Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This should have happened years ago.

Agreed. I'm hesitant to say so, but this will probably one of the things that the Trump administration will be able to look back proudly on.

I agree with both of you. This is a necessary, long overdue step and credit to the Trump admin for taking this step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why? It changes nothing. The US will never be able to provide anything that Russia will not also provide to the separatists. Sending weapons won't change anything in the conflict, except make it more violent and cause even more deaths.

Because it will make the Russians use higher end gear to maintain their current level of effectiveness. It will make Russia shift to more expensive operations.

All of which makes it much more expensive for Russia to continue fething around inside another country, which makes it more likely they'll cut their losses sooner and bug out, or alternatively carry on, but see a much bigger price tag which means Russia won't do anything like this any time soon.

The very first thing to understand about Russia is that they have an economy with all the might of silly putty. For all their ambitions, they cannot afford a quagmire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Indeed... that's quite a bit of a policy change there.

*edit: Although, I find it weird they're calling it "defensive" weapons... javelins and sniper rifles defensive? o.O

Don't think tactically, think operationally. If Russians are coming at you, then javelins and sniper rifles will be effective in stopping Russian advances. But if you want to undertake an offensive operation, then javelins and sniper rifles will have limited use, because what you'd really want for an effective offensive operation is armoured vehicles, airpower etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
North Vietnam knew it was not going to be invaded, which is what allowed them to continue to fight for so long, the Russians could feasibly overrun Ukraine in a week or two, there really is no geographical barrier to stop them save for the Dnieper which the Russians should be tactically proficient enough to not be halted by.

It's really weird that a whole conversation about Russia occupying Ukraine was kicked off by noting Vietnam was much harder for the US because the US wasn't going in to North Vietnam... but in that conversation no-one noted that there were strong geo-political reasons that the US didn't expand operation in to North Vietnam, and Russia has reasons ten times greater to avoid escalating their operation in Ukraine and turning it in to a clear war of expansion. Russia is an economic poopstain right now, and while there's a big list of institutional and cultural failings causing that, the existing sanction regime is also playing a big part. But that effect has been achieved with what is only a small sanctions regime, if Russia was to straight up ignore international boundaries without even the pretenses used in Crimea and the Ukraine invasion so far, you'd see an immediate end to all trade. Russia would fall to pieces.

So no, Russia is not going to drive tank columns at Kiev.

 Ouze wrote:
This should have happened years ago.

I cant believe people are still pro-intervention, I thought people would had smarted up over these last 40 years.

Are you sure you are not getting paid for this?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You know how the world works, right? Weapons cost money. Missiles cost a huge lot of money. Even if you get the resources for free, you still need to pay people.

Do you know how the world works? The US pretty much finances Israel's entire military. They come to the US begging for cash every few years or so, congress sends them money, and in turn they buy a lot of US weapons.

We've given away all sorts of weapons. Its a form of charity I guess.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This should have happened years ago.

I cant believe people are still pro-intervention, I thought people would had smarted up over these last 40 years.

Are you sure you are not getting paid for this?

That damn pro-intervention. If we had learned our lesson about it, just think about how great and powerful ISIS would be right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You know how the world works, right? Weapons cost money. Missiles cost a huge lot of money. Even if you get the resources for free, you still need to pay people.

Do you know how the world works? The US pretty much finances Israel's entire military. They come to the US begging for cash every few years or so, congress sends them money, and in turn they buy a lot of US weapons.

We've given away all sorts of weapons. Its a form of charity I guess.

We provide roughly 3.6 billion a year to Israel. Their own military budget it almost 19 billion. We don't "finance Israels entire military". Sure, we give them quite a bit, but lets slow down the hyperbole train a bit.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This should have happened years ago.

Agreed. I'm hesitant to say so, but this will probably one of the things that the Trump administration will be able to look back proudly on.

I agree with both of you. This is a necessary, long overdue step and credit to the Trump admin for taking this step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why? It changes nothing. The US will never be able to provide anything that Russia will not also provide to the separatists. Sending weapons won't change anything in the conflict, except make it more violent and cause even more deaths.

Because it will make the Russians use higher end gear to maintain their current level of effectiveness. It will make Russia shift to more expensive operations.

All of which makes it much more expensive for Russia to continue fething around inside another country, which makes it more likely they'll cut their losses sooner and bug out, or alternatively carry on, but see a much bigger price tag which means Russia won't do anything like this any time soon.

The very first thing to understand about Russia is that they have an economy with all the might of silly putty. For all their ambitions, they cannot afford a quagmire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Indeed... that's quite a bit of a policy change there.

*edit: Although, I find it weird they're calling it "defensive" weapons... javelins and sniper rifles defensive? o.O

Don't think tactically, think operationally. If Russians are coming at you, then javelins and sniper rifles will be effective in stopping Russian advances. But if you want to undertake an offensive operation, then javelins and sniper rifles will have limited use, because what you'd really want for an effective offensive operation is armoured vehicles, airpower etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
North Vietnam knew it was not going to be invaded, which is what allowed them to continue to fight for so long, the Russians could feasibly overrun Ukraine in a week or two, there really is no geographical barrier to stop them save for the Dnieper which the Russians should be tactically proficient enough to not be halted by.

It's really weird that a whole conversation about Russia occupying Ukraine was kicked off by noting Vietnam was much harder for the US because the US wasn't going in to North Vietnam... but in that conversation no-one noted that there were strong geo-political reasons that the US didn't expand operation in to North Vietnam, and Russia has reasons ten times greater to avoid escalating their operation in Ukraine and turning it in to a clear war of expansion. Russia is an economic poopstain right now, and while there's a big list of institutional and cultural failings causing that, the existing sanction regime is also playing a big part. But that effect has been achieved with what is only a small sanctions regime, if Russia was to straight up ignore international boundaries without even the pretenses used in Crimea and the Ukraine invasion so far, you'd see an immediate end to all trade. Russia would fall to pieces.

So no, Russia is not going to drive tank columns at Kiev.

1. Under what kind of rock are you living? Russia's economy is actually doing just fine (well, relatively fine for Russian standards at least). Russia's economy is growing (at a faster rate than most Western countries, actually) and the economical issues currently pale in comparison to the last recession in 2009. All the sanctions have done is maybe slowing economic growth a bit, and even that is debatable since the sanctions coincided with a drop in oil prices and Russia was already in an economic drop anyway. For evidence of just how little impact sanctions have, take a look at Kazakhstan. It is facing exactly the same problems and patterns as Russia, but is not under any kind of sanction. How could that be? As a matter of fact, the embargo that Russia itself imposed on Western countries did a lot more to hurt the Russian economy than Western sanctions did... And the idea that all trade would end if Russia got into a full war with Ukraine? That is absolute bullgak. Most of the countries in the world wouldn't even care about it, and a lot of countries that do aren't going to be willing to cripple their own economy. Nobody in the Kremlin is going to lose sleep over potential Western sanctions. On the contrary, they will probably laugh at it. Now oil prices... that is a completely different story. If the US wants to hurt the Russian economy, it can't do so through sanctions. It should find a way to artificially keep oil prices really low.
But finally, whether economy grows or not, it does not matter. Russia's behaviour is not going to change anyway. This is not just any country we are talking about. This is Russia. If you think economical considerations are ultimately important to the Russian leadership, then you do not know the country well. Here, read this: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/why-economic-growth-doesnt-matter-in-russia-36703.
2. Russia's support to the Ukrainian rebels barely costs anything at all. Russia could supply an entire army worth of weapons to them without spending more than a few rubles. The modern Russian army is only a shade of what it was. But the Red Army left it with what probaly is probably the biggest stockpile of weapons in the entire world. And unlike in Ukraine, in Russia the equipment in stockpiles is actually being maintained to a degree. This is why Russia has been handing out weapons like candy even in the periods that the economy tanked. Also, in general Russia does not suffer the same huge financial costs the US does for its military operations due to being able to buy equipment for vastly lower prices, having much lower wages and not often operating far away, thus vastly reducing logistics costs. Basically, the Russian military can do a lot on a very limited budget. Military operations are not a big drain on the Kremlin's finances, so that is never going to be a deterrent for intervening in Ukraine. A far more effective deterrent is the horrible state that Ukraine is in. Ukraine is extremely poor and its infrastructure is all in a really bad state. Re-integrating Crimea with Russia was and is still a big drain on the Kremlin's treasury. Imagine the costs for re-integrating all of Ukraine or even Novorossiya with Russia. It would be devastating. So no, Russia is indeed not going to be sending tank columns to Kiev, not unless the situation drastically changes. But it is not because Russia would not be able to handle the costs of a war, but because Russia would not be able to handle the costs that a victory would bring. A Russian victory in a war with Ukraine would make Pyrrus' victory at Asculum seem worthwhile. It would bankrupt Russia (if you read the article I linked to, it mentioned at the end that the whole economic system of Russia may one day collapse. Well, this would be a thing that very well could make it collapse). That is why the Kremlin is going to maintain a frozen war there. It gets them the leverage over Ukraine they need without the financial burdens.

 djones520 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You know how the world works, right? Weapons cost money. Missiles cost a huge lot of money. Even if you get the resources for free, you still need to pay people.

Do you know how the world works? The US pretty much finances Israel's entire military. They come to the US begging for cash every few years or so, congress sends them money, and in turn they buy a lot of US weapons.

We've given away all sorts of weapons. Its a form of charity I guess.

We provide roughly 3.6 billion a year to Israel. Their own military budget it almost 19 billion. We don't "finance Israels entire military". Sure, we give them quite a bit, but lets slow down the hyperbole train a bit.

Yeah, and I think KTG did not understand my statement properly. The US is a able to spend a lot of money on its and Israel's military, because it has a lot of money. And Israel can put those weapons it gets from the US to good use, because it has the money it needs to do so. Ukraine on the other hand doesn't have money at all, so is not able to spend a lot of money on its military. So even if the US would be gifting nuclear missiles to Ukraine for free (which is extremely unlikely), Ukraine would have trouble maintaining the equipment, getting proper launch facilities and training all the people needed. The same goes for pretty much all other weapons as well. You can give Ukraine as much free weapons as you want, but that is not going to solve Ukraine's military problems. For those to be solved, the entire country would need to change.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think that only applies if the tank has working weaponry. If the tank's weaponry is all rendered inert I don't think there is any special licenses required in the US to have the actual tank. You'll probably need a special class Driver's License to drive it on the street, but not to own it specifically.

Since the discussion was specifically about operational tanks...

 Grey Templar wrote:

The weaponry itself would be registered as either a Class IV Destructive Device or Automatic Weapons as appropriate. Each round of main gun ammo is also individually considered a Class IV Destructive Device in addition to the gun.

This is where it gets weird. One it's all Class 3, not 4 (any artillery is a destructive device due to bore size rather than explosive charge). the individual rounds, however, may or may not be subject to Class 3. Something like APDS does not contain an explosive charge greater than 1/4th an ounce (since the propellant is not itself considered a bomb, grenade, or rocket, and in many states you can own ungodly amounts of it, as long as it's properly stored, etc). Now if it's something like HESH or HEAT, then you have a round that needs to be registered.


Also, more saber rattling between Ukraine and Russia:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42741778

Can it be considered that officially Ukraine is at war with Russia?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Can it be considered that officially Ukraine is at war with Russia?

Why? I thought there were no Russian forces in the Ukraine?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Can it be considered that officially Ukraine is at war with Russia?

Well, Ukraine seems to think so.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Can it be considered that officially Ukraine is at war with Russia?

No, since under treaty that would mean that the United States was at war with Russia, and no one wants that. So most likely Russia will remain at peace with the Ukraine, while it's army is on vacation there.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Well, Ukraine seems to think so.

Well, not technically, since 125% of the population voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

I think you would be a bad neighbor collecting tanks in your yard and driveway

Actually I generally don't keep tanks at my house, I have a facility for that. There was a time that the local gang bangers thought they were hot gak and strafed my house. I parked my AMX 13 in the driveway for a few days s and I think they got the hint.

And the TEL is a wheeled vehicle, not a tracked one, so it's more like a very big truck.

Was that before or after you beat up Marines and SEALs three and four at a time?

Relapse wrote:

Was that before or after you beat up Marines and SEALs three and four at a time?

Yes, it's been too long since I was reminded that I used to be a violent drunk. And they were not all at once (two marines was a personal best, and I think they were pretty drunk too), that was a running tally of people who I had pissed off enough that they took a shot at me and then failed (There are advantages of being over six foot and over 300 pounds at the time). And as i pointed out, it did lead to five guys holding me down while a sixth beat my ass. (and that guy from Boxer? He was the ultimate winner, since now he's married to my sister, despite me having beat the gak out of him TWICE)



Now that we've had our stroll down memory lane, do you have something germane to add to this discussion or did you just stop in to annoy me? Because right now I'm enjoying working without pay during the government shutdown since I'm 'essential' and don't get to enjoy a furlough, paid or otherwise, so I'm really easily annoyed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Was that before or after you beat up Marines and SEALs three and four at a time?

Yes, it's been too long since I was reminded that I used to be a violent drunk. And they were not all at once (two marines was a personal best, and I think they were pretty drunk too), that was a running tally of people who I had pissed off enough that they took a shot at me and then failed (There are advantages of being over six foot and over 300 pounds at the time). And as i pointed out, it did lead to five guys holding me down while a sixth beat my ass. (and that guy from Boxer? He was the ultimate winner, since now he's married to my sister, despite me having beat the gak out of him TWICE)

Pft... That is nothing. I beat up a marine when I was only seven years old. The idiot ruffled my hair...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Pft... That is nothing. I beat up a marine when I was only seven years old. The idiot ruffled my hair...

Eh, most of this was about 20 years ago, and I was an donkey-cave who hung around Camp Pendleton and talked a lot of gak and started a lot of fights.. Relapse likes to bring it up to try and needle me into derailing threads, so lets try and stay On Topic.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Was that before or after you beat up Marines and SEALs three and four at a time?

Yes, it's been too long since I was reminded that I used to be a violent drunk. And they were not all at once (two marines was a personal best, and I think they were pretty drunk too), that was a running tally of people who I had pissed off enough that they took a shot at me and then failed (There are advantages of being over six foot and over 300 pounds at the time). And as i pointed out, it did lead to five guys holding me down while a sixth beat my ass. (and that guy from Boxer? He was the ultimate winner, since now he's married to my sister, despite me having beat the gak out of him TWICE)



Now that we've had our stroll down memory lane, do you have something germane to add to this discussion or did you just stop in to annoy me? Because right now I'm enjoying working without pay during the government shutdown since I'm 'essential' and don't get to enjoy a furlough, paid or otherwise, so I'm really easily annoyed.

Dont worry, you will get paid when the Gub'ment passes the bill, just in arrears, still sux. I am also "essential" so feeling you there.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Dont worry, you will get paid when the Gub'ment passes the bill, just in arrears, still sux. I am also "essential" so feeling you there.

Yeah, I know, the boss repeatedly explained that to us. And then skipped town when the CR didn't go through, so no idea if he's gonna be there tomorrow.

man, this thread sure segued from Ukraine stuff to "my dad can beat up your dad" to, inexplicably, the US government shutdown.

 Ouze wrote:
man, this thread sure segued from Ukraine stuff to "my dad can beat up your dad" to, inexplicably, the US government shutdown.

wait till we get to the Patriots bashing and the evil Eagles fans

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Can it be considered that officially Ukraine is at war with Russia?

No, since under treaty that would mean that the United States was at war with Russia, and no one wants that. So most likely Russia will remain at peace with the Ukraine, while it's army is on vacation there.

Forgive my ignorance but to which treaty do you refer, good sir?

This one

In a nutshell, The US, Russia, and UK offered protection for Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in exchange for giving up their nukes. At the time Ukraine had what was estimated to be the 3rd largest stockpile of nukes in the world.

So when someone threatens their sovereignty, the UN is supposed to immediately come to the defense of those nations. Issue being, one of the nations that signed the treaty (Russia) decided to allow their troops to go on leave in Ukraine, with their gear...

Thanks. It would certainly seem Russia is in violation of that (The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances).

For the sake of discussion, I'll point out that the Analysis section of the wiki you link to states that "it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties." It goes on to say that neither clinton or bush wanted to give a military commitment "so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms."

It says that the Assurances in the Budapest Memorandum were a bundle of assurances Ukraine "already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, United Nations Charter and Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Seems like it might be an agreement with no teeth, signed halfheartedly by everyone but the Ukranians, who are literally stuck in the middle.

Yup... it's not a treaty where the participant are obligated to swoop in and save Ukraine.

Ukraine should've demanded NATO admission in lieu of giving up their nukes...

 whembly wrote:
Yup... it's not a treaty where the participant are obligated to swoop in and save Ukraine.

Ukraine should've demanded NATO admission in lieu of giving up their nukes...

I’m guessing the theory was if the US and Russia both agreed “defend” Ukraine in case of someone (not that anyone else could/would) attacking, they didn’t need NATO. Plus they still had the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, making them ineligible for NATO membership.

 whembly wrote:
Yup... it's not a treaty where the participant are obligated to swoop in and save Ukraine.

Ukraine should've demanded NATO admission in lieu of giving up their nukes...

Ukraine was not in a position to demand anything. It was not an equal treaty in any way. Also, Ukraine at the time had no interest in joining NATO. Up until the coup of 2014, Ukraine always tried to maintain good relations with both the West and Russia. Joining NATO would have been counter to their foreign policy. Not to mention the legal and practical obstacles to Ukraine joining NATO there were and still are.