Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The Russian's who I would say have the initiative and the defensive positioning have about 15000 main battle tanks, 28,000 AFV, 14,000 artillary pieces in the heavy gun, self propelled and MLRS and 3082 fighters and bombers available that they can even strip from their secured Eastern and Southern and Northern Military groups to re-enforce.
|
The BBC says the Russians have 2,500 tanks.
2,500 is probably the number of active, modern units and 15,000 probably counts every unit... regardless of whether it is serviceable or a rusted hulk.
The same article says the Ukrainians have 1,100 tanks. Add the Brits, Germans and French and that's 2,300. The Russians don't have nearly the numerical superiority you've stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
To be honest, America should have been re-enforcing NATO by now as a strong message to Putin...
|
I think the Americans aren't doing anything because they aren't going to do anything (militarily). It is highly unlikely that there is a war, so why move equipment? If you want an unpredictable dictator to do something stupid, preparing for war is a good way to get him to act stupid(er). Moving equipment would only aggravate a potentially volatile situation.
Re-enforcing NATO makes war more likely... so why do it?