Timeline for Why do Western countries not send more powerful weapons to Ukraine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13 at 10:58 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 14 at 13:48 | |||||
| Apr 8 at 18:56 | answer | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jun 13, 2022 at 6:11 | vote | accept | Alexei | ||
| Jun 8, 2022 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/1534550823895695360 | ||
| Jun 8, 2022 at 11:57 | history | reopened |
NoDataDumpNoContribution Timur Shtatland Panda Alexei 264 champagne bottles on ice |
||
| Jun 8, 2022 at 11:57 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | The actual number of long-range systems sent is pretty low too. The US sent... ahem 4 M142 HIMARS launchers, the UK 3 sent 3 M270 MLRS. | |
| Jun 7, 2022 at 10:53 | history | left closed in review |
uberhaxed deep64blue RedSonja |
Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| Jun 7, 2022 at 8:40 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @EugeneRyabtsev "Easy" in the sense of "easy to eliminate artillery", not "easy to eliminate all artillery". | |
| Jun 7, 2022 at 5:08 | comment | added | Eugene Ryabtsev | @IanKemp They are asking for MLRS because that's the only thing that survives for them in this war (I mean, that, its Soviet counterparts, and Tochka). They have already had Tochka. It's helping some, but not really a lot. If it would be "easy"... how many of those you would say are "enough"? | |
| Jun 6, 2022 at 18:01 | history | edited | NoDataDumpNoContribution | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
tried to make it an answerable question, might be a duplicate though
|
| Jun 6, 2022 at 17:57 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 7, 2022 at 10:53 | |||||
| Jun 6, 2022 at 15:16 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @EugeneRyabtsev Actually it is very easy to stop Russia, because they have only been able to meaningfully advance and hold territory with the use of massed artillery barrages. Take out those guns and their momentum stalls, but Ukraine's air force is no longer able to do that - hence why Ukraine is asking for MLRS and other long-range weapons, which can. Ukraine does not need or want tanks because they would similarly be mauled by artillery, plus Ukraine has already taken out over 1,000 Russian MBTs, proving that the tank is a weapon of the past. | |
| Jun 6, 2022 at 15:00 | history | closed |
Ted Wrigley Therac convert Ekadh Singh Ian Kemp |
Opinion-based | |
| Jun 6, 2022 at 9:16 | comment | added | Eugene Ryabtsev | The amount of conventional weaponry needed to save the situation in Ukraine is somewhat massive. The country had at least 14 divisions worth of equipment in 1992. That is now largely sold, lost and/or dated, but that was was hundreds of tanks. Compare e.g. to the whole 222 Leclercs that France has at the moment. Look up the tonnage used by Russian artillery daily throughout the campaign. It would be easy to hurt Russia, anger Russia, but not to stop Russia with any practical amount of equipment that does not include actual trained troops. | |
| Jun 5, 2022 at 20:22 | answer | added | Robbie Goodwin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 5, 2022 at 19:25 | comment | added | eps | They are extremely worried that a massive defeat and humiliation of Russia would result in a major escalation by the Russians (eg small yield nukes). It's basically the model the US used with the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Get Russia tangled up in a war of attrition that decimates their military and economy. | |
| Jun 5, 2022 at 19:03 | answer | added | mikado | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jun 5, 2022 at 11:29 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jun 5, 2022 at 10:45 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @RamanujanXXV: yeah, well, according to Macron Ukraine better surrender the Donbas now, because anything short of that would "humiliate" Putin. But that's seemingly par for the French. | |
| Jun 5, 2022 at 7:04 | answer | added | Allure | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jun 5, 2022 at 6:58 | answer | added | o.m. | timeline score: 25 | |
| S Jun 5, 2022 at 5:15 | history | suggested | uberhaxed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected inaccurate statement.
|
| Jun 5, 2022 at 4:31 | comment | added | user42728 | Interestingly,I saw this question just after I read this article:news.yahoo.com/… What I understood was that Russia may do something large devastation out of desperation.. | |
| Jun 5, 2022 at 1:39 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 5, 2022 at 5:15 | |||||
| Jun 4, 2022 at 23:40 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 6, 2022 at 15:04 | |||||
| Jun 4, 2022 at 23:31 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | I voted close this question as opinions-based, since i don't know how it could otherwise be answered. I mean, we can take their stated reasons: that they don't want to escalate, but they don't want russia to win, either... It's a Balance of Power strategy. | |
| Jun 4, 2022 at 21:25 | comment | added | Joe W | It takes time to get everything in order before they can send more powerful weapons? | |
| Jun 4, 2022 at 21:14 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | The underlying question is probably what all involved parties want to achieve there. | |
| Jun 4, 2022 at 19:50 | history | asked | Alexei | CC BY-SA 4.0 |