The big play are the USA's M2 Bradley and Stryker vehicles, which will effectively mechanize a few battalions of the Ukrainian infantry. Each Bradley can hold 6 troops, each Stryker can hold 9.
The problem: mechanized infantry needs Tanks for support. Early on, France's AMX-10 RC recon vehicle (aka: a light vehicle with a big tank gun on it) was being considered, but it looks like proper tanks have been decided upon.
France is sending those AMX-10 RC vehicles anyway.
-------------
By mechanizing the infantry, they aren't going to be riding in Toyota trucks around the battlefield anymore. They'll have large 25mm Autocannons, medium armor (M2 Bradley) or light armor (Strykers) to protect them.
M2 Bradley have advanced optics that can see 3000 to 4000 meters at night, and gun computers (fire control systems) that can accurately make shots at those distance. And rockets just in case it comes across an enemy tank (though its #1 routine would be to call a friendly tank for backup in that situation).
Ukraine has a significant number of brave troops who are making due with what they got. Just civilian cars and trucks right now. Giving them a proper battlefield taxi (aka: M2 Bradley, Strykers, or Humvees) is a huge step up.
Ukraine does have a mechanized infantry core that's already done some pretty amazing offenses. But Ukraine obviously needs to make that core larger and stronger for the upcoming offensive.
Strykers hold 2 + 9, a 2 man vehicle crew plus a 9 man infantry squad plus an extra seat for the PL/PSG or the JTAC or whoever else you have rolling around with you. They're nice vehicles, but they're not going to hold up against tanks or anti-tank weapons. Given the terrain over there, they'll be great in urban ops but I'd keep them out of ranged engagements.
Toyota / Nissan trucks don't hold up very well against tanks or anti-tank weapons either.
Stryker is going to be mostly a road-transport vehicle, though 8x8 means it has a degree of maneuverability even over grass (at least, better than a 4x4 Toyota).
There are plenty of videos of Ukrainian anti-tank crews setting up ambushes using a Toyota truck for example. If those crews had a Stryker instead, they'd be safer and faster.
> Ukraine does have a mechanized infantry core that's already done some pretty amazing offenses. But Ukraine obviously needs to make that core larger and stronger for the upcoming offensive.
It's also big news as an offensive in the south can cut off supply to Crimea and thus lead to a siege similar to the one of Kherson. It would already be very hard for Putin to endure more major defeats but Ukraine retaking Crimea or even Mauripol could ultimate sign Russia's defeat and Putin's demise.
(1) the Western MBTs involved are seen as a big qualitative improvement over the Ukraine’s (and Russias) Soviet (and in Russia’s case, post-Soviet)–design MBTs.
(2) The release of tanks is seen as a harbinger of loosening on a broad category of heavy Western equipment (manned combat aircraft, for instance.)
(3) The release of heavy vehicles in active production, rather than the prior one-time emptying of stocks of soviety-designed vehicles from mostly ex-Warsaw Pact countries (though some MiG-29s for spares came from the US) is seen as sustainable (and thus something Russia is less likely to think they can overcome by a war of material attrition where they equipment runs out.)
> I can’t see few more tanks in the battlefield doing something to shortening this war.
A qualitative improvement without any quantitative change could, but its not “a few more tanks”, the commitment of Western tanks is something like 15%+ of a generous estimate of Ukraine’s total potential tank inventory (which includes non-operational Soviet-design MBTs from before the way that might be brought up to operational status and captured Russian MBTs), from what I can tell (321 new Western tanks pledged, with somewhere around 2,000 tanks potentially available previously.)
It's a big deal because there's many more of these where the one hundred are coming from. If the West sees that these tanks are put to good use (like the HIMARS were), then more will come.
Because it makes it more official, that this war is not simply Ukraine vs Russia, but rather NATO vs Russia. NATO has been funding the war from the Ukrainian side.
Soon, it will expand to include China, because China cannot allow Russia to be defeated, because they would be next.
This actually means that there is absolutely zero chance for peace.
What was Russia's reason for attacking Ukraine and starting this whole mess?
Last time I checked, Russia still hasn't officially declared war on Ukraine, or given a reason yet. Despite the large scale conscription of soldiers, Russia seems to still call this a special military operation, rather than a proper war.
The USA / NATO side is defensive purpose. Ukraine certainly deserves a right to exist and fight for itself. This war would end tomorrow if Putin ordered his troops back into Russia.
---------
Why were Russian soldiers attacking Kyiv in February 2022?
This war/conflict actually began back in 2014, after Yanukovich was overthrown. The simple solution is to honor the Minsk Agreement and allow the Donbas to vote on whether or not they want to join Russia. Merkel has stated that there was never any intention to allow the Donbas to vote. The purpose was to buy time to build up Ukraine's army. So the negotiation was in bad faith.
It is false that this war would end tomorrow if Putin ordered his troops back into Russia. Again the simple solution is to honor the Minsk Agreement.
> The simple solution is to honor the Minsk Agreement and allow the Donbas to vote on whether or not they want to join Russia
Why did Russia invade, kill, and kidnap citizens before such a vote?
Its pretty obvious that what Russia is doing here is simple colonialism and imperialism. Russia wants Ukraine. It started by gobbling up Crimea, and moved on to to take Donbas and other such territories.
Last year, I've had plenty of Russian sympathizers tell me how peace-loving you all are, especially with your "Slavic Brothers". And it was all proven false upon the brutal attack on Kyiv on Feburary 2022.
-------
> It is false that this war would end tomorrow if Putin ordered his troops back into Russia.
The hostilities of Feb 2022 through today started when Putin crossed into Ukraine. It will end when Putin retreats his army back into Russia.
-----
> Again the simple solution is to honor the Minsk Agreement.
And the first step to that agreement was a ceasefire. And that ceasefire was utterly demolished when Russia attacked Kyiv.
Putin DESTROYED that agreement with the Feb. 2022 attack. You realize that? The conditions of ceasefire will never again return, not until the Russian army is out of Ukraine.
In 1994 Russia signed the Budapest agreement where it guaranteed the independence of Ukraine. Ukraine had to transfer all it's nukes to Russia to honour it's side of the agreement. Which it did.
Ukraine's borders included Donbas and Crimea. Why did Russia reneged on that agreement?
Talking about the Donbas, why has the Donbas right to sovereignty, but not Chechnia?
At the Munich Security Conference, Kamala Harris said that Ukraine should join NATO. That violates the Budapest agreement.
A few days later, Putin invades Ukraine.
Back in 2014, after Yanukovich was overthrown, the US installed an unelected government in Ukraine, which immediately began attacking the Donbas region.
We literally have the satellite footage of Russians building up on the border in December 2021.
It's the internet today. Public companies have easy to use satellites.
The invasion plans were already in place long before that statement.
----
I know this because when I saw those troop movements published, I started to buy oil stock. I've made a profit from my prediction. I knew Russia was not to be trusted and that a war could break out.
> which immediately began attacking the Donbas region.
Donbas was, and is, owned by Ukraine. But nevermind that. The other poster already has the answer for you.
> Talking about the Donbas, why has the Donbas right to sovereignty, but not Chechnia?
The Ukrainian government may be the most corrupt government in the world.
The Ukrainian nazis were far worse than the German nazis in WWII, and they were never held accountable for their actions.
Hunter Biden's laptop has been covered up.
I have no desire for WWIII, but it is clear that is where we are headed. NATO has no desire to seek a peaceful resolution. They want war. Ukrainians are consumed by their hatred of Russians, and most likely they will end up destroying themselves. Nothing the Ukrainians say has any basis in logic, they are consumed by hatred.
It is like that episode of Seinfeld, Newman and Kramer are playing Risk, and Newman says 'I am not defeated yet, I still have armies in the Ukraine'
You know that the RAND Corporation published the blueprint for this in 2019 - titled "Extending Russia", right? 8 of the first 10 measures have been implemented (items such as "Exploit tensions in the South Caucasus"). So the more sensible question is: why is the US doing this, and why would Russia just idly wait for the "Provide lethal aid to Ukraine" measure to be fully executed?
Short answer: the US is more interested in destroying the German economy than Russia's, and starting a protracted war with Russia through a Ukrainian proxy is how that is being done. It is amazing how happily the EU wrecked its economic prospects for at least two generations, to the exclusive benefit of US industry. Russia's actions here are totally rational, not only that but they provided ample warning for years about NATO expansion into Ukraine being an actual red line (as opposed to a lot of the red lines declared by the WH).
You are mixing up who is the factotum here - Ukraine is the one taking marching orders. Also, the other silly things your mother said to you when you and your sibling fought don't apply in real adult life. There does exist the legal concept of "menacing" and it does justify an overmatched demolishing.
As an ex Challenger 2 crewman, I'm interested to see how this goes. However the UK wont want any damaged ones getting into the hands of the Russians as the Chobham armour is one of the many advantages that the Challenger 2 has over the T series tanks.
> However the UK wont want any damaged ones getting into the hands of the Russians as the Chobham armour is one of the many advantages that the Challenger 2 has over the T series tanks.
This is utter nonsense, Russia simply lacks the manufacturing capability to produce such armour. Having access to a sample of British composite armour will not and can not help them at all, except perhaps in developing munitions to reliably penetrate it.
Honest question: taking in consideration the major busts that are the T14 Armata or the BMPT Terminator programs, would Russia have the know-how in place to do anything with a Challenger?
