• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.

    Possibly, but some of the new technologies would be considered extremely provocative by Russia if we supplied them to Ukraine. We are already treading a very fine line with involvement in this conflict, and being accused of using Ukraine to fight a proxy war (though mostly by people who have a vested interest in Russia/Putin winning the war).

    We have been supplying the Javelin antitank system in large quantities, to great effect. This is relatively easy because it’s quick to train a soldier to use and it can just be disposed of if broken or out of ammo.

    It’s important that we not send them equipment that they can’t operate, supply or maintain. For instance we didn’t send them any modern US-built fighter jets because they don’t have pilots trained to fly them, a supply chain for spare parts, or mechanics trained to fix them. Ultimately, logistics matters more than having the latest and greatest tech (logistics has been absolutely wrecking Russia’s battlefield effectiveness).

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What is there to “provoke”? This is an extremely clear cut case of a violation of international law. They started a war, annexed a significant portion of the country, committed countless atrocities. Why should we act like this is somehow not a reason to wipe the current leadership off the political map?

      Putin won’t use nuclear weapons and he can’t realistically escalate the war. Every minute we let this war drag on, kills people. Not sending the most useful weapons is just inhumane at this point.

      • InvaderDJ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Putin won’t use nuclear weapons and he can’t realistically escalate the war.

        That’s a huge bet to make. The whole point of nuclear deterrence is so nuclear powers don’t think to directly engage each other in any serious way. No one is anxious to call a nuclear bluff, especially since this is basically win or die for Putin.

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the thing - you don’t attack him at all, just his invasion. He himself may be suicidal, but do you think all his kronies will sacrifice literally everything for him? For what? Some Sunflower fields? There’s a reason hardly anyone from the Moscow/St. Petersburg region got drafted - that’s where his power base lives. As long as they are not threatened by his invasion, they will play along. But if his games cause them serious damage (which is decidedly not the case currently!), they will not play along anymore.

          I’m absolutely willing to call Putins bluff. He’s ultimately a coward and not that stupid. He won’t do it.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      When was the last effective Javelin strike? I thought that people have shifted towards using FPV drones to target armoured vehicles instead.

    • Genrawir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually mostly agree and was being a bit sarcastic. Training on newer systems is prohibitive anyway as you mentioned. Sending personell is clearly provocative and should be avoided. I just find the argument that the military industrial complex ran out of the bullets to help is laughable.

      Obviously, production increases with demand and lags it causing stockpiles to decrease until output increases. Hopefully the quoted assessment is talking about that dip and not a more serious problem.

      Really though, Russia knows the US is obligated to help. They signed the memorandum too, after all. It’s hard to argue with someone that does so in bad faith, but continuing aid is hardly a provocative act.