Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine

They are not a miracle or wonder weapon but they are generally, very well tested and effective, and reports from inside Russia show they were very concerned about the increase in weapons given to Ukraine by Trump; in fact, Trump's argument is that by giving the javelins he is helping Ukraine become far more secure--I actually support Trump giving Ukraine the javelins.

 

The combination of land and air forces would be there far sooner. Transport planes with tanks could be there in 30 minutes.

 

You're way overstating their importance.
Any military aid, even bedsheets and MRE, will have russia deploring the escallation. This is modus operanti for them and is usually the pretext needed for their military interventions.
IN short, the more you pump aid into ukraine the more likely the russian will act. Are you ready to die for ukraine?

 

From 2018: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/poroshenko-80000-russian-troops-ukraine-181201164222788.html

 

You don't send tank via air transport in the middle of a warzone... You're being silly now.

 

Out of date.

“We can now use these new anti-tank missile systems, when they are bought, at our discretion. And station them where we want, for example in eastern Ukraine."

I guess you can still complain about Trump's "hyperbole"...

 

It is impossible us in the US would die for Ukraine. WWIII will not result, and while Russia has many allies we would not want to go to war simultaneously it is a fact we are far superior militarily to Russia. Neither Russia or the US wants a war or will do so.

 

Yes, if a civil war start on your borders, you send troop to make sure it does spill over.

 

It’s a good thing the Javalins go unused right?

 

of course, they do; you are minimalizing so many facts.

 

You know the story. He not only tried but succeeded. He threatened to withhold a billion if the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma wasn't removed. He (Biden) then blatantly bragged about it. (getting said prosecutor removed). The difference in extent is about 600 mil. (Trump's alleged withholding short of Biden's.)

To quote ESPN's football crew: "C'mon man!"

If you have to ask these questions you might wanna revise your previously stated political designation.

 

Never underestimate human potential for destruction.
If push come to shove the russians will intervene. The alternative is for them to capitulate and be ruled by the west which they'll never do, and neither will China.

 

Your lack of knowledge when it comes to military tactics is laughable.
Maybe you should stick to a subject that you know about.

Was that pearl of knowledge also from the same person with 6 years experience?

 

Do you have any sources besides the one that states something to the effect that Trump is requiring them to be stored in western Ukraine as a condition of sale?

 

Then most of Ukrainian defenses clearly need to be further back.
Fortifying a border is almost always a mistake.

 

Exactly. If those weapons were very near the border, they would too likely be overrun and captured. Having farther back, though, where they could be deployed in time to keep the Russians out of Kiev, makes good sense.

Either way, we all know their primary purpose is to serve as a message and a deterrent. But it's good if they're not sitting where they could be taken with relative ease, or too easily bombed and destroyed from the air.

 

If you also read through the end of FP article you will see the entire context along with the javelin issue:

“It became this sort of embodiment of U.S. support for Ukraine,” said Charap, who previously served as a senior advisor to the State Department’s undersecretary for arms control. “It’s much more headline-grabbing than helping them with their logistics, which by the way is a real problem.”

“While generals and politicians in Kyiv played up the Javelins, in my own experience, soldiers in the field talked more about getting insufficient quantities of the nonlethal aid that they really needed—secure communications, armored vehicles, counterbattery radars,” said Olga Oliker, the director for Europe and Central Asia at the International Crisis Group."

"But as part of the agreement of the sale, the Javelins are not deployed on the battlefield but stored hundreds of miles away in western Ukraine—far from the front lines of the Donbass, which could radically diminish their deterrent effect, said Mike Carpenter, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia and Eurasia under Obama.

“If the Russians know that the Javelins are not there, the deterrent effect is negated,” said Carpenter, though he noted that the missiles could be transferred to the battlefield in the event of an attack. Michael Kofman, a weapons expert with CNA, described the Javelins as an “insurance policy”—but one with little impact in the balance of power on the conflict."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/

 

Ukraine needs forces at many points.

 

I disagree entirely. Ukraine has struggled since the breakup of the Soviet Union to strengthen and maintain a developing democratic country. Fighting Russian rule and human rights abuses hasn't been easy for Ukraine. Their own difficulties inside their country such as divided factions that want to remain under Russian rule and those who want to rule themselves has created this divide. Way back in 1933, there was a great famine in Ukraine. Collective agricultural farming which was confiscated by Soviet authorities created this famine. People literally died on the streets from starvation.

In 2013, Ukraine had a revolution. Ukraine president at that time, Viktor Yanukovych, began moving away from an association agreement that had been in the works with the European Union and instead chose to establish closer ties with the Russian Federation. Some Ukrainians took to the streets to show their support for closer ties with Europe. Yanukovych was found to be corrupt and deposed. He was involved in money laundering among other crimes. in May 2017, Yanukovych was tried in absentia for high treason and abetting Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Ukraine wants to be part of the EU and NATO. 70% of Ukrainians are in favor of joining NATO. European integration is still part of Ukraine's national security strategy. Putin will do anything to prevent this from happening. Putin wants Ukraine to remain as part of Russia. "European integration" is still part of Ukraine's national security strategy.

Mika Brzezinski (MSNBC Morning Joe) is the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He served as a diplomat and political advisor to Lyndon Johnson. He said something that's was very pertinent and extremely insightful in 1997: "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”

 

I see little evidence that Russia, a relatively weak nation state, wants to regain its empire beyond a few strategic enclaves, unless the world begs them to take it back.

OTOH, China is a very dangerous totalitarian state with an aggressive imperialist foreign policy.

Imperialism always leads to great wars and the ultimate destruction of the empire.
The modern international trading system has made imperialism obsolete. It is cheaper to buy resources than to steal them through warfare.

 

Of course, but the forces at the border are just a sacrificial trigger and deterrent.
Mine fields can effective - but they are like way bad.

 

You're underestimating the russians. Many have done this and payed dearly for it. I don't.

 

I do not underestimate the Russians. I think their leaders are too smart to want to invade and annex Ukraine. Lot's of pain - no gain.

 

Seems to me that if they were used in Donbass, they would be seeing offensive use in an effort to retake the area. Keeping them away, where they can serve a strictly defensive purpose in a hypothetical scenario in which Russia invades Ukraine further, makes sense. Using them in Donbass now would make the US party to the current civil war in Ukraine, and this would have propaganda value for the Russians and the separatists. We are not currently committed to helping Ukraine retake Donbass or Crimea with military force, even just the sales of arms to be used for that purpose.

 

I would concur that Russia is not interested in a military invasion of Ukraine, at least not beyond what they have already seized. They desperately wanted Crimea for its strategic value and got it. They probably look at Donbass as a buffer zone between Russian territory and NATO, at least potentially since Ukraine could eventually join. Doesn't hurt to have that land with its people and natural resources, either, and it's a bit of a training ground for Russia as it rebuilds its military and relearns how to be a (striving) superpower.