Will tanks be decisive in the upcoming Russian winter and spring offensives? I’m seeing opinions in both directions.
I doubt that the Leopard and M1 tanks will be decisive for reasons I’ve already given: their utility has been overstated, they may not be suitable to task, and, most importantly the enemy always has a vote.
Please persuade me I’m wrong.
The question is not answerable. Tanks are a tool, and how that tool is employed is what matters.
I assume they are to be used in some planned combined arms offensive.
That gets to a question on combined arms. Without air superiority, Ukraine is missing a critical part of “combined arms”.
So the question is what else beyond tanks will be given.
As you mentioned there have been some leaks that they will be getting some F-35s. There’s good news and bad news in that. It will probably take time to train pilots and crews.
F-16’s, not F-35’s (yet).
In the ultimate sense, whether tanks and figher jets or other weapons is decisive is dependent on the Russians.
If Putin and Russia are willing to use nuclear weapons (and most importantly initiate the use of nuclear weapons) — weapon deliveries can’t change the outcome that Ukraine will be a loser in the war. (Of course Russia and likely US/NATO will be too if nuclear weapons are used).
If Putin / Russia isn’t willing to counternance the use of nuclear weapons, then weapons deliveries could be decisive depending on the goals and any limitis internally imposed limits the US/NATO has on assisting the Ukrainians.
Russia can win this war using only conventional weapons. Because of mass emigration from Ukraine and its loss of territory, Russia’s population is nowadays about five times that of Ukraine’s, and it is younger. Russia’s manufacturing capability is quite large, substantially larger than Germany’s, and its resource base is the greatest in the world.
A large portion of the force Russia has in Ukraine is still the Wagner mercenaries and the Donbas militias.. Russia has over 500,000 troops sitting on the fringes of the war. This is largely an artillery war, and Russia has the most and most modern artillery and rocketry.
Our leaders are deluded to the point of actual insanity. Their current policy of continual escalation must inevitably lead to a large-scale general war in Europe and North America. The Russian leadership has repeatedly said that they will attack the “decision making centers” of any country that goes to war with them: Warsaw, Vilnius, Berlin, Paris, London, Washington…
The introduction of modern fighter-bombers like the F-16 would most certainly trigger WW III.
PS. Both Russia and the US are Pacific Ocean powers. Their territories are only 50 miles apart. How would Japan and other Asian countries stay out of a war “in Europe”?
Our leaders are deluded to the point of actual insanity. Their current policy of continual escalation must inevitably lead to a large-scale general war in Europe and North America. The Russian leadership has repeatedly said that they will attack the “decision making centers†of any country that goes to war with them: Warsaw, Vilnius, Berlin, Paris, London, Washington…
Bob has made some good points. I think we underestimate how far Russia would go to pursue its goals in Ukraine.
As far as I’m aware, there are no plans to send US aircraft to Ukraine – the plans are for allies to send aircraft to Ukraine (mainly former Soviet aircraft similar to what Ukraine already has), and then the US would replace those aircraft.
That was what was originally proposed with tanks – European countries would send their Leopard tanks to Ukraine and the US would replace them with Abrams, but Germany got pissed and thought the US was just trying to muscle in on the tank market in Europe. That’s part of why Germany insisted that Abrams also must go to Ukraine.
I respect that you are an expert opinion on what the military will do — but direction is pointing at F16’s, not spare USSR jets in the Warsaw pact.
That’s what Ukraine’s government has been asking (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/26/ukraine-aims-for-f-16-fighter-jets-after-winning-battle-for-tanks.html).
“We will get F-16s,†Yuriy Sak, an advisor to Ukraine’s Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov, told CNBC Thursday.
Our allies are talking about giving F16’s, (https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/europe/ukraine-tanks-fighter-jets-intl/index.html)
“The Netherlands, too, elicited some raised eyebrows last week, when its foreign minister told a parliamentarian asking about F-16s that “when it comes to things that the Netherlands can supply, there are no taboos.â€
Apparently an influential group at the Pentagon are talking about F16’s, not Soviet jets either. (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/pentagon-send-f-16s-ukraine-00080045).
“A contingent of military officials is quietly pushing the Pentagon to approve sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions….
“I don’t think we are opposed,†said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.”
From reading the increasing volume of stories on the matter — there is a version of “F16 fever” going on, and past experience is once these types of fevers build; they take a life of their own ignoring calculations of risk/benefit or sense.