Ukraine accuses Russia of sending in tanks, escalating crisis

Russian Tanks - Photo by Yana Amelina

Ukraine’s military accused Russia on Friday of sending a column of 32 tanks and truckloads of troops into the country’s east to support pro-Russian separatists fighting government forces.

Thursday’s cross-border incursion, if confirmed, is a significant escalation of a conflict that has killed more than 4,000 people since the separatists rose up in mid-April and would call into question Russia’s commitment to a two-month-old ceasefire deal.

The truce has looked particularly fragile this week, with each side accusing the other of violations after separatist elections last Sunday condemned as illegitimate by the West.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

1 thought on “Ukraine accuses Russia of sending in tanks, escalating crisis”

  1. Tanks are used to intimidate people.
    The problem with using tanks for any other purpose is that they are dinosaurs in the modern age of warfare.
    We also have tanks. How much does one tank cost to produce?
    The problem is that since 1997 or thereabouts, there are small missiles available that are capable of taking out a Combat Helicopter. I assume it can also take out a tank. The total cost of said missile is way below the cost of a tank.
    If you want to go even cheaper, then nitro is available if it is put together right and it can be shot from a crossbow.
    The idea is the nitro is put together in flight. So if it does explode it does so far from the shooter. The common cap pistol that uses caps to produce a spark can be set up so that a spark is provided on impact. Spend a few pennies more and you have a reliable small missile capable of taking out a tank and leaving the scene. Remote controls that fire a trigger can be had at any hardware or lumber company and have a range of at least 25-100 feet. This is no secret. It is common sense engineering.
    Total cost of a weapon like this is probably well under a thousand dollars. I think it could be produced for less than 200.
    This missile produced by the CIA under the direction of a Congressmen in the 90s produced a bankrupt Russian Army in Afganistan.
    A typical combat helicopter used against the Afganistan People was very expensive. Those Afganistan People took out more than one Combat Helicopter per day from horseback.
    What this genius Congressman actually accomplished was the extinction of expensive weapons on the ground in modern warfare.
    Cost logistics rules the day. You can win every battle out there and still lose a war to cost.
    The South VIetnam conflict is a good example of that. $450 billion dollars worth of war debt later and we still lost the war.
    No one that I know of has produced Hitler’s two man submarine capable of 4 torpedoes. Yet that weapon could take out the entire Navy if enough of them were put together. Logistically they cost little. Logistically every atomic sub out there is vulnerable. Logistically no aircraft carrier on the planet could survive an attack by a pack of small submarines.
    The idea is you have a carrier underwater that is capable of launching massive numbers of these small subs.
    Our military people obviously see things different than I do. And they are the experts. They should be right. Or are they?
    I think that Congressman from the 90s was right. We are far too involved in pretty expensive weapons than we should be.

Comments are closed.

The Most Important News