The truth about tanks is that NATO and its allied nations are making Ukraine weaker, not stronger, by providing them with military systems that are overly complicated to operate, extraordinarily difficult to maintain, and impossible to survive unless employed in a cogent manner while supported by extensive combined arms partners.
The decision to provide Ukraine with Western main battle tanks is, literally, a suicide pact.
Tanks are among the most technically challenging weapons systems on a modern battlefield. They are constantly breaking down, especially if not properly maintained.For the M1 Abrams, for every hour a tank is in the field, there are three hours of maintenance time required.This problem only becomes magnified in combat.
Tank warfare also has evolved.The large force-on-force armored battles that were the hallmark of much of World War II, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, which served as the foundation of operational doctrine for both NATO and the Soviet Union (and which was implemented in full by the United States during Operation Desert Storm in 1991), has run its course.
Like most military technological innovations, the ability to make a modern main battle tank survivable has been outstripped by the fielding of defensive systems designed to overcome such defenses.
If a modern military force attempted to launch a large-scale tank-dominated attack against a well-equipped peer-level opponent armed with modern anti-tank missiles, the result would be a decisive defeat for the attacking party marked by the smoking hulks of burned-out tanks.
That’s a serious question and deserves serious consideration by investors.A wave of analysts and commentators have warned that the war in Ukraine could spin out of control and escalate into World War III.
One variation on that theme is that the war could escalate into a nuclear war with tactical nuclear weapons deployed.Most point a finger at Russia as the party that will launch a nuclear strike out of desperation at a failing campaign in Ukraine.
Actually, the opposite is true.
The Russian campaign is not failing (it has been on hold for several months awaiting the right conditions to launch a winter offensive).You just don’t hear about it in the mainstream media, which is essentially a propaganda outlet for Ukraine.
And the party most likely to use nuclear weapons first is the U.S. in order to save face and destabilize Russia once Ukraine is on the brink of collapse.
Many people have a hard time believing that.They’ve been told that Putin is the devil incarnate and would probably like to destroy the world.
We like to think that in modern times we’re sophisticated and above falling prey to propaganda.Unfortunately, it isn’t true.
The fact is the U.S. did wage the only nuclear war in history from Aug. 6–9, 1945 and had a successful outcome.I’m not getting into the morality of it here, one way or the other.I’m just being objective.
Either way, another nuclear war could not be contained and it would be tantamount to World War III.It amounts to the same thing.
But my point is different.It’s not that we may be headed to World War III; it’s that we’re already there..
[Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]