Curator of Excellent Takes
- Reaction score
I think the salient point about the Abrams transfer is that the tanks will not be arriving for 2 years minimum. The US obviously knows these tanks will not be part of winning the current fight, but could be part of a larger effort to turn Ukraine into a very unattractive path for any future Russian adventures west after this war is over.I agree with most of what you posted, just have to point out that the 31 Abrams tanks that we are providing, while being built brand new (that were originally slated for Taiwan or Poland), are of the older armor variant. That's the reason they are being built from scratch because what we have in our arsenal is too advanced (depleted uranium composite) to allow Russia to get their hands on (although their T14s reportedly have more advanced armor).
Abrams article link
I know that the UK has vowed to provide fighter jet training, but I haven't seen anything about Western jets to Ukraine yet. I have some opinions on that if it happens, but I'll leave it alone.
As far as fighter jets go, word on the street is that the UK and US have determined the F-16 is a poor choice for Ukraine due to the high costs of maintenance and their reliance on pristine Western airfields for take off. The alternative being talked about behind closed doors is the transfer of a large number of Eurofighter Typhoons from Western Europe that will then potentially be backfilled by F-16s. Make no mistake, the allies know that the transfer of these high profile weapons systems (and the training required to operate/ maintain them) are very long term plays and I believe it lends credence to my hypothesis that the west wants to build the Ukrainian military into a juggernaut that can serve as a buffer between NATO and Russia.
All of this is informed speculation on my part though so take it with a grain of salt.
I think the key difference is that Russia has shown a willingness to endlessly attempt to grab former soviet territory which could put NATO partners like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland in danger. The ongoing deluge of Russian rhetoric surrounding future expansion is also not helping. Add this along with the fact that they may actually be in the early phases of a potential Moldovan destabilization op and it becomes more concerning due to its potential to spill over into Romania. NATO has never launched a large ground offensive in Europe and generally is not eyeing Russian territory as a target for future expansion. The Russians also made it very clear at the onset of this conflict that their goal was to subjugate the entirety of Ukraine (even if formal annexation would have only occurred in the east).The same can be said about Russia's intention to take over the entirety of Ukraine and beyond. "They're not going to stop" has been the rallying cry from the Western Politicians to garner support. The 'ole trope of "if we don't fight them in their lands, we'll have to fight them at home".
Whoever "wins" in Ukraine is going to have a hot mess on their hands to rebuild. IMO, the real loser in the end will be the Ukrainians. They're either going to be subjugated to Russian rule or indebted beyond belief to the West and who knows how much more of their land is going to get "acquired" by private foreign entities.
I also believe that nations run by a strongman and his immediate circle are much more unpredictable and tend to be more prone to erratic decision making when compared to a large coalition of democratic nations. I believe that both sides are guilty of wrong doing (Kosovo anyone?) but I believe Russia is much more likely to trigger a crisis than NATO is based on the current geopolitical situation.
While I think that a NATO invasion of Russia or vice-versa is very unlikely to occur, I think it is almost undeniable that Russia (at least under its current regime) is significantly more likely to initiate such a conflict for the reasons I mentioned above.