Tanks and trenches to defend Ukraine from Russia

The Telegraph ^ | 17 Mar 2014 | Damien McElroy, Donetsk

[McGruff]

Ukraine despatched tanks into the rolling terrain of the Donbas basin on Monday, putting its biggest guns back on the scene of the biggest armoured clash in history.

It was in this bleak but fertile landscape along what is now Ukraine's border with Russia that the Red Army routed Nazi Panzers to turn the course of the Second World War.

But as Ukraine's dilapidated tank units moved to muddy berms in the fields south of Donetsk city as part of face-saving mobilisation, the guns of T-64 and T-72 models were this time pointed towards Russia.

In responding to a reported Russian military build-up, however, Ukraine's military immediately ran into groups of activists who tried to obstruct their movements. In the village of Elenvola on the edge of the great plain, there was anger at the manoeuvres from their own countrymen.

"Russians and Ukrainians don't want to fight each other," said Ivan Inozemev, a prison warder. "We would be happy to be part of Russia if that's what happens."

[dfwgator]

Actually, no. In 1994, Clinton signed a trilateral treaty with Ukraine and Russia that stripped Ukraine of all modern weapons in return for the promise that the U.S. would protect their borders and the Russians would “respect” their territory. Obviously, the only entity that observed the treaty was Ukraine, because both the U.S. and Russia lied.

Idiots to trust Clinton like that.

[Vermont Lt]

And what would YOU do if you were commanding 5,000 tankers and infantry?

Please tell me how you would protect them from the latest generation fighter bombers? How would protect them from modern tanks with modern night fighting capabilities.

After your 5,000 men are turned into 2,000 men, what will you do then? They will not get out. They will be “captured” by the Russians. How did that work out for the Germans?

They will surrender the 5,000 or move them. They will cede Eastern Ukraine. Then they will beg NATO for membership.

[Girlene]

Successful military planning starts a lot earlier than two-weeks ago. Here’s a clear case of not taking a knife to a gunfight.

Well, sometimes all you have is a knife.

[grania]

You miaunderstood Hypothetically, deporting Mexicans from TX would lead to Mexico declaring that they need protection, then invading with troops.

They're already an invasion force, and they haven't needed formal troops. If the Mexicans are that numerous in the area and unassimilated, the answer is yes. Besides which, it's not the same. The Mexicans have a better life as part of the US, and they're not living under a government installed by coup.

The answer before these hypotheticals happen is like I said to put our troops on our southern border and send home the invaders before they cause our downfall. Look at history....bringing in cheap labor didn't work out real well for ancient Rome.

[Girlene]

You're both very cavalier with other people's lives...

I could say you're very cavalier with their freedom.

[1rudeboy]

I was responding to your earlier assertion, please don’t move the goalposts.

[Portcall24]

OK. Let’s put that on their tombstone.

[yldstrk]

yes, Lt, it is a real damn bad deal

I don’t know what I would do, but surrendering wouldn’t be in my lexicon

[ken5050]

Your question doesn't describe the situation correctly. The Ukrainian tanks are lost, either destroyed by the Russians, destroyed by their own troops, or captured by the Russians. That's a given. A tank, today, in the open, without air support, is like a target duck in a shooting gallery. Dead. The question is, do you throw away several thousand of your best troops, or pull them out to fight an unconventional war.

It's easy for you, and others, to speak of "what would you do if we had the same situation here..?" Grand gestures usually accomplish nothing, except they cost lives..Another strategy is to pull them back..cede land..to fight in another place, at another time..

[grania]

Seriously? US diplomats were out there handing out cookies to protestors. It was a violent revolution, and didn't stop with the promise of early elections. We have US Senators enabling the coup-installed gov and saying voting is illegitimate. And look at now. The US has clearly sided against a popular vote.

We should not be supporting in any way coups that take over governments. It has nothing to do with what we're supposed to believe in. That would be the ballot box.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“and any general who sends them in should be shot.”

That sounds like the words of people fighting for freedom.

[bigdaddy45]

Real easy to say from your desk. Trenches and tanks are a suicide mission that won’t secure anyone’s freedom.

[ken5050]

Oh, please..if you want to have a rational discussion, we can do so..if not..just go away. Send someone else your idiotic comments.

The Ukrainians have THREE choices:

1. Let their tanks, and troops get destroyed, and killed.

2. Destroy their armor, pull the troops back..fight an unconventional war against the Russians.

3. Pull the tanks back. Trade land for time.

OK, Einstein, what would you do?

[jjsheridan5]

You don’t get it ... You think it will all be alright, that the Soviets aren’t on the march.

Did I ever say any such thing? No. It is pointless to discuss something with someone who simply makes crap up.

But they are and there is nothing to stop them. You think they are going to exercise self restraint?

Nobody knows at this point. There is a strategic advantage for Russia to have a politically divided (and therefore politically paralyzed) Ukraine. With their economic leverage, they can keep Ukraine as it was -- a valuable buffer state between themselves and NATO. A federation leaving a pro-Russian eastern Ukraine would make some strategic sense. But they have many options available to them. They are quite smart, and do not necessarily follow the comic-book level thinking displayed by the "the commies are on the march" crowd.

Should they go after the heart of Ukraine, they will find themselves entangled in a morass. They may decide it is worth it, but I doubt it. Ukraine is a large, well-populated country, and any long-term resistance would be well supplied from the west. Russia also has to think about the economic implications. While they are richer than they were, they are not a rich country. A prolonged, expensive conflict/occupation would carry with it the risk of losing everything that they have gained over the last decade.

Personally, I think that they will decide that the costs aren't worth it, and will look to keep an internally divided Ukraine as a buffer state. But if they decide that Ukraine is gone, and no amount of economic leverage can keep them from becoming part of Europe, then they may indeed look to take a much bigger chunk than just the Crimea. In that case, Ukraine's best bet is to make occupation as painful as possible. Throwing out a suicidal trip-wire, however, does more harm than good.

[Girlene]

Russians are protecting Russians in an area that is historically Russian. The US should be defending our border with Mexico from the invasion and the impact it’s having on US citizens.

By your logic, Mexico should invade California and protect it's former territory of Las Californias. They would be protecting Mexicans in an area that was historically Mexican.

[HereInTheHeartland]

They said the same thing about the American colonists going up against the mighty British; the most powerful force on earth at the time.

[ken5050]

Cheap comments...no basis in fact..you can’t compare the military situation, strategically, or tactically, to a Revolutionary war battlefield..You have absolutely no idea what modern weapons can do. Tell you what, I’ll put you out in a tank, in the open....no air support, and let’s see what you do when the Russian send a few anti-tank missile in your direction

[Colonel_Flagg]

Of course it’s easy for me to ask, but I notice you didn’t answer my question.

It’s their country. If they wish to defend it in the manner of their choosing, that is certainly their right. Would you do the same?

[Girlene]

The fight for freedom is never without tombstones.

[Vermont Lt]

Mine either. I would be getting my folks ready to bug out. And bug out fast.

So far, no one has been killed.

In this “war”, if the Ukrainians are retreating quickly, I don’t think the Russians are going to shoot them.

However, the Russians might think that they should leave their equipment.

THAT kind of humiliation will not serve the Russians well. Slaughter would not serve them well either.

The Ukrainians probably never thought they would be sitting out there with their trousers around their ankles.

I feel bad for those guys.