False point. We are to believe Ukrainians, who have shown themselves intelligent, adaptable, resourceful and quick to grasp the possibilities of technology, cannot learn enough to use missile systems available to NATO.
It is a serious flaw in the argument. It is so bizarre as to be crazy.
Maybe it would take a couple months to train Ukrainians. I doubt it.
These are the same weapons they already had and have been using for two years. The argument makes no sense at all. The only question is whether or not the US will continue to restrict their ability to hit targets in Russia.
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Answer to a media question | Putin answered a question from a media representative. [Media blackout on key part of Putin's statement], marktwain wrote: |
| The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. False point. We are to believe Ukrainians, who have shown themselves intelligent, adaptable, resourceful and quick to grasp the possibilities of technology, cannot learn enough to use missile systems available to NATO. It is a serious flaw in the argument. It is so bizarre as to be crazy. Maybe it would take a couple months to train Ukrainians. I doubt it. |
My answer is inside the response to Petrosius below.
| In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Why Ukraine wants to use Western long-range missiles inside Russia, Petrosius wrote: |
| ATACAMS were given to Ukraine, likely operated by Westerners, What is your evidence for this? We train our own military personnel to operate them. Why could we not train Ukrainians? ransomnote: Haven't you been following the F-16 saga? First problem in training pilots was to find pilots who spoke English well enough to understand the training. Analysts have been saying all along that we can't really say the US is not involved on the ground given the technology we've shipped there. It sounds like you think the Pentagon gave up control of the equipement - this is not true. For example, if Russia takes over a missile site operating in the Ukraine, they can't use the ATACAMS against the West or against th Ukraine. These things are controlled. but were first programmed to limit their distance. And you know this, how? News articles. I think that one includes a variety of sources, including an analysis done by Council on Foreign relations, or a similar name. The reason people are begging the US/UK to 'let' the Ukraine (via American operators) fire deep into Russia is that they need the West to change the programming and change orders originally given to the personnel. Even if true, all we would have to do is forward the programming. So you do think the Pentagon will up serious military technology and just decided to 'let the Ukraine do what it wants?' Have you seen what they did in Kursk and Zaporozhna? (attack nuclear power plants). No, the Pentagon still controls the hardware. If the Ukraine could fire them without US operation, they definitely would have done so by now. And risk further aid? That would be suicidal. They are portraying the lack of firing deep into Russia as 'suicidal'. Clearly no one was thinking in the Ukraine when they launched the Kursk offensive. Zelensky's intellect, knowledge, wisdom and self control are below basement levels. No the Pentagon won't hand Zelensky the more serious technology to do with what he will. You are presuming a lot without any evidence. I don't believe the Pentagon trusts Zelensky to handle military hardware like long range ATACAMS. Our military wouldn't even know the names of people tasked with firing them if we gave the Ukraine control. The Ukraine sold other weapons to ISIS and other countries - we're not putting ATACAMS in the mix. I don't believe it's just the Ukraine - you don't let loose technology in a contested area (i.e., do we want the Russians to take and use them?) |