Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy MAGAtard is Right Again
pawz
Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 20,999 
No business in UKR. We? could have stopped it and didn’t.
#MyTulsi
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoZmcgdjDpt/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
#MyTulsi
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoZmcgdjDpt/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Comments
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/truth-about-tanks-how-nato-lied-its-way-disaster-ukraine
Truth About Tanks: How NATO Lied Its Way To Disaster In Ukraine
BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, FEB 07, 2023 - 11:00 PM
Authored by Scott Ritter,
Tank warfare has evolved. The large force-on-force armored battles that were the hallmark of much of WWII, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, which served as the foundation of operational doctrine for both NATO and the Soviet Union (and which was implemented in full by the United States during Operation Desert Storm in 1991), has run its course.
Like most military technological innovations, the ability to make a modern main battle tank survivable has been outstripped by the fielding of defensive systems designed to overcome such defenses. If a modern military force attempted to launch a large-scale tank-dominated attack against a well-equipped peer-level opponent armed with modern anti-tank missiles, the result would be a decisive defeat for the attacking party marked by the smoking hulks of burned-out tanks.
Ukraine’s commander in chief of the Armed Forces, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, told The Economist last month that he needed 300 tanks, 500 infantry fighting vehicles, and 500 artillery pieces, if he were going to have any chance of defeating [Russia]...
Following the January 20 meeting of the Ramstein Contact Group, and subsequent follow-on discussions about the provision of tanks, NATO and its allied partners have agreed to provide less than 50% of the number of tanks requested, less than 50% of the number of infantry fighting vehicles requested, and less than 20% of the artillery requested.
Moreover, the timetable for delivery of this equipment is staggered incoherently over a period that stretches out for many months, and in some cases extends into the next year. Not only does this complicate training and logistical sustainability issues that are already unfavorably inclined for Ukraine, but it makes any meaningful effort to integrate this material into a cohesive operational employment plan all but impossible. In short, Ukraine will be compelled to commit the equipment provided—especially the tanks—into combat in piecemeal fashion.
The truth about tanks is that NATO and its allied nations are making Ukraine weaker, not stronger, by providing them with military systems that are overly complicated to operate, extraordinarily difficult to maintain, and impossible to survive unless employed in a cogent manner while supported by extensive combined arms partners.
The decision to provide Ukraine with Western main battle tanks is, literally, a suicide pact, something those who claim they are looking out for the best interests of Ukraine should consider before it is too late.