Well, what is the justification for arming Ukraine (actually that process was ongoing for a while now, for example with Romanian artillery munitions I think)? They were (before the war) one of the largest weapon exporters, they certainly have enough equipment around to fight that war. The problem is within the structural deficiencies, so sending in instructors and applying political pressure to conduct a reform (and uphold Minsk agreements while you are at it) Is a far better option.
As to the justification provided by the supporters (in the US) of supplying defensive lethal arms to Ukraine, I find it retarded not only in military-political sense (as it would provide basis for further escalation rather than freezing the conflict), but in purely military sense.
For example what is the point in supplying air defense systems to Ukraine if it already has a decent air defense network and neither side really uses air power? How would Javelin ATGMs aid the loyalists if there are no armored concentrations rolling around and the main combat arm used by both sides is artillery?
Now, sending the artillery recce systems (such as CB radars, but not the high end UAVs, as those would get ripped by the SAMs and high power ECM in the area) sort of does make sense, except that Ukraine already lost 2/3 of such systems provided due to incompetence and lack of other supporting systems (such as proper communications, and this problem is not solved by just giving them secure radios).
__________________
Grumpy as always.
|