Klaus wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Your posts keep getting debunked...............

In your mind.

You don't state opinions, you issue proclamations. As I said the link is now available for anybody to read.

Consistency with factual evidence is the key here. I consider it important, and the forum rules actually do, too.

It's almost as if you are trying to mimic the stereotypical WW2 allied view of the typical German.

You should maybe have a conversation with a friend.

Vintage wrote:

I believe NATO "holds back European members back from attacking one another". For sure.
If a NATO member was on the verge of attacking another NATO member there would be meetings in Belgium with everybody present, much pressure could be brought to bear on an offending party.

Nope. That is just not happening when greek and turkish fighter jets and warships threaten each other over and on the aegean sea. It is an ongoing cold war with competitive military buildups against each other and occasional dicey confrontations – all while both are NATO members.

Of course there is intense mutual finger-pointing and nobody else wants anything to do with it.

By contrast, conflicts in the EU between members are regularly discussed on ministerial and head of government levels in Brussels and resolutions are often contentious and tedious, but absolutely never involve any military confrontations or threat displays.

Vintage wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Vintage wrote:

In your mind.

You don't state opinions, you issue proclamations. As I said the link is now available for anybody to read.

Consistency with factual evidence is the key here. I consider it important, and the forum rules actually do, too.

It's almost as if you are trying to mimic the stereotypical WW2 allied view of the typical German.

Well, that says nothing about me, but it tells a whole story about you and your prejudices.

You should maybe have a conversation with a friend.

I do, but they don't insist on twisting facts into more convenient narratives according to their own prejudices.

Which is part of why we're friends.

Klaus wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I believe NATO "holds back European members back from attacking one another". For sure.
If a NATO member was on the verge of attacking another NATO member there would be meetings in Belgium with everybody present, much pressure could be brought to bear on an offending party.

Nope. That is just not happening when greek and turkish fighter jets and warships threaten each other over and on the aegean sea. It is an ongoing cold war with competitive military buildups against each other and occasional dicey confrontations – all while both are NATO members.

By contrast, conflicts in the EU between members are regularly discussed on ministerial and head of government levels in Brussels and resolutions are often contentious and tedious, but absolutely never involve any military confrontations or threat displays.

So a 1,200 year old hostility is NATO's fault?
And the EU would fix things up just fine?

Maybe the reason they're not at war is due to NATO's influence? Have you considered that?

Give it a rest Klaus.

Vintage wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I believe NATO "holds back European members back from attacking one another". For sure.
If a NATO member was on the verge of attacking another NATO member there would be meetings in Belgium with everybody present, much pressure could be brought to bear on an offending party.

Nope. That is just not happening when greek and turkish fighter jets and warships threaten each other over and on the aegean sea. It is an ongoing cold war with competitive military buildups against each other and occasional dicey confrontations – all while both are NATO members.

By contrast, conflicts in the EU between members are regularly discussed on ministerial and head of government levels in Brussels and resolutions are often contentious and tedious, but absolutely never involve any military confrontations or threat displays.

So a 1,200 year old hostility is NATO's fault?

Most of the greek/turkish conflict has a much more recent origin, and you're again twisting my statements into something I've never said or implied: The conflict is not NATO's "fault", NATO is just not purposed to prevent it.

NATO is a defense alliance against external threats, it has so far been effective at this purpose but it is not a panacea (neither is the EU at the same time, obviously).

In particular it is not built to pacify its members among each other – NATO can actually still work even if some of its members are entrenched enemies at conflict with each other. This is both a strength and a weakness, but it is primarily a strength where the actual purpose of NATO lies.

And the EU would fix things up just fine?

Turkey's accession to the EU would simply not be possible at all under these conditions because Greece has a veto like all other existing members. Also border disputes among EU members are completely banned – an EU member automatically and finally accepts the borders of all other members and this is non-negotiable except in mutual agreement.

Military threats against each other are also banned as well.

Maybe the reason they're not at war is due to NATO's influence? Have you considered that?

(edit:) That Greece and Turkey have so far not gone to actual war is indeed probably related to NATO since each could invoke article 5 which would make a right mess, but NATO is obviously not preventing or resolving the armed and dangerous border conflict between them, right up to military threat displays, because then that conflict would not exist, but it does.

Give it a rest Klaus.

Facts remain facts, and that does not change.

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I post the link again:
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-agai ... t-tracker/
If one looks at the last graph (direct help and part of EU) Germany and France are only behind the US and just before the UK.
Jonas

And if one looks at the map at the very top of the link, it shows that the UK and US have given more as a percentage of GNP.

art wrote:

NATO offered protection from attack by the USSR and its satellites. It had nothing to do with holding European members back from attacking one another. Do you seriously believe otherwise? Europe has been integrating politically since 1957. From1940's if you count Benelux.

What kept European countries from attacking each other over the last 70 years is a thing called "democracy". When the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were defeated in WW2, mainly through the actions of the US, UK and Canadian militaries, with some help from the French and Poles. Open, free, democratic societies don't attack each other.

art wrote:

I do not think that you have any real grasp of the manner in which the countries of Europe relate to each other.

You have no business making a statement like that because I'm an American; that is nothing but a personal insult; for your information, I was living in Europe probably before you were born (1964). If you have something to say, then say it, but don't put yourself on a high horse like {another poster} here does.

art wrote:

Article 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon states that "if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all means in their power."

That is empty jargon in the case of Turkey vs Greece if that's what you are alluding to. As I understand it Turkey has at least a foot in the door of the EU anyway, so why can't the EU step in now? There are a ton of non-military options that can be acted on against Greece or Turkey, depending who is seen as the aggressor.
And who is to Judge which side is in the right? Does the EU hold a trial?

The reality is that it is a political problem that has to be worked out diplomatically, you appear to be saying that if the EU had an army they would be at war right now. Who would you be at war with?

art wrote:

PS It's a shame Ukraine was unfit to join the EU before 2014 in view of the above, isn't it?

If you want to create a discussion on that subject, open a new thread, it is both off topic and irrelevant here (other than as a snide attack on NATO I suppose).

In any event, this is all off topic here in the Ukraine war forum, you or Klaus need to start a new thread advocating whatever you have in mind for European defense. This doesn't belong here.

Vintage wrote:

art wrote:

PS It's a shame Ukraine was unfit to join the EU before 2014 in view of the above, isn't it?

If you want to create a discussion on that subject, open a new thread, it is both off topic and irrelevant here (other than as a snide attack on NATO I suppose).

In any event, this is all off topic here in the Ukraine war forum, you or Klaus need to start a new thread advocating whatever you have in mind for European defense. This doesn't belong here.

Well, Revelation did start a NATO thread a while ago. Here it is...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1479107

johns624 wrote:

What kept European countries from attacking each other over the last 70 years is a thing called "democracy". When the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were defeated in WW2, mainly through the actions of the US, UK and Canadian militaries, with some help from the French and Poles. Open, free, democratic societies don't attack each other.

Too bad that you left out the Soviet Union under dictator Stalin which crucially broke the Third Reich's back in the east and rolled it back all the way to Berlin and beyond, triggering Hitler's suicide that way and the regime's total collapse, and soviet populations – notably including those of Ukraine, the baltic states, Belarus and yes, Russia – had suffered terribly under the german attacks and occupations. Even while Stalin added his own extra horrors to that throughout his rule!

That ruins that narrative a little bit, doesn't it? European history is complex and rarely fits very simplified narratives.

And both Greece and Turkey are democracies (or they couldn't even be in NATO!), even if Erdogan is doing his worst to change that – this is still clearly not enough to prevent hot conflicts between countries, even though it usually reduces the risks.

Where this is very relevant to this topic is that after the defeat of the russian invasion Ukraine will need accession to NATO to secure its borders from Russia and Belarus, but it will need accession to the European Union for almost everything else, including stable and constructive integration with the other european countries. They need – and crucially want – both.

Both complement each other – it is not a competition!

And it was actually Ukraine's population-driven decision to orient towards the EU and away from Putin's Russia which Putin took personally and decided to conquer or at least destroy the country for it.

Vintage wrote:

art wrote:

I do not think that you have any real grasp of the manner in which the countries of Europe relate to each other.

You have no business making a statement like that because I'm an American;

Being an american is not a problem. Repeatedly posting clearly and verifiably false claims is. And that is also against the rules.

art wrote:

Article 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon states that "if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all means in their power."

That is empty jargon in the case of Turkey vs Greece if that's what you are alluding to. As I understand it Turkey has at least a foot in the door of the EU anyway, so why can't the EU step in now?

Because Erdogan's increasingly anti-democratic antics have shut the door to a turkish EU accession.

Resolution of Turkey's conflict with Greece had always been a mandatory point on the very long list of outstanding accession issues on top of that but the candidate status is simply frozen now.

There are a ton of non-military options that can be acted on against Greece or Turkey, depending who is seen as the aggressor.
And who is to Judge which side is in the right? Does the EU hold a trial?

Turkey is not in the EU and not a candidate, so the EU does not get involved in any major way besides being on Greece's side where greek and EU sovereignty is threatened.

The reality is that it is a political problem that has to be worked out diplomatically, you appear to be saying that if the EU had an army they would be at war right now.

You keep completely misrepresenting practically every post – see above!

Klaus wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Accepting of course that the UK has quote "done practically nothing" to support the war

If you're snarking in my general direction that would again be a complete misrepresentation of my actual post where I merely questioned the total commitment to the ukrainian cause given the example of an extremely delayed and still slow engagement regarding the refugee crisis there.

My point was strictly limited to that strong claim and the not quite as total commitment in all areas, not at all what you've posted above.

It would be good if correct presentation of other members' posts became the norm again, as the forum rules should actually require.

Nope. I wasn't snarking at you specifically, and I'd suggest trying not to take every post on the thread personally.

I acknowledge the posts containing criticism of the German support. I have said before that I respect that each country needs to find its own way of supporting the war within the political constructs that it has to deal with.
I'm old enough to remember a time when kids like me, if we played "war" at school, the "baddies" were the Germans (because of WW2). No offence intended.
I therefore fully recognise the difficult journey that Germany has to go through to deviate from 60 years of very strict non-aggression, to taking an active role in a European conflict. I respect that, and others should too.

All I'll say is, in the circumstances, that throwing stones at the other supporting nations in about of "whataboutism" will probably result in exactly what you're trying to stop?
Not aimed at you specifically, but at everyone on the thread.

Any Kremlin allies must be laughing their heads off at the direction this thread has taken.
If we really want Ukraine to "win" this war ....

Rgds

johns624 wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I post the link again:
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-agai ... t-tracker/
If one looks at the last graph (direct help and part of EU) Germany and France are only behind the US and just before the UK.
Jonas

And if one looks at the map at the very top of the link, it shows that the UK and US have given more as a percentage of GNP.

You're free to discount the German contribution to the EU support for Ukraine, but I don't think the German tax payer would see it that way, being on the hook for that money too.
The map you refeer to is only direct government support, to graph below you have the same per GDP data but with EU contribution included...result Germany is at 0.33%, France at 0.28%, UK at 0.26% and the US at 0.23%.

But as I said in a mostly ignored post of mine a few page ago, were I'm sad about our bickering: I belive the allies do a pretty good job helping Ukraine TOGETHER. Thus I didn't give the numbers to belittle the US and UK, since they indeed do an amazing job helping Ukraine, but to show that the perception of little German and French help is in my opinion mostly wrong (and add to Klaus' point)

Best regards and power to Ukraine,
Jonas

astuteman wrote:

Any Kremlin allies must be laughing their heads off at the direction this thread has taken.
If we really want Ukraine to "win" this war ....

Rgds

Glad to see someone making the same point as I, but more eloquently.

Best regards my friend,
Jonas

Interesting politico article about Bulgarian help for Ukraine:

Bulgaria to the rescue: How the EU’s poorest country secretly saved Ukraine

Sofia provided fuel and vital Soviet specification arms to Kyiv, but had to keep supplies secret because of pro-Moscow politicians in government.

https://www.politico.eu/article/bulgari ... u-ukraine/

Best regards,
Jonas

I will put this bickering down to the fact that there isn't a lot happening on the ground at the moment and people here have to find something to talk about. Hopefully NATO and the European allies are getting along better and are concentrating on planning the best way to bring the fighting to a conclusion as soon as possible.

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Or, it can be seen as a dangerous way to appear to be able to offer a valid response to aggressors, whilst not really being willing/able to do so.

I guess you mean with “not willing” the right wing of the GOP in the USA….

For someone who lives in the Netherlands, you seem quite preoccupied with the GOP and what they "might" do. We're talking about what hasn't been done. Without the US and UK backing it, there never would have been a consensus on supporting Ukraine. It's almost 11 months into the war and Germany is still waffling. while other countries (including the US) keep sending equipment. It's sad, like a European poster recently said, that a sizeable part of the German population is pro-Russian.

While I would rather a more productive discussion went on, I was curious about this claim about German support.
Just scrolled a bunch of articles and reports, little so far from this year, towards the end of last year however, all give similar numbers, around 70% either support the current German aid or think more should be given. And this has stayed around the same from the start, the much anticipated drop in line with the temperature did not happen, I say expected, by both Putin and those with an axe to grind with Germany, maybe those doing the latter should consider and pause.
This was helped naturally by the action their government took in relation to offsetting, at last, that reliance on Russian fuel.
That just does not show to me significant levels of pro Russian support.

However, a caveat, the figures are different in the East, roughly half the levels of support of the West, though of course with a much smaller population there.
It is also the groundswell areas for both the far right AfD and the pointless Tankies of Der Linke.
Both very minority parties.
Merkel, who for all her failures in this area, has at least kept quiet, whereas the previous US President responded to the visit of the Ukrainian President by calling him a ‘welfare queen’, his party contains plenty who are pro Putin, not just the mad ‘Jewish Space Lasers cause wildfires’ lady MTG.
Then their pet TV channel, one Mr Carlson being an enthusiastic Putin cheerleader.
No equivalent exists in Germany as far as I can tell, at that level, with that media reach.

I would venture that support for Ukraine might also have variations in different parts of the US, for now and the immediate future, that’s not an issue, sane people are running things again but many in Europe do wonder, for how long?
So, overall German public support for Ukraine is very far from having any significant pro Russian element, except with some, a minority, largely in one region, where two parties full of cranks have some support.
But cranks in a party is not unique to Germany, as the paragraph above shows with examples. The difference being not in a major party in Germany.

If this is not believed or accepted, well a search of some articles tracking support up to December took seconds to find, minutes to read.

Eighteen dead, including Ukrainian Interior Affairs minister, in Kyiv helicopter crash.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64315594

Two other senior figures from the interior ministry were killed alongside Mr Monastyrsky. Yevgeny Yenin was first deputy minister while Yuriy Lubkovich was state secretary.

scbriml wrote:

Eighteen dead, including Ukrainian Interior Affairs minister, in Kyiv helicopter crash.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64315594

Two other senior figures from the interior ministry were killed alongside Mr Monastyrsky. Yevgeny Yenin was first deputy minister while Yuriy Lubkovich was state secretary.

Very sad and while it is a tragedy for the victims' families similar to those of victims of the russian attacks I hope that the ukrainian government can restore ministry leadership swiftly and effectively.

astuteman wrote:

Nope. I wasn't snarking at you specifically, and I'd suggest trying not to take every post on the thread personally.

I'm not. It just looked obvious, but given your statement we can leave it there.

I'm old enough to remember a time when kids like me, if we played "war" at school, the "baddies" were the Germans (because of WW2). No offence intended.

None taken. Nazi Germany was in fact the clear villain then, it's just the truth. And while many personal and family histories perfectly justify some hard feelings to this day those have their own valid place apart from this current-events discussion.

I therefore fully recognise the difficult journey that Germany has to go through to deviate from 60 years of very strict non-aggression, to taking an active role in a European conflict. I respect that, and others should too.

It is indeed a whiplash-inducing change for many in Germany but as mentioned by GDB above, the general consensus is still pretty much in line with other countries, just the material status quo should have been much better.

All I'll say is, in the circumstances, that throwing stones at the other supporting nations in about of "whataboutism" will probably result in exactly what you're trying to stop?
Not aimed at you specifically, but at everyone on the thread.

Not my intention above, just clarifying context but no need to dwell on it.

Any Kremlin allies must be laughing their heads off at the direction this thread has taken.
If we really want Ukraine to "win" this war ....

Indeed. What we need is to use our compassion with the suffering of the ukrainians to motivate us, but still soberly looking at the real facts and pushing for the aid that is actually needed in all haste so it really works to optimal effect.

We see the surface level of politics through the lens of the media we consume, so it is important to stay wary of the discrepancies our perception may have from what is actually happening.

GDB wrote:

However, a caveat, the figures are different in the East, roughly half the levels of support of the West, though of course with a much smaller population there.
It is also the groundswell areas for both the far right AfD and the pointless Tankies of Der Linke.
Both very minority parties.

Indeed, both with precarious finances exactly because of their limited voter appeal (german parties receive much / most of their income from the state according to their election results to keep donation corruption at bay, which at least mostly works) and there are indications that this has made both vulnerable to russian oligarch money to some extent, which seems well worth the "investment" given the sometimes (actually: most of the time) bafflingly Putin-sycophantic statements from both.

Die Linke is currently in the process of splitting apart in bitter infighting – could be the final death spiral of the once ruling party of the GDR which never fully arrived in reunited Germany and which is barely clinging on to their last few Bundestag seats right now.

Populism is still a problem, but it's not a dominant one in Germany at this time and support for Ukraine is solid.

Astute assessment overall beyond this.

art wrote:

MBT's on the way. More Patriots from Netherlands coming, I gather. What chance more HIMARS and ATAMCS?

For some reason this seems like a dejavu statement.

Everyone is waiting for Leopards for the Spring offensive.

For my part I believe the signal for the Spring offensive will be the potential delivery of the 150km rockets on Russian targets all along the southern territory leading up to Crimea.

And BTW, did that German official just said German will make announcement Leopard 1 as well as 2 in the coming days?

From Tagesspiegel:

FDP member of the German Bundestag Marcus Faber after a visit to the front in Ukraine: "I am sure that we will deliver Leopard 1 and Leopard 2, which will be official in the next few days."

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

MBT's on the way. More Patriots from Netherlands coming, I gather. What chance more HIMARS and ATAMCS?

For some reason this seems like a dejavu statement.

Everyone is waiting for Leopards for the Spring offensive.

For my part I believe the signal for the Spring offensive will be the potential delivery of the 150km rockets on Russian targets all along the southern territory leading up to Crimea.

And BTW, did that German official just said German will make announcement Leopard 1 as well as 2 in the coming days?

From Tagesspiegel:

FDP member of the German Bundestag Marcus Faber after a visit to the front in Ukraine: "I am sure that we will deliver Leopard 1 and Leopard 2, which will be official in the next few days."

In the way, they already have Leo 1, it's the chassis the Gephards are on, which is why I suspect any more Leo 1 chassis might be support, engineering and bridging versions, some of which have already been donated.
They have received Bergepanzer 2 ARV's, in August, October and December, based on a Leo 1 chassis.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/german-bergep ... n-ukraine/
Plus three tank chassis bridgelaying vehicles in November.

bikerthai wrote:

And BTW, did that German official just said German will make announcement Leopard 1 as well as 2 in the coming days?

From Tagesspiegel:

FDP member of the German Bundestag Marcus Faber after a visit to the front in Ukraine: "I am sure that we will deliver Leopard 1 and Leopard 2, which will be official in the next few days."

He's an MdB, so an ordinary member of parliament, no government official but at least a member of one of the coalition factions supporting the government.

It's almost certainly just his personal opinion, not internal information or in any way authorized, but we'll know more at or after Friday anyway.

US secretary of defense Austin and his other colleagues in the Ukraine contact group won't just meet for tea, that much is certain!

GDB wrote:

In the way, they already have Leo 1, it's the chassis the Gephards are on,

Just "Gepard", no "h".

which is why I suspect any more Leo 1 chassis might be support, engineering and bridging versions, some of which have already been donated.
They have received Bergepanzer 2 ARV's, in August, October and December, based on a Leo 1 chassis.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/german-bergep ... n-ukraine/
Plus three tank chassis bridgelaying vehicles in November.

Yes, the commonality should be useful regarding spare parts and maintenance in case some of the old Leo 1 MBTs should indeed be restored to usable condition.

Which they're not in at this time, at least not the stored german ones; Of course they're not as advanced as Leo 2 and it remains to be seen whether it makes sense to get those ones into Ukraine, too, but it would take a lot of work and it might be in conflict with Leo 2 repairs / preparations on the manufacturer side which would be more useful, of course.

Why not Leopard 1 of they are available? Does the main gun uses the same 105 rounds as the French AMX -10?

They would be lighter than the 2 and may be quicker to train and maybe less maintenance.

Would be fine as bunker busters.

bt

art wrote:

British tank training specialist I saw interviewed estimated 4-6 weeks' crash course training needed for experienced tank crews to reach a very basic level on Challengers. Is that skill level sufficient to send tanks into a combat zone?

Just in time for the March offensive.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Why not Leopard 1 of they are available? Does the main gun uses the same 105 rounds as the French AMX -10?

They would be lighter than the 2 and may be quicker to train and maybe less maintenance.

Would be fine as bunker busters.

bt

No, the Leo 1 uses the L7, a UK originated design, as used on M-60, the first M1's and many more.
But not on the AMX vehicles, that's a French design.

Well, it's not like that any Leo 1 would have to fo up against modern Russian armor

bt

Klaus wrote:

Vintage wrote:

art wrote:

I do not think that you have any real grasp of the manner in which the countries of Europe relate to each other.

You have no business making a statement like that because I'm an American;

Being an american is not a problem. Repeatedly posting clearly and verifiably false claims is. And that is also against the rules.

Link? You're going to have to stop making these false accusations the cornerstone of your arguments with me. If you can't make an argument without making personal attacks (which really are against the TOU), you must have no valid argument. I'm going to start flagging your personal attacks in the future, and I can put about 50 of them in the first PM. You need to actually debate; do better than to throw insults.

art wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Article 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon states that "if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all means in their power."

Resolution of Turkey's conflict with Greece had always been a mandatory point on the very long list of outstanding accession issues on top of that but the candidate status is simply frozen now.

How do you propose to 'resolve' the conflict between Greece and Turkey? Why do you need Article 42.7?

Klaus wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Turkey is not in the EU and not a candidate, so the EU does not get involved in any major way besides being on Greece's side where greek and EU sovereignty is threatened.

The reality is that it is a political problem that has to be worked out diplomatically, you appear to be saying that if the EU had an army they would be at war right now.

You keep completely misrepresenting practically every post – see above!

Exactly what is it that you think I was 'misrepresenting'? You are objecting to my rhetoric, you obviously to need to take a debate class. Learn how to debate in a forthright manner and you won't have to be making so many accusations.

Both Art and you base your argument on Article 42.7 which states "if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all means in their power", 'by all means in their power' is an allusion to military power, aka war - right?


This Greek / Turk subject is off topic, it is another subject needing its own thread. In the future, posts on this topic should be flagged.

art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

MBT's on the way. More Patriots from Netherlands coming, I gather. What chance more HIMARS and ATAMCS?

For some reason this seems like a dejavu statement.

Everyone is waiting for Leopards for the Spring offensive.

They have left the decision on Leopard 2 too late, I think. British tank training specialist I saw interviewed estimated 4-6 weeks' crash course training needed for experienced tank crews to reach a very basic level on Challengers. Is that skill level sufficient to send tanks into a combat zone? When could training on Leopard 2 start?

https://www.forces.net/ukraine/maintain ... k-regiment

Modern MBT training uses, like aircraft, in part simulators, to learn how to ‘fight’ the vehicle, as well as what you would expect with learning to drive and maintain them in a physical way.
As that contributor stated, they will likely send experienced tankers, though having no auto loader, a larger crew will be very new to them.
But then so will having a much more survivable tank, with way better optics, sensors, ergonomics and you can brew up a hot beverage inside a Challenger!

As I mentioned above, we have to try and remember that they are in a war of existential survival, unknown to us, except the rapidly diminishing WW2 veterans, they will most likely get on top of this capability quicker than we expect, as has been seen with other systems so far.
Plus remember when they took back Kharkiv last September? The long regarded as the tip of the Russian armored spear, a tank regiment always at the forefront of Red Square parades, buggered off and left some of the best tanks Russia had while they ‘brave Sir Robin’d out of there.

Just a note, I appreciate the background political posts on this thread. Here in the US there is the enigma of support for Putin and Xi (to a lesser extent) - puzzling. The de facto Ukraine military alliance faces all sorts of fragilities - as well as strengths. Putin wants to reestablish the USSR. Stopping him is essential.

Klaus wrote:

Too bad that you left out the Soviet Union under dictator Stalin which crucially broke the Third Reich's back in the east and rolled it back all the way to Berlin and beyond, triggering Hitler's suicide that way and the regime's total collapse, and soviet populations – notably including those of Ukraine, the baltic states, Belarus and yes, Russia – had suffered terribly under the german attacks and occupations. Even while Stalin added his own extra horrors to that throughout his rule!

That ruins that narrative a little bit, doesn't it? European history is complex and rarely fits very simplified narratives.

Holy simplified narratives, man!

You didn't even mention that Stalin started the war as Hitler's partner! He could have chose to support the forces allied against the Nazis, i.e. England, France and others, at a time when they really needed it, 1939, but nope, he signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler! ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E ... ntrop_Pact ). Basically, Stalin removed any threat Hitler had from the USSR, at a time Hitler was heavily persecuting Communists, just so he could grab half of Poland and the Baltic States. In short, Stalin had Hitler's back.

As yourself how this timeline https://wwiifoundation.org/timeline-of-wwii/ changes if Stalin supports England and France rather than Germany in 1939!

Then he has the balls to come begging the UK and the US for support after the invasion in 1942, at a time where both are under tremendous strain. If he had only done his part in 1939 such help would not be needed!

My biased $0.02: I don't feel at all bad about Soviet suffering during WWII. They brought it on themselves by partnering with Hitler in 1939. Their leadership could have prevented much of what happened from 1939 onward. They should have been anti-Nazi because Hitler was anti-Communist, but chose material gains over their own ideology.. Not to mention Stalin's paranoid purges of his own military throughout the 1930s that helped make their nation so unprepared for WWII. Then the replacement generals knew so little of warfare they used meat-grinder tactics. Sound familiar? They deserve everything they got, IMO. The massive sacrifices they made were due to their own decisions to partner with Hitler, pillage Poland and the Baltic States, and purge their own military of good leadership. They should done the exact opposite: opposed Hitler in 1939 and strengthened their military, and made military alliances with their neighbors against Hitler.

I really wonder what makes you support Stalin so much. It's as if your education on these times is surprisingly lacking, as if you followed a deliberately whitewashed curriculum.

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

I guess you mean with “not willing” the right wing of the GOP in the USA….

For someone who lives in the Netherlands, you seem quite preoccupied with the GOP and what they "might" do. We're talking about what hasn't been done. Without the US and UK backing it, there never would have been a consensus on supporting Ukraine. It's almost 11 months into the war and Germany is still waffling. while other countries (including the US) keep sending equipment. It's sad, like a European poster recently said, that a sizeable part of the German population is pro-Russian.

I guess we'll see what happens going forward, but there has been a large amount of consensus on support for Ukraine in the US Congress. The amount of support already given would not have happened without a lot of Republican support. Unfortunately partisan politics has kicked in and it will now take more moral courage on the part of such Republicans to keep supporting Ukraine. Hopefully they can muster such courage. As it stands, the funding for 2023 is already approved, and the Commander in Chief still has the ability to draw down equipment as he sees fit.

As for "waffling", well, as pointed out, US hasn't given Ukraine everything they've asked for either.

Germany has sent very useful and valuable kit such as Gephard, and PZH2000, and is preparing to send Marder and Patriot, not to mention a lot of other valuable stuff ( https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/ ... ne-2054992 ).

Revelation wrote:

johns624 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

I guess you mean with “not willing” the right wing of the GOP in the USA….

For someone who lives in the Netherlands, you seem quite preoccupied with the GOP and what they "might" do. We're talking about what hasn't been done. Without the US and UK backing it, there never would have been a consensus on supporting Ukraine. It's almost 11 months into the war and Germany is still waffling. while other countries (including the US) keep sending equipment. It's sad, like a European poster recently said, that a sizeable part of the German population is pro-Russian.

I guess we'll see what happens going forward, but there has been a large amount of consensus on support for Ukraine in the US Congress. The amount of support already given would not have happened without a lot of Republican support. Unfortunately partisan politics has kicked in and it will now take more moral courage on the part of such Republicans to keep supporting Ukraine. Hopefully they can muster such courage. As it stands, the funding for 2023 is already approved, and the Commander in Chief still has the ability to draw down equipment as he sees fit.

As for "waffling", well, as pointed out, US hasn't given Ukraine everything they've asked for either.

Germany has sent very useful and valuable kit such as Gephard, and PZH2000, and is preparing to send Marder and Patriot, not to mention a lot of other valuable stuff ( https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/ ... ne-2054992 ).

Certainly many in Europe and in Ukraine would have been relieved that most of the Trump backed nutters failed in the mid terms, plus the ones that are there are tearing lumps out of each other.

Here we are lucky that the UK Defence Secretary is one of the few adults in the Cabinet Room.
Plus the public support is strong so they won't want to damage the one thing most think they are doing right, plus for the most part, the support from the government is genuine.
It would be for any electable government.

It seems like those who said the UK didn't take enough Ukrainian refugees forgot about all the thousands of "temporary" refugees that they gave military training to in the UK.
When you really think of it, the goal isn't to integrate refugees into your society but make it possible for them to return home at the earliest possible time. The Uk is doing that.

Klaus wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Eighteen dead, including Ukrainian Interior Affairs minister, in Kyiv helicopter crash.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64315594

Two other senior figures from the interior ministry were killed alongside Mr Monastyrsky. Yevgeny Yenin was first deputy minister while Yuriy Lubkovich was state secretary.

Very sad and while it is a tragedy for the victims' families similar to those of victims of the russian attacks I hope that the ukrainian government can restore ministry leadership swiftly and effectively.

Really sad news. In Norway it is reported that this is the same helicopter type Super Puma that crashed in Norway after the main rotor separated from the fuselage killing 13 people. The plane that crashed have actually have been flying in Norway in the North Sea.

https://www.aftenposten.no/verden/i/eEv ... ntry=68286

art wrote:

Cleverly said it was clear Putin believed Russian stoicism could outlast the west and that he wanted to drag out an attritional conflict, so it was incumbent on the west to apply the opposite strategy.

Should read "Russian tolerance of their leaders's utmost prioritization of their own self-preservation, their taste for foreign adventures and the days of imperial glory, their unwillingness to use their brains to see through propaganda, and their willingness to produce more children to supply to the meat grinder"

So, what happened to that grand speech Putler was supposed to make today?

I searched the news sources and found nothing that matched the predictions, just Putler talking to factory workers.

Ref: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/putin-c ... s-say.html

art wrote:

However, he did not call up more men to serve in the bloody war, which has seen tens of thousands of Russian soldiers killed or wounded.

Here's how "Inside Russia" from u2b explained things yesterday:

Russia's Minister of defence Sergei Shoigu has just finished a meeting with the armed forces command and right after announced a large restructuring and increase of Russian army. It'll be increased by another 350 000 troops to 1,5 million men. Thre will be one more army corps added in the north eastern part of Russia and Moscow defence will be greatly beefed up.

I said that the mobilisation 2023 will be announced on January 17th ( https://youtu.be/9jQ899erg3A ). Today is January 17th. I wish I was wrong.

Now this is how this new mobilisation will be executed. Slowly and covertly. More than 8 million of Russian men have been black listed - they cannot leave Russia. They will be mobilised first. This time public news will be silent and the only outlets that we will know of that are Telegram channels, Whatsapp chats and Russian speaking media that is based abroad. I'll be listening and will be informing you here and in videos and in streams. Please keep tuning in!

So, he predicts a "stealth mobilization" for want of better terminology. It seems Putler and Shoigu realize they can't just come out and say what will happen directly. To me this is evidence that the frogs are feeling the heat.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9HHZM ... sGoCbIHUkI

art wrote:

I'm not involved with decisions about arms provision to Ukraine but I hope that this news instils a feeling of urgency decisionmakers in the west. I would say that the need for Ukraine to win this war quickly is very, very pressing in view of this development. The alternative could be a very, very protracted, very, very bloody struggle, couldn't it?

Personally, I think the "stealth mobilization" is a sign that Russia can't just call up 300,000 men at a time like they tried to do last year and in return receive functional military formation. They must now realize they can't equip and train that many men at once, nor provide enough good quality leaders to form them into effective formations that can provide positive contributions. Their best hope seems to be to try to pull back spent forces from the front and hope they can serve as a core cadre of a new formation back filled with conscripts, which IMO is pretty dubious since these people didn't learn anything from their time at the front. Intercepted calls show the only thing their troops at the front want to do is go back home to Ruzzia, not be the core of a new formation of "Nazi hunters". They're done with that. However, they do want to take home stolen art, zoo animals, and washing machines.

The next US package for Ukraine could include ground-launched Small Diameter Bombs. These bombs have a 250lbs warhead and can be launched from HIMARS and GMLRS vehicles. They have twice the range of the HIMARS which means Ukraine could reach all its occupied "mainland" as well as the northern part of Crimea. The only concerns I read about the GLSDB is that it is more susceptible of being intercepted than HIMAR rockets due to its relatively slow flying speed (gliding at about 400mph after the propulsion phase is over). But it will nevertheless provide valuable capabilities to Ukraine.

The package will likely include a number of Strykers, an eight-wheeled armored fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems, as well as ground-launched Small Diameter Bombs

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18/major-military-package-ukraine-russia-00078331

Klaus wrote:

art wrote:

Does anyone have an idea of how many Leo 2's are needed to give Ukraine dominance in an attack? Would half a dozen do that or are we talking 20 or more? I ask to get an idea of how many tanks would be needed to force a Russian retreat if Ukraine conducted an offensive somewhere along the front line. If it were 10, then 50 tanks would allow Ukraine to put pressure on the front line in 5 locations.

No war expert, me, but months ago it seemed the best place for Ukraine to go for was Melitopol. How many MBT's would make a push in that direction irresistable by the Russian forces?

The numbers I have seen mentioned are in the lower three digits to really be significant.

It seems plausible that the fewer higher-grade MBTs Ukraine has, the more focused their use would have to be, meaning a smaller scale of the operations they can be used in, with less of an impact.

Cutting the occupied land bridge from Russia to Crimea, pushing back the Donbass invasion forces to Russia, ultimately pushing the invaders out of Crimea and then keeping the long borders to Russia and Belarus secure does not look like a small task that is achievable with just a small, focused force alone, but these moves seem to be what's necessary to get – and keep – Russia out again.

There is an element of getting and keeping a dynamic going (as Ukraine's previous pushback until they recovered Kherson has shown), and how forceful and how enduring that dynamic can be made to be could make a big difference in how long this war will go on and how much suffering and how many deaths there will still be – on both sides. A significant dynamic can even give cover to elements in Russia to push for abandoning the invasion altogether (pushing Putin aside or at least forcing his hand).

To a degree this impact can start even just with the announcement of deliveries as the russian generals will have to readjust their calculations accordingly, even if they don't really know yet what the actual outcomes of confrontations in the battlefield will be. A larger, unified announcement jointly by multiple Leo 2 operator countries will certainly have a much greater psychological and political impact than a drip, drip of smaller announcements spread out over time.

Insofar a joint announcement or a near-time series of announcements at or soon after Friday's meeting would make a lot more sense than a drawn-out series of smaller contingents without viable infrastructure underfeeding them. That is also why it would have been better if the UK announcement had been added to that, even if that would have lowered the domestic PR value a bit.

How many Leo's a year are produced at the moment?

I haven't found current production numbers but they will almost certainly go up soon.

In a protracted war, supply and logistics play a much larger role than individual technical advantages or disadvantages.

While production numbers of the Leopard 2 are very high, with a broad user community that has functioning training and logistics chains, there is a ton of national variants of the Leopard 2, and not all parts from one variant is compatible with another variant, despite looking identical from the outside. A German Leopard 2A6 is not identical to a Greek Leopard 2A6HEL, which isn't identical to a Spanish 2A6E or a Canadian A6M CAN.

There are larger and smaller differences between each variant which make logistics very difficult. In order for the Ukrainians to effectively manage the fleet, they would need to pull together enough of one variant to fill a battalion, or roughly 40 tanks.

The most relevant versions for Ukraine are the A4, A5 and partly A6 versions. The A4 is the oldest and least capable of the three, but has the most numbers produced, and the least national variants out there. This variant is so old, that attempting major upgrades to the fire control systems, the armour, and firepower may not be feasible from both a financial and technical standpoint because this variant is so old.

The A5 and A6 variants remedy the resulting deficits in protection, fire control and firepower to varying degrees. However, these again have larger differences between the national, which would require that either an attempt be made to try to convert whatever tanks can be gathered into a single variant, or require that users give up a large portion of their fleet to Ukraine.

You'll need a lot of cooperation between the various Leopard 2 user community to create a pool of common tanks that the Ukrainians can make use of, and support them in the long term, which is a major sticking point right now. Without the prospect of a replacement (preferably superior to what is donated to Ukraine), you will only get low quantities of Leopards donated. No army wants to give up all of their tanks at once and lose an ability for years.

Not only that, for the Ukrainians, going from the various Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian T-model tanks to the Leopard 2 is a big leap in terms of the learning curve. The Ukrainians would need to become comfortable operating and logistically supporting a tank that is 20-30 tons heavier than what they currently operate. While the firepower and protection is higher than what they currently operate, the Leopard 2 is correspondingly significantly heavier and has a much higher ground pressure. They will have to get used to this and will have to reassess sections of the terrain as what might be passable by a T-series tank might cause a heavier Leopard 2 to be bogged down. They will also need heavier bridging and recovery vehicles, and other combat engineering assets to support a bigger, heavier tank as well.