For a long time, the Ukrainians, and indeed we, cannot calm down after the decision of the West to transfer heavy tanks and other offensive equipment to Kyiv. For Ukraine, these are the next Bayraktars or Javelins. another miracle-weaponwhich will immediately turn the course of the war on its head. The Russians will be defeated, and Russia will fall apart from internal conflict or even civil war.
For us, such deliveries are just additional targets that will be destroyed by our artillery and VKS. Those who can think logically may not even read the performance characteristics and combat characteristics of these machines. It is enough to know the weakness inherent in any tank.
Reservation, no matter how hard the designers try, cannot be the same everywhere. To reduce the weight and design features of the vehicle, the top of the tank is armored much worse than in other places. Most of the additional protection systems were created specifically for the defense of the machine from above.
And now watch any video taken from the UAV, where you can see the destruction of any opornik or DRG of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But, look from a different angle. Not the work of the infantry or a particular gun, but the way gunners work. Alas, but, judging by the funnels, they do not invent anything new.
A long-thought-out tactic of the fire shaft. True, with some adjustments. During the Great Patriotic War, gunners could not afford to spend so many shells in a normal battle. Today, thanks to the workers and engineers of the defense industry, not often, but we can afford it.
That is, enemy tanks in any case, if they are not destroyed, they will be damaged, with a high probability - for sure. And given the huge problems with operation, repair, refueling, supply, even a slight damage turns a tank, especially American vehicles, into a pile of useless metal.
"The supply of tanks is a de facto declaration of war"...
Today, thanks to the huge information opportunities, the war largely depends on journalists and their "younger brothers" bloggers. Let me remind you of the "red lines", which, at the suggestion of the media, have become widely used by politicians. “Now, if you…, then we…” But this very “if” happens, and ... nothing happens in response.
We forgot history wars? The supply of weapons and even mercenaries and instructors never meant a declaration of war. The US and Europe have always done this. Yes, and the USSR, China and Russia too. And no one said that this was a declaration of war, participation in the war.
Even today, somewhere in Africa or Asia, we see how different sides use our, Chinese or Western weapons in civil wars. Exactly the same situation with instructors and mercenaries. The last ones are especially interesting. PMCs are fought by "people of the world", fighters representing many countries and peoples. At the same time, no one talks about the participation of different states in the war.
I expected that somewhere, in serious publications, another “red line” would appear in connection with the supply of tanks. But, to my "deep satisfaction", the era of "red lines" has passed. Otherwise, we would again have to reproach our government, the president, Minister Shoigu for not keeping our promise and not starting a world war.
Does anyone doubt that the issue of deliveries of aircraft and helicopters to Ukraine will be considered and positively resolved in the near future? I think there are few such optimists left. And someone doubts that foreigners, not Ukrainians, will sit in the cockpits of these aircraft? Again the "red line"?
We will again be told about the brilliant Ukrainian pilots, as now about the brilliant tankers who, in two or three months, master combat aircraft so much that they are able to fight with pilots or tankers who have been working on their machines for not months, but years. It is possible to “train” a fighter to use serious weapons in a couple of months, but whether this fighter is capable of fighting with such weapons is a big question.
Why is NATO "driving the wave"?
The story about the supply of tanks to Ukraine began to be untwisted by the Ukrainian and Western press for a long time. We "picked up" this topic much later. Just by tradition, as was the case with Turkish UAVs or American ATGMs, howitzers, and MLRS. The West's calculation was simple. Intimidate enemy soldiers and officers. Alas, at first we really experienced problems with this.
How many arms deliveries have already been made by NATO to Kyiv? How does it usually happen? No pump, running. We met at the military base. Listened to the requests of the APU. We discussed the possibilities and options for deliveries and issued a conclusion listing the weapons that will be delivered. Moreover, I have already written about this more than once, in many respects this decision is made after the fact. Weapons are already on the way to Ukraine or have already been delivered to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
By the way, in the case of tanks and other systems discussed in Ramstein, this scheme also works. German tanks, which were supposed to be delivered at the air base, were seen on the same day loaded onto platforms in Holland. And one of the armored vehicles, the supply of which was also discussed in Ramstein, was already shown by our military correspondents burned.
But rather quickly, the Russian army learned to work against all these advertised systems. It turned out that in many ways the West simply lied to the world about its own power, about its "super-efficient" weapons. Yes, according to some indicators, Western weapons are superior to ours, but in some respects they are inferior. And superiority is not critical at all. You can destroy these systems.
Today, Russian tankers quite often declare that they are waiting for these very Western tanks on the front line:
"Watch them burn"...
This is not the bravado of beardless youths. This is a completely conscious desire of warriors who have gone through more than one battle. Those who were blown up by mines, burned in wrecked cars, fought alone with several opponents.
I am sure that commanders are already conducting classes to study German and American tanks. Tank commanders and gunners are well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of these vehicles. Commanders of artillery units, UAV operators, VKS pilots and even ordinary grenade launchers in motorized rifle and airborne units do exactly the same.
We are waiting…
The fact that Ukraine needed tanks was already clear when the decision was made to train three corps of the Armed Forces of Ukraine at Western military bases. I also wrote about it. The 80-90 thousand people who will be trained in the West need weapons, including heavy ones. How they need and aviation.
The remnants of Soviet weapons that remained in the Eastern European countries will be delivered to brigades already battered at the front, and new corps, due to the lack of the required amount of Soviet weapons, must be armed with what has been decommissioned or stored in arsenals. That is, NATO junk.
Simply put, NATO continues the campaign to dispose of its obsolete weapons at the expense of Ukraine.
Will nuclear weapons be used?
Probably the most important question that I want to get an answer to is the question of the use of nuclear weapons in any of its variants. Most readers are educated enough people to understand how dangerous this weapon is, not so much at the time of use, but in the future. Losses at the time of its application are much less than they will become in the future.
Today we read a lot of materials about who and when can use nuclear weapons. From the American side, we are accused of this, from our side, respectively, the United States and NATO will be to blame. That is, our opponents will definitely use such weapons. For the Americans, it's us, for us, it's the Americans. Paradox?
In fact, the Americans are well aware that as long as they stand aloof from the conflict, I wrote about this at the beginning of the material, there is no need to be afraid of the use of our nuclear weapons. Supplies? So what? There is no direct participation in the war! Formally, they are right. The Pentagon is very careful to ensure that Russia does not have evidence of the direct participation of the American army in the conflict.
In order to understand US foreign policy at least at a primitive level, it is necessary to understand the mentality of the American political elite. Over the years of the existence of the two-party system, the ruling parties have become a kind of corporation. A sort of political monopoly concerns that pursue the policy that is necessary to maximize the profits of the corporation.
Hence the differences in the parties' approaches to foreign policy. The periods of President Trump and President Biden are very indicative in this respect. Yes, and today's statements by Trump fundamentally contradict Biden's statements. Trump speaks directly about the logic of supplying the same nuclear weapons in the future.
The corporate thinking of American politicians is expressed in the steps taken by the United States in foreign policy. Very often in our media the question is asked why American politicians do not understand simple things. Why does the USA often play "on the verge of a foul"?
Consider Washington's actions over the past year.
This is the usual way of dealing with competitors in business. Biden and his team understand everything perfectly. But, according to the tactics of competitive struggle, they are constantly probing the capabilities of the competitor and his willingness to respond to trial actions. Step forward and wait for an answer. No answer - next step.
The next step is always more serious than the previous one. Remember the first arms deliveries? Soviet weapons from the arsenals of the occupied countries. We are silent. Then European analogues of American small arms and small arms of European countries. We are silent. Further artillery systems and MLRS. We are silent again. And here are the tanks...
Will we answer? Will we strike at European bases or points of concentration of military assistance in countries bordering Ukraine? I doubt it very much. Our politicians are also well aware of what this will lead to. A global war will not lead to anything good. Even victory in such a war leads to huge losses in the economy in the long run.
Both we and the Americans will demonstrate our capabilities, but no one will "press the red button" without real danger to the country. We need to win in Ukraine. Win convincingly.
"Russia must disappear"
Continuing the theme of corporate thinking of American politicians, we have to destroy another myth that is very popular in Ukraine. The myth that Americans sleep and see Russia, consisting of small states that do not mean anything in international politics.
Yes, there is such a point of view in the USA. Moreover, the most notorious American politicians broadcast it quite often in their speeches. This is a public game. First of all, European and Ukrainian. If you want to hear it, listen. For the US corporation, this is not quite the desired outcome of the confrontation. There is a much better option.
What is the collapse of a rival corporation in terms of business? Victory? To some extent. But these are also problems associated with the costs of creating those industries that existed with a competitor, but were destroyed when he disappeared. It will be much more effective to absorb a competitor, to make him work for himself, using existing capacities!
From the point of view of the Americans, the ideal situation was created in the 90s. Russia with a fully controlled economy, weak militarily, politically weak-willed. Remember how fat then foreign companies. So far, they have not been completely eradicated. To this day, a huge part of the profits of our enterprises is flowing abroad.
So it is very doubtful that the US wants the collapse of our country. Weak and dependent Russia - yes. There are no pieces in which it will still be necessary to invest. And as a country that has the ability to mobilize a huge land army in the event of an aggravation of relations between the US and China, Russia is also interesting.
I think it is now clear why weapons are being handed over to Ukraine in strict doses. Exactly enough to make it impossible to defeat Kyiv, but it was also difficult to end the war. The fate of Ukraine is no longer interesting to the West.
The main task is to wear down Russia.
Naturally, the question of our future arises. What should we be afraid of and how should we react to the actions of opponents?
I think the question should be answered directly, without options.
We have nothing to fear!
Yes, there will be losses, there will be a danger of attacks on our cities and villages. There will be sanctions and everything else. Just don't be afraid anymore. It's too late to be afraid. There is no point in being afraid. What happened, happened. It is necessary to understand this. Understand and prepare countermeasures against Western intrigues.
After the Armed Forces of Ukraine receive completely ready corps, and these are twelve brigades in the corps and ten separate brigades in the composition of the IEDs, the Ukrainian army will become approximately equal in combat potential with the Russian one. She will not be able to attack, but she will be able to defend herself more effectively. This means that the fighting will last longer.
Many write to me that Ukraine and Europe are tired of the war. Let me disagree with this.
Society, any society, quickly adapts to wartime conditions. Have you noticed how interest in the events in Ukraine is disappearing in our society? How calmly do people talk about the war in Ukraine and Europe?
The war in Ukraine has become commonplace for the world today...