And these vehicles will probably kill Nazis again.
Inside of them.
Or Putin dead. In which case, the war ends= IMHO-, but Russia may not be willing to give up Crimea.
So, you think Ukraine can invade and take out Moscow? 
Huh?
Sure, Ukraine can push Russia back to the old borders (except maybe Crimea) , but how does that stop Russia from attacking again?
Right. Or Putin dies.
No, they will bring out the REALLY good stuff- the BT and KV series. I wonder if there are any T35s left…
In the sense that Ukraine might adopt the tactics of Mossad in Russia, I can’t rule it out. -They speak Russia’s language and know RU culture, making covert-ops very tempting.
My answer to your second question is that Ukraine has made it clear that it wants to join the EU and NATO. This will be a long process, but the majority of former WARSAW pact countries and even Western European nations seem to be ready to shore up firm borders once and for all.
Ukraine has a lot to offer in the way of agriculture, industry, mining, gas and more. But imo their ingenuity is probably one of their greatest assets. -A win for the EU, and their fighting spirit would be a win for NATO.
IMHO after the end of hostilities, countries that have invested thus far on Ukraine’s behalf will be very reluctant to just give up and walk away without helping to shore up Ukraine’s border with Russia.
The problem there is that they can’t join NATO while Russia is still being aggressive on their border. That becomes a pretty good incentive for Russia to continue being aggressive indefinitely.
I think the issue is not that Russia is aggressive on their border, but that the Russians are aggressive inside of Ukrainian borders. Push Russia back into Russia, and out of Crimea, and NATO shouldn’t have a problem (barring civil wars, of course).
They can’t join NATO while Russia is still being successfully aggressive on their border. Once they get strong enough and/or Russia weak enough (both of which processes are well underway), they’ll be able to enforce a stable border no matter what Russia wants.
There is no rule that I’m aware of that forbids NATO members from forming alliances outside of NATO. If they do though, they might risk their Article 5 protection.
Russia has most (all) of their western neighbors spooked.
If Russia wins in Ukraine, who’s next in line?
It’s not directly war-related, but a child’s drawing in support of Ukraine prompted a Russian police investigation. A scary and sad story.
But that’s just another variation on my scenario #2. Even without Putin driving it, it’s clear that a lot of other hard-liners in Russia would also like to expand Russia’s borders and influence. Putin didn’t pull this off all by himself, after all. So Ukraine would be stupid to let its guard down even if Putin is dead, so we end up with the heavily armed border again.
But Article 5 would only apply if and when Russia strikes directly at the NATO member. If the fighting is taking place again in Ukraine, or some other non-NATO, former Warsaw Pact country, that wouldn’t be a problem.
I could see Poland, for one, making such an agreement with Ukraine, because Poland would know it’s a lot better for them to fight Russia at the Ukraine/Russia border than the Poland/Ukraine border.
Another obvious and inevitable effect of Russia’s misadventure: they’re falling down on their arms sales contracts.
Apparently India isn’t supporting Russian sanctions?
You can imagine how sad I am that India opened their crate of parts and found it full of rocks
Nope.
“Russia is a friend, and the US is not.”
Still, Russia is letting down its “friends”. So if India chooses an unreliable leech of a friend, boohoo for them.
At least they haven’t (yet) crossed over into collaborator status like Iran.
Re India:
Every once in a while, Google News includes an article on the Ukraine war from Hindustan Times, which is based in Delhi. I never read them, but the headlines are always favorable to Russia. Now it’s just one newspaper but I have a feeling it’s representative of most Indian newspapers. If so, the average Indian reader is getting a very one-sided view of the war.
Is the BBC website popular in India?
Who could have guessed that selling weapons so you could afford to buy weapons, because you’re not able to make enough weapons to keep up with your own use, isn’t a sustainable business model?
Concerning India, I would note, however, that India was quick to jump on the European oil price cap recently and now refuses to pay more than the $60/barrel cap on Russian oil so that their ships may continue to be ensured through western insurers. The moral of the story is countries really don’t have ‘friends’ so much as national interests that sometimes align. So in this instance India is really not helping Russia in their war.
Lemme diagram that, I’ll get back to you.
Well, this is a bit nit-picky, but militaries are full of vintage hardware, even the US military. The B-52, for example. Or the UH-1 Iroquois “Huey” helicopter, which dates to the late 1950’s and is still in use. The KC-135 and the C-130 Hercules are even older. The Nimitz class carriers are now approaching 50 years old.
And when you go down to the smaller weapons, there are lots of REALLY old weapons in the US inventory. One that stands out is the M2 Browning machine gun, still in heavy use (including in Ukraine), which dates to 1919. The M1911 Colt was the standard military sidearm until 1985, when it was 74 years old. Lots of small arms, grenades, mines, mortars and other equipment date back to before the Vietnam war.
Those T-34s are old, but given that Russia has been launching unsupported infantry attacks at hardened positions because of lack of armor, they probably fall under the category of “better than nothing”. But they aren’t going to be spearheading any major offenses, that’s for sure.
If they are, I imagine we’ll all learn the Ukrainian term for “bullet sponges” quite soon.