Russian invasion of Ukraine

In the light of what has happened this week, a thought occurred to me. Just my speculation, it may be total rubbish. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me might like to comment.
When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the response by the west/NATO was quite restrained: some sanctions mainly on Putin and his men, some words of condemnation, but not much else. Why? Because there was nothing we could do. The small Ukrainian forces were largely untrained and their equipment not enough. So, the west set about training thousands of troops. Ukraine fought an unrewarding war against the occupiers, but made little headway. Putin thought we were not that bothered and eventually blundered in thinking he would take control within a week. Cue massive equipment supply to Ukraine and their fight back with newly trained men.
Had NATO envisaged this scenario all along and made a strategic decision in 2014 to sit, train, equip with a view to Ukraine now being able to mount a serious response? Maybe some very smart thinking in NATO?
 
Confirmation that the Ukraine has been using Excaliber guided shells came over the last two days.
www.bloomberg.com

Most-Accurate US Artillery Shell Is Added to Ukraine’s Arms

The Pentagon has sent Ukraine its most accurate artillery shell, the GPS-guided Excalibur, according to budget documents that confirm the previously unannounced addition to the arsenal assembled to combat the Russian invasion.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
Intermediate range (15-30 miles) Russian targets can now be bit with extreme accuracy without using HIMARS rocketszand missiles.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
In the light of what has happened this week, a thought occurred to me. Just my speculation, it may be total rubbish. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me might like to comment.
When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the response by the west/NATO was quite restrained: some sanctions mainly on Putin and his men, some words of condemnation, but not much else. Why? Because there was nothing we could do. The small Ukrainian forces were largely untrained and their equipment not enough. So, the west set about training thousands of troops. Ukraine fought an unrewarding war against the occupiers, but made little headway. Putin thought we were not that bothered and eventually blundered in thinking he would take control within a week. Cue massive equipment supply to Ukraine and their fight back with newly trained men.
Had NATO envisaged this scenario all along and made a strategic decision in 2014 to sit, train, equip with a view to Ukraine now being able to mount a serious response? Maybe some very smart thinking in NATO?
Click to expand...
You might want to go back in 2008, when **** invaded Georgia. That's when he smelled the weakness in the west. And you go back to NATO Budapest summit when they refused to give anything to Ukraine and Georgia you can see that was green light for him to do what he wanted
 
grunge said:
I would hazard a guess that will be down to them. If they fight I guess they go down fighting.


Could just leave them there without supply’s for a while and starve them out mind you.
Click to expand...
They can always go east and swim. A 10-20m wide river isn't that difficult to cross. Not in a tank, armoured vehicle or indeed any vehicle of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.