A tank from 1972 may not be effective on the field of battle but it can certainly be a formidable presence in occupied village as the front moves west.
To the point about fighting a proxy war and using people as cannon fodder. Putin and Russia were fully warned the Ukrainians would be armed for the defense of their country. There is only one country responsible for this war and it’s Russia. The west has been true to its word since before the war. “Negotiated peace” with the Russians is damn near an oxymoron. The Russians don’t stop raping and murdering they just increase and decrease it depending on the amount tanks they have available.
Response to the New York Times editorial board May 24, 2022 8:38 pm by The Kyiv Independent Share: Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Email A Ukrainian soldier sits on an armoured personnel carrier driving on a road near Sloviansk, Donetsk Oblast, on April 26, 2022, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (AFP via Getty Images) The New York Times editorial, “The War in Ukraine Is Getting Complicated, and America Isn’t Ready,” published on May 19, immediately caused an uproar in Ukraine. A veiled manifesto of appeasement from a newspaper known for its stellar coverage of Russia’s horrific invasion has disappointed many. In the editorial, the New York Times editorial board argues that it’s too dangerous to assume that Ukraine can win the war. It says “Russia is too strong,” that Ukraine should make a “painful compromise” and give up some territories to Russia. The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster. In short, the editorial attempts to pass off appeasement and betrayal of the free world’s values as pragmatic reasoning. Dark times have always shed light on those willing to compromise their values to preserve their daily comforts. Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong. As a newsroom witnessing the war from inside Ukraine, we want to set the record straight. Ukraine winning the war with Russia isn’t “unrealistic” or even “likely.” If we want the world to be anything like what we know it to be, then Ukraine winning is the only option. And Western financial and military support for Ukraine is the only way to establish “long-term peace and security on the European continent” that the New York Times editorial board is rooting for. Ukraine’s belief in its victory isn’t based on overconfidence. It’s based on necessity. Any concession to Russia now will lead to another war sooner or later, while Ukrainians stuck in any region occupied by Russia will be tortured, raped, or killed. The New York Times is running story after story about the living hell through which Russia puts Ukrainian civilians in occupied territories. Meanwhile, its editorial board is suggesting that Ukraine should cede territories to Russia, where more atrocities will undoubtedly happen. Appeasement isn’t the voice of reason. It’s fear and short-sightedness that will only make things worse, something we’ve all seen too many times in the past. Allowing Russia to annex Crimea emboldened Russia to try to swallow the Donbas. When it invaded in 2014, carving up a sovereign state and killing civilians, the other world leaders’ tepid response made Russia’s bloody dictator feel empowered to do more. It’s obvious that he’s been planning the full-scale invasion of Ukraine ever since. It’s often been said by world leaders and analysts that one of Vladimir Putin’s main miscalculations was assuming that the West would let him take Ukraine easily. It didn’t. Now the New York Times is calling for the West to do what Putin expected and give up. Make no mistake: If you appease a dictator, whose troops regularly indulge in war crimes, it will lead to a catastrophic geopolitical shift. A Russian military victory would lead to land grabs and brutal conquest becoming the new norm. Allowing a power-hungry fascist dictatorship to succeed will encourage other dictatorships to try. Telling the U.S. and NATO to ask Ukraine to sacrifice itself for the delusional hope of “long-term peace and security on the European continent” is the same as urging them to cede Taiwan to China. It’s the same as averting eyes from the rape, torture, and what appears to be a planned-out genocide committed by the Russians in Ukraine and by the Chinese in Xinjiang. It’s a deal that shouldn’t be taken. Nor are we forced to take it. The assumption that Russia, despite its colossal battlefield losses, is still a superpower with a potent military is a lie groomed by Russian propaganda over the past 15 years. It’s a lie many in the West still believe, in spite of Russia’s modest-at-best progress in Ukraine and its losses of tens of thousands of soldiers and thousands of vehicles. Russia has already lost over 40% of the territories it invaded since February. And yet, some continue to think that the Russian military is unbeatable. The reality is that Russian corruption, theft, mismanagement, and lack of transparency led to the country’s military being poorly trained and equipped. Highly-motivated soldiers could have offset these problems. But Russia has no viable justification for the war it could feed its demoralized soldiers, who are often used as cannon fodder. The Russian military is weak, its command structure is abysmal and it can very well lose the war to the smaller but much more motivated Ukrainian forces willing to defend their homes, families, and country until the last breath. Meanwhile, following the New York Times’ advice will lead to more war, more destruction and a heavier burden on American people in the long run. But perhaps one of the most striking features of the editorial is the complete lack of understanding of Ukraine and Ukrainians. Ironically, the New York Times makes the same mistake that the Russians did when they attacked Ukraine in February. The Russians assumed that Ukrainians would welcome them or surrender. The New York Times editorial board should know better than to make similar assumptions about Ukrainians now. If anything, the Gray Lady should learn from its mistakes, like when it ran a story about how modern and lethal the Russian military is, a month before the invasion would prove otherwise. Because here’s the thing. Ukrainian society will never agree to any concessions. Those who don’t understand this simple fact don’t understand Ukraine at all, and perhaps shouldn’t share their uneducated speculations in one of the world’s leading media publications. Even President Volodymyr Zelensky, however popular he is now, wouldn’t be able to persuade Ukrainians to concede. According to a recent poll by the Kyiv International Sociology Institute, 82% of Ukrainians believe that Ukraine should not give up territory for peace under any circumstances. After seeing the atrocities committed by Russian troops in Borodyanka, Bucha and Mariupol, the Ukrainian people see very clearly that this is a war for survival against a fascist regime that denies Ukrainians the right to exist. Concessions would be a swift death sentence for thousands of Ukrainians. This fact apparently escapes the New York Times editorial board. The newspaper doesn’t have to go far to find some clarity. As professor Timothy Snyder pointed out in his spectacular guest essay, published on the same day as the controversial editorial, “so long as Nazi Germany seemed strong, Europeans and others were tempted. It was only on the battlefields of World War II that fascism was defeated.” Ukraine will win, sooner or later, because no fascist state has ever truly prevailed over a free country. The democratic world can make this victory come sooner and be less costly for the people of Ukraine and for the world. It can do so by stepping up military support for Ukraine and pressure on Russia. Ukraine is fighting this war on behalf of the free world – to make sure it remains free. The free world must at least try to match the Ukrainians’ bravery. Author: The Kyiv Independent
It's a mixed bag. They also make good targets with crews that cannot disperse. The tanks are to be feared but in the newer world of drones plus javelins they have plenty to fear too. And yes, they klutz around in villages doing lots of damage and killing civilians but it also causes them to travel into villages and along roads - circumstances where the Ukrainians have had good luck in taking them out. Some of the tank crews may actually prefer to be in the oldies because the design flaw on the newer ones where the ammo is stored near the turret makes them death traps. By winter time those tanks will all be out of action or out of fuel or broken down. The Ukrainians will be even more beaten up too so I am not getting cheery. Just sayin, whatever the tank, troop and missile situation is now for the Russians, will not be after a couple more months. One of the key factors as the war descends into a war of attrition is whether the Ukrainians are still able to kill or disable large numbers of Ruskies even if there is not movement in occupied territory. Russias troops capability is already diminished and if they can stalement on the issue of territory occupation but still eliminate Russian troops consistently at a higher level than the Ukrainians are then that is reason to keep going. If not, then not. Eventually, the missile, tank and equipment situation will peak- if not already and then decline. The Ukrainians may want to stay in the conflict for that- or not. I take your point on tanks being a formidable force in villages but I am not gonna lie to ya- if I were in a Ruskie tank -any model new or old- trying to pass through a village where there are even a handful of Ukrainian soldiers I would be scared shiiteless. It could turn into Bedtime for Bonzo in the blink of an eye. The tanks are formidable over in some of the donbass villages because the damm russian artillery prevents the "even a handful of Ukrainian soldiers" from getting closer in on those towns and doing what they did in the west. Move that artillery out of there with a little sumpin, sumpin. It is not illegal to piss Putin off. looks like Biden has walked things back and is moving up to a medium range but not a long range. Whatever. Just git er done. I don't need to know the details.
Raping part was already debunked Ukraine Fires Own Human Rights Chief For Perpetuating Russian Troop 'Systematic Rape' Stories. Other Russian "crimes" will also be debunked in due time. Although I'm sure new will be invented.
That looks like Zerohedge You must be really retarded if you think that flies here just by not putting in a link. You go boil your head in the cabbage soup.
An article so fabricated that you don’t provide a link with the source. Obviously direct from a Kremlin propaganda outlet like RT or ZeroHedge.
Here is a more complete story of the dismal rather than the Facebook statement from lawmaker Pavlo Frolov that the Russian propaganda outlets are pushing. Ukraine’s Parliament Dismisses Human-Rights Chief https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/ru...isses-human-rights-chief-1kQWT7i0GHXyeqh6spRe Ukrainian lawmakers dismissed the country’s ombudsman for human rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, in a no-confidence vote on Tuesday, concluding that she had failed to fulfill obligations including the facilitation of humanitarian corridors and countering the deportation of Ukrainians from occupied territory. Lawmaker Pavlo Frolov said Ms. Denisova was also accused of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes and spending too much time in Western Europe during the invasion. “The unclear focus of the Ombudsman's media work on the numerous details of ‘sexual crimes committed in an unnatural way’ and ‘rape of children’ in the occupied territories that could not be confirmed by evidence, only harmed Ukraine,” Mr. Frolov said in a Facebook post. Some 90 journalists and over 50 other professionals had signed an open letter expressing concern and outrage that Ms. Denisova had been insensitive in her airing of allegations of sexual crimes, particularly those involving children and minors. Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, didn’t name a successor to the post of ombudsman, whose role is to promote and protect human rights. Ms. Denisova, who took on the human-rights role in 2018, said she would appeal the decision, calling it unconstitutional and a violation of international standards. "I will continue to defend Ukraine and the rights of our citizens," she wrote on the Telegram messaging platform. The United Nations Human Rights Office in Ukraine said in a tweet on Tuesday that Ms. Denisova's dismissal was contrary to international standards and undermined the independence of an important Ukrainian institution. Ukrainian prosecutors filed the first rape case of the war against a Russian soldier on Monday, Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova said, accusing him of breaking into a home, killing a civilian and raping his wife. Moscow has rejected accusations of war crimes and human-rights violations by Russian forces in Ukraine.