It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump should lure Putin to destruction

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

They had trouble with Georgia in 2008. And despite Putin's attempts following that foray the Russian military is still rife with corruption. Not to mention a lot of their equipment is breaking down. Like I said, if Russia wanted to they could take Ukraine. However, the cost would be too high to make it worth it.




posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

It is more difficult to fight insurgents since they are not in uniform. With THAAD, Javelins, Ukrainian army would be able to beat back Russian army.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I don't think Ukraine even has an army anymore. Most of the officers defected following the 2014 coup, and a lot of the equipment is now unserviceable because it relied on Russian manufacturers. The rank and file have pretty low morale, which is quite typical but it's become even worse lately.

Almost the entire Navy defected, and the Air Force is rotting due to a lack of spare parts.

Much of the fighting against the Resistance in the East is done by "National Guard" units, which range from conscripted police officers of Polish descent to radical Neo-nazis. An odd bunch, not a particularly capable fighting force either. Presumably that's why they spend most of their time shelling and pillaging villages. Though the rebels do their fair share of that too.

If anyone were to go to war with Ukraine, organised resistance would be negligible to non-existent.
edit on -060002pm2kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cutiepies

Luring Russia in to any kind of sustained conflict ultimately would result in them sustaining enough loss of both men and equipment so as to make the nuclear option a plausible response.

And then what?

There are no winners if such a scenario were even to play out, we all lose!
edit on 15-2-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

No one is mad enough to use nukes. Ukraine is right off the border with Russia. Russia would be contaminated too.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: cutiepies
a reply to: andy06shake

No one is mad enough to use nukes. Ukraine is right off the border with Russia. Russia would be contaminated too.


I see what the problem is. You don't understand statecraft.

Yes they would use nuclear weapons. As would every state with them in possession if that was their only option left available to them.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: cutiepies

Decimate there army and air force sufficiently and that would be there only remaining option im afraid.

We may all be contaminated depending on the level of response should it ever turn nuclear.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Russia would use nukes if some country or countries invade Russia. Otherwise no.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: cutiepies
a reply to: Ohanka

Russia would use nukes if some country or countries invade Russia. Otherwise no.


Like I said, you don't understand statecraft.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cutiepies

And what do you think NATO would do after winning an air war/superiority?

Take out ground targets and infrastructure so as to prevent any future retaliation would be my guess which is the same as invasion really from a Russian standpoint.

My guess would be Russia would consider some form of nuclear response right around the time they lost there planes and radar installations as to wait for any invasion force would be paramount to accepting defeat.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cutiepies

Firstly no, giving weapons is not going to defeat the Russians. It might slow them down a bit, that's best case.

Secondly, there would be no overthrow. The Russians would love him even more.

Thirdly, yes. The Ukraine isn't a NATO member. We have no responsibility to defend them, so let's not. Furthermore, NATO expansion is continually aggressing on Russia. How about we stop provoking them and mind our own business? This definitely played a role in Trump vs Hillary. War against Russia would be a horrible idea, how about we pass.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: swedy13

War should be a horrible idea in itself, not just with Russia, but with any other civilised nation.

We simply refuse to learn from our historical mistakes and seem doomed to repeat our transgressions from generation to generation.

Sad and pathetic really that we cannot get our act together and address the real problems humanity faces.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: swedy13

Turkey suffered huge tank losses in Syria to Islamic State's ATGMs, which are very limited in number. If the US supplies thousands of Javelins to Ukraine, Russian army would be demolished in Ukraine.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: cutiepies
a reply to: swedy13

Turkey suffered huge tank losses in Syria to Islamic State's ATGMs, which are very limited in number. If the US supplies thousands of Javelins to Ukraine, Russian army would be demolished in Ukraine.


There is a difference between conventional warfare and unconventional warfare. You cannot compare the two. A few ATGMs will successfully ambush a few lone tanks, they will be a minor annoyance to a 120-strong tank regiment supported by infantry, artillery and aircraft, not to mention all the other supporting elements like engineers, reconnaissance troops etc .

Not to mention Turkey's mass purges of the military have led to some, shall we say less than competent officers being promoted.

I don't think Ukraine's ATGMs are even capable of penetrating the armour of Russia's fleet of T-72s and T-90s. TOW missiles certainly have trouble with the latter if you want to use Syria as a source, and Ukraine doesn't have a missile anywhere near that capable.

They primarily use the 9K111 Fagot (real name), a 70s era design meant to destroy M60 pattons, Chieftains, Leopard 1s and the like. The ATGMs that engaged the Turkish Leopard 2A4s were the new Kornet missile, explicitly designed to counter modern NATO armour (Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 2 and so on).

But anyway you want to give them a load of Javelins, which will have much more success versus the Russian tanks, but like I said they won't prove anything more than an annoyance on their own. A few tanks in the unit will probably be destroyed before they can locate and destroy the ATGM teams, and the Russians have plenty more tanks in reserve to replace the meager losses.
edit on -060003pm2kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Good point. We have a duty to defend "paying" NATO members, but hopefully that doesn't need to happen. War is so last century, let's be done with it.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Leopard 2 destroyed by 120 or 130 mm ATGMs. Javelin is 152 mm tandem HEAT. T-90 is no match for Javelin.

levantwar.blogspot.ca...



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cutiepies

You're equating Turkey to Russia. Not a good comparison. Russia would have a pretty easy time with Ukraine regardless of the weapons or even if special forces were involved. Russia may not be a superpower anymore, but they're still a big dog on the world stage. There's enough manpower there to overwhelm Ukraine even if they were riding lawnmowers.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: swedy13

Russia soldiers do not wish to die in Ukraine for nothing.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: cutiepies
a reply to: Ohanka

Leopard 2 destroyed by 120 or 130 mm ATGMs. Javelin is 152 mm tandem HEAT. T-90 is no match for Javelin.

levantwar.blogspot.ca...


??????

Calibre of the tube has almost nothing to do with the penetration value of the ATGM.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cutiepies

And how do you take each others towns and cities where urban warfare would be the rule of the day?

That type of battlescape somewhat retards the use of our tanks, mechanized infantry, not to mention the assortment of anti tank missile systems associated with such.

It would be a complete and utter blood bath with street to street fighting, essentially fighting for every inch and meter an hour or minute at a time.

Not a kind of scenario any sane nation would ever wish to participate.
edit on 15-2-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join