was noted, not a mere contest of muscle. Suffice to add that it would be profoundly dangerous to see it in such simplistic terms.

lightbulb27 · Answer

I'd say bad. It's further escalation, from training Ukraine in USA (Oklahama), to deploying advisors in Ukraine (where they can get killed or directly involved in fighting)... it's clear who is fighting russia, it's not a proxy anymore. This is the smoldering of WWIII... and for what?

I watched Biden read the script... but who wrote it and who thought it a good idea?

Is there any sign of Russia deciding their "special operation is a bad idea and time to turn around?".

It's all an idea that Ukraine can push Russia back to their side of the tree line, where the old border was... a bunch of trees... probably. But that's where there were russians before. As well they can push them back there, hold them there, Russia is going to accept that situation and peace will bloom.

That is not reality...

Just wait til USA hypersonic missiles show up to "Defend NATOand their allies against Russian aggression". Talking some serious hair trigger finger issues.

The adversaries, USA and Russia have to talk and establish long standing agreements for security and peace. And that isn't even a consideration right now... as it seems some in USA want this war.

So the rest of us hope the escallation doesn't impact us. meanwhile, people are blown up, burnt up, and destroyed on a daily basis.

Tanks are not going to change that... even after they show up in the months ahead.

jshm2 · Answer

No. As it's just leading Ukraine into a further debt spiral, based on false pretences.

Also, the US tanks are crap. They couldn't give them away for free, as they didn't do shit in Iraq or Afghanistan! It's why the US wanted the Germans and British to commit their tanks first, before giving in theirs.

As far as the Western proxy war against Russia goes. Russia is ruing not interfering in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan when the West illegally invaded there.

Gummy_Cluster · Answer

It's a great idea for the fat cats getting the payola. I said from the beginning that this was a fake war, just like the fake Covid crap.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/steA_PZPkc8

Watch "Wag the Dog" and you might see it. They faked a war, and the idiots believed it was a real war.

Anonymous · Answer

When I heard this this morning I was confused because I was informed a few years back the the M1A1 tank has a few classified things about it. Has it since been declassified? If not why would we give that information away to Ukraine? Doesn't seem worth the risk to me. I'm not even adding the fact that an M1A1 tanks costs upwards of 9million. Certainly there's a cheaper alternative.

RealMarek · Answer

Given that Russia has artillery superiority by a huge margin, is currently manufacturing 4 million shells per year and can ramp up, while the US is planning to attempt to bring shell production up to 1 million per year after two years, I think it is throwing good money and equipment after bad. The reality is that much of Western Europe will be disarmed if NATO continues throwing equipment into this meat grinder.

Anonymous · Answer

It's good for Ukraine. Germany even though gave very few opened the door to allow other European countries to give their Leopard tanks and there's a lot of Lepoards in Europe.

It gives Ukraine the ability to hit targets at long range on the ground and to go on the offensive. Russia is currently relying on mass inaccurate artillery but victory does not belong to the big battalions but to the best shots.

DubiousIntentions · Answer

The US paid a lot of money for those tanks - or we the taxpayers did. Do the taxpayers get to write it off as a loss on our income tax?

KrakenAttackin · Answer

I don't fucking know. Zelensky is corrupt AF, but the Russians are assholes. Add to this the Biden/Hunter/Pelosi connections to the Ukraine, and I feel like the American people are getting the shaft.

I want to support genuine freedom fighters but I hate lining the pockets of assholes.

gorydetails · Answer

Stupid shit. The globalists are desperate for WWIII

Pterodon · Answer

It’s about time. Biden like all democrats are a culture of death from wanting late term abortion to enabling drug cartels control of our border with who and what comes across it to enabling an airliner crash a day in fentanyl deaths. He never gave the Ukrainians what they needed to win just enough to keep them from losing and to keep people dying longer. Typical democrat

AngryCarl2 · Answer

Anything that gets Putin's troops out of Ukraine is good.

Anonymous · Answer

It won't matter if Putin gets to nukin'. The world should be paying off someone in his staff to take him out and stop that stupid fucking war.

Guardian45 · Answer

I think Russia needs to be decisively put down, like the dog that is Putin!

Anonymous · Answer

It should have happened a year ago.

The US and Germany have decided to send tanks to Ukraine. Is this a good thing or not?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

What do you think about NATO sending tanks to Ukraine?

The US and Germany have decided to send tanks to Ukraine. Is this a good thing or not?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

What do you think about NATO sending tanks to Ukraine?

We're glad to see you liked this post.