World News

32308 readers

855 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

199

Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Western-made armor is failing in Ukraine because it wasn't designed to sustain a conflict of this intensity, a military analyst told The Wall Street Journal.

Taras Chmut, a military analyst who's the head of the Come Back Alive Foundation, which has raised money to purchase and provide arms and equipment to Ukraine, said that "a lot of Western armor doesn't work here because it had been created not for an all-out war but for conflicts of low or medium intensity."

"If you throw it into a mass offensive, it just doesn't perform," he said.

Chmut went on to say Ukraine's Western allies should instead turn their attention to delivering simpler and cheaper systems, but in larger quantities, something Ukraine has repeatedly requested, the newspaper reported.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First of all a "military peer" just means a nation that has similar military capabilities/power as oneself. And right now China is the only military peer to NATO, that is just a fact.

Second China is also positioning itself as a military adversary to NATO and its allies in many ways. And that is not the interpretation of "congress", that is geopolitical reality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

China lacks capability to project power basically anywhere. Their north is covered by Russia (lol) and Mongolia (neutral and without significant marginal value). Their south is a dense jungle that's basically impossible to properly invade (see: Vietnam, Korea, Vietnam 2). Their southwest is boxed in by the Himalayas that are literally the world's biggest wall. Invading the west would basically be asking for ETIM 2. Invading over the ocean to the east is essentially impossible, and going from that straight into a densely-forested mountain or densely-populated city is even less possible.

China has no ways of being a military adversary because they, by geography, have no offensive options. The only thing China can feasibly go after is unpopulated "land" that's basically free to claim.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know the US is flanked on either side by oceans? Literally invading over an ocean is a thing we have been doing for over 100 years at this point.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, how's that worked out?

Pulled out of Korea, pulled out of Vietnam, pulled out of Iraq, pulled out of Afghanistan.

The US achieves nothing through its invasions except (when successful) overthrowing a government and allowing a more corrupt and despotic government to take it's place. Why would China want to do that?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, we didn't pull out because it was impossible to wage a war there. We pulled out because it became clear that we can't win the hearts and minds of a populace by bombing them into the stone age.

War has never been a problem for the US. Understanding local customs, elevating popular representative leaders and providing resources for reconstruction... that's typically been the weak point.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, we didn’t pull out because it was impossible to wage a war there.

We pulled out because it became clear that we can’t win the hearts and minds of a populace by bombing them into the stone age.

Said right in the same paragraph without a hint of irony

War isn't about killing people, it is about achieving strategic objectives. The former is literally how the nazis viewed warfare and was antiquated back then.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, glad to hear you think war isn't about killing people. What a nice little world you live in.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

War involves killing people, the goal of war isn't to kill people. Do i need to explain the difference between a method and a goal?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's like saying you don't have to be good at kicking a ball to play soccer, since the goal is to just get the ball in the net.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

No, that's like saying if you can only kick you're not going to be good at getting the ball in.