NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 14 2022 14:28 AxiomB wrote: I am a pacifist and I support the rights of the Ukrainian people to be independent from Russia.
That said,
I do not believe Russia wishes to permanently occupy Ukrainian territory, I believe Putin's aim is to repeatedly wreck Ukrainian cities, civic centres and systems until it is a no man's land, a perpetual war zone that would provide a buffer against further NATO expansion or infringement.
The conflict ignited from Ukraine being promised in the future to become a NATO state and Ukraine taking steps along that road to realise independence. Russia had repeatedly informed NATO, USA and the EU that NATO expansion towards the Ruski Mir (Russian World) was an existential threat and that force would be used if necessary to stop it. With the Ukrainian conflict, Russia is drawing a line in the sand.
When assessing the conflict with this aim in mind, the outcomes, Ukrainian forces recapturing decimated areas for example, are not the ‘wins’ they have been portrayed as in legacy media. They are just steps along the way towards Ukraine becoming what Putin intended from the beginning of the conflict. Sure if Ukrainian assets can be seized along the way, they will be, but that is secondary.
This I believe best reflects Russia’s approach to the conflict. We must keep in mind Putin has a range of military capabilities of which he can draw on; from grunts and out dated firearms etc… all the way up to nuclear missiles. But what do we see being utilized, very little of Russia’s fighter jets, very few of Russia’s high tech capabilities (ICBMs or Thermobaric weapons), no instead we see low cost baseline military personnel (very green soldiers) and machinery at use. The exact type of military approach one would expect to see if a prolonged ground conflict was the aim.
Give these same recaptured locations (which are still hot with sniper fire and soldiers deploying guerilla tactics) another few months or so and they will be reduced to rubble once again.
Russia only moved to a tactic of scourged earth after its plan to conquer Ukraine in 3 days failed.
If Russia fears NATO expansions they should have tried being a better neighbour, the whole reason eastern Europe wants to join NATO is because Russia tries to forcefully bully everyone around it. Without an overhanging fear of Russian aggression there would be no need for those countries to join NATO.
Nothing indicates this is the way Putin wanted this conflict to go. Russia's strategy in the first couple months indicates they intended a speedy resolve, hence why Russia did incredibly risky moves like dropping paratroopers at an airport right outside Kiev. This war has cost Russia politically, militarily, and economically. They have been set back decades while NATO has expanded and strengthened. Their oil production is down as Europe is finding other alternatives. Businesses outside of Russia have pulled out. Thousands upon thousands of Russians are dead and thousands more are injured. Turning Ukraine into rubble doesn't advance Russia's political goals. If this is Putin's master plan, then Putin is a fucking moron. A prolonged conflict does not help anyone. This war is objectively a failure for Russia and the only "victory" Russia has on the table at this point is an imperialist land grab and they are now losing that land. This is going so poorly that people are speculating about whether or not Putin has a Swan Lake moment on the horizon.
I wonder if anyone thinks these PBU copypastas actually convince someone? We've been discussing the conflict for six months here. Making a post that doesn't take into account what has been said and is based on a bunch of assumptions which everyone here knows to be false is just a waste of time.
On September 14 2022 07:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So now Scholz is saying Germany won't send Battle Tanks unless other countries do the same... so what is the hurdle then? Are we talking modern tanks?
It is indeed baffling. And as has been stated in this thread, it's the chancellery that is again being hesitant. I honestly do not understand why Scholz is so afraid to act first for once, and not follow others as before. What an incredibly weak leader he proves to be once again.
I mean fine, don't send the Leos yet. There are up to 100 Marder IFVs on the Rheinmetall parking lot ready to be send. All that is needed is a thumbs up from Scholz.
The notion that a) axiomB is a PBU and that b) he copy pasted this from anywhere seems entirely fictional and something you made up. (He made his first post in 2016, has spent a large majority of his posting time lurking, has a few posts per year, and has never posted anything remotely worthy of being moderated.) You can engage his post on its merits or choose to ignore it, but throwing out random insulting assertions isn't likely to 'actually convince anyone' either. For the record I almost entirely disagree with his post, but there's nothing wrong with him posting it.
On September 14 2022 14:53 StasisField wrote: Nothing indicates this is the way Putin wanted this conflict to go. Russia's strategy in the first couple months indicates they intended a speedy resolve, hence why Russia did incredibly risky moves like dropping paratroopers at an airport right outside Kiev. This war has cost Russia politically, militarily, and economically. They have been set back decades while NATO has expanded and strengthened. Their oil production is down as Europe is finding other alternatives. Businesses outside of Russia have pulled out. Thousands upon thousands of Russians are dead and thousands more are injured. Turning Ukraine into rubble doesn't advance Russia's political goals. If this is Putin's master plan, then Putin is a fucking moron. A prolonged conflict does not help anyone. This war is objectively a failure for Russia and the only "victory" Russia has on the table at this point is an imperialist land grab and they are now losing that land. This is going so poorly that people are speculating about whether or not Putin has a Swan Lake moment on the horizon.
You are 100% correct the war has cost Russia politically, militarily and economically (more so than I first appreciated) and the outside world (except China and North Korea) have broken ties with the country because of the campaign.
My principle source of information regarding the history and conflict is John J. Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago. He insists 'NATO is not yet whole heartedly involved in the war, if they were, Ukraine would be protected by the NATO Nuclear Umbrella, but America does not have interest in a diplomatic solution to the war and thus America and its allies are leading Ukraine down the primrose path, to even greater destruction.'
He was correct in this talk from 2015;
And I believe he is correct in this talk from this year; The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer (found on youtube, disabled on external sites).
I am not an expert in this area at all and agree Russia has behaved like a bully.
On September 14 2022 07:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So now Scholz is saying Germany won't send Battle Tanks unless other countries do the same... so what is the hurdle then? Are we talking modern tanks?
It is indeed baffling. And as has been stated in this thread, it's the chancellery that is again being hesitant. I honestly do not understand why Scholz is so afraid to act first for once, and not follow others as before. What an incredibly weak leader he proves to be once again.
I mean fine, don't send the Leos yet. There are up to 100 Marder IFVs on the Rheinmetall parking lot ready to be send. All that is needed is a thumbs up from Scholz.
To me it seems like an understanding among the western european nations that nobody forces the hand of the others. For the last few 'escalations' in western aid, it seemed the case that other nations were quick with matching it in some form. Too quick for it to not have been discusses in advance. There might be some stupid agreement about not stealing the spotlight. Just with the PzH 2000, only germany would be able to provide training for the Marder IFV I think, since it is not commonly used in europe. Since germany already provided the PzH 2000 training I doubt that also training Marder crews would be an issue which is why I suspect an understanding among the western EU members not to make each other look bad.
I still understand not sending equipment from active service, but the marders are not even part of the bundeswehr inventory and by now are actually able to be delivered in short time from what I have read (as opposed to a few month back when the industry claimed they were ready to go, but the majority of them absolutely was not).
The french have been a mixed bag in this. While I respect Macrons efforts and honesty about the end of the conflict including some diplomatic solution, they have also showed a lack of solidarity. They are still resisting a pipeline from spain that would open up another supply route for gas into central europe, probably because they want to strengthen the position of their nuclear power to sell on the european market.
I highly HIGHLY doubt the US or other allies will say no if Scholz calls and says yo, we are going to send these IFVs, you cool with that?
As it looks like an ever hesitant Scholz uses the outstanding active call from allies to send more equipment as a convenient excuse to delay.
One reason I could sort of understand is that he is afraid of public perception. This would at least explain why the Marders aren't being send, as to the common German they are indistinguishable from main battle tanks. The German language is no help here with the difference between a Kampfpanzer (MBT) and a Schuetzenpanzer (IFV) lost on lay people.
On September 14 2022 17:31 zatic wrote: I highly HIGHLY doubt the US or other allies will say no if Scholz calls and says yo, we are going to send these IFVs, you cool with that?
As it looks like an ever hesitant Scholz uses the outstanding active call from allies to send more equipment as a convenient excuse to delay.
One reason I could sort of understand is that he is afraid of public perception. This would at least explain why the Marders aren't being said, as to the common German they are indistinguishable from main battle tanks. The German language is no help here with the difference between a Kampfpanzer (MBT) and a Schuetzenpanzer (IFV) lost on lay people.
I would agree to that, if we had not already send the PzH 2000 and Mars 2 systems had been the key factor in training ukrainian soldiers on them. Most of what I read in the german media indicates that both the public as well as political support is there. Of course it is possible that the political side is a lie and that there are objections behind closed doors, but then we should have gotten some leaks I think.
I find it odd that the theory of Scholz being weak/indecisive hinges on him not doing the thing that seems to have the most support while resisting to send them seems like the tougher choice at the moment, which is why I assume there are external factors that influence it.
On September 14 2022 16:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: The notion that a) axiomB is a PBU and that b) he copy pasted this from anywhere seems entirely fictional and something you made up. (He made his first post in 2016, has spent a large majority of his posting time lurking, has a few posts per year, and has never posted anything remotely worthy of being moderated.) You can engage his post on its merits or choose to ignore it, but throwing out random insulting assertions isn't likely to 'actually convince anyone' either. For the record I almost entirely disagree with his post, but there's nothing wrong with him posting it.
Mea culpa.
Don't think I've ever seen a 6-year account have 30 posts on it.
As always, I'm not advocating for removal, but I still hold that it's a waste of time trying to post like that. Axiom, if you're going to engage a 4k post thread, at least read some of it first. There's very little point in hoping that topics such as "why did the conflict start", "what are reliable sources ("legacy media"), "which capabilities does RU have", etc. have not been covered yet. TL has an excellent search function, so you can peruse the discussion by keywords with ease. And then you can engage some of the current positions with arguments of your own. Instead, you assumed it's a tabula rasa out here.
As for copypasta, well, these are standard Russian talking points:
- NATO's to blame for Russia invading Ukraine. - Putin is a master strategist. - John Mearsheimer was right.
If this were February, posting these would be understandable.
On the topic who's fault the war is, I would agree that it is a result of geopolitical rope pulling between global powers, as pretty much every war is. However I don't agree with the idea that russia is somehow entitled to a sphere of influence or buffer states just because they say they are. You can clearly see with how quickly Poland and the baltic states joined NATO after ussr collapsed that the old sattelite states are very much done with being russian puppets. Ukraine has been on the fence for a long time, but I think we can say they are done with being a russian plaything too. I don't think even Belarus is very happy about being a russian ally, but their regime needs putin to stay in power so there's nothing they can do about it.
As much as I'm anti-war in general myself (the pointless loss of life and destruction brouhgt by this war angers me to no end), russia's european neighbours have to look out for their wellbeing. Historically, russia has been bullying and conquering the reqion for hundreds of years now, and the countries there know that to be in russia's grip is to be on an ever downward slope of corruption and stagnation. The west on the other hand, while they have their own faults, agendas and goals, a least brings with it a promise of progress and support.
Also I'd add that it's easy to say a country should be russia's buffer state for someone sitting in an office in Chicago, it's an entirely different matter for those actually living there.
On September 14 2022 17:50 Manit0u wrote: I don't think sending Leopards to Ukraine would be much help. They don't really have the infrastructure for that, not to mention training and support.
Same could be said about PzH2000/M109/Krab/CAESAR, yet here we are. If the war drags on, UA would need this infrastructure anyway, because stocks of Soviet-era weapons over the world which could be aquired for UA are starting to run low (Europe have already given most of what they could, other countries with huge stocks of Soviet/Russian weaponry (Algeria/India/Azerbaijan etc.) won't be giving stuff either because they don't want to worsen relations with Russia while it remains their main weapons supplier, or they need these weaponry for their security concerns (or waging war on others themselves). UA is already almost entirely reliant on western aid in terms of artillery, since they are running out of both Soviet era artillery pieces and shells. Forces, that conducted counteroffensive were, from photo/video evidence, mostly made up of western-supplied vehicles (MRAPs, M113s, YPRs, HMMWVs, Polish T-72s, M777s and NATO SPGs, M270s and HIMARSs, even a lot of trucks were not Ukrainian ones). So the demand is definetly there.
On September 14 2022 17:50 Manit0u wrote: I don't think sending Leopards to Ukraine would be much help. They don't really have the infrastructure for that, not to mention training and support.
Same could be said about PzH2000/M109/Krab/CAESAR, yet here we are. If the war drags on, UA would need this infrastructure anyway, because stocks of Soviet-era weapons over the world which could be aquired for UA are starting to run low (Europe have already given most of what they could, other countries with huge stocks of Soviet/Russian weaponry (Algeria/India/Azerbaijan etc.) won't be giving stuff either because they don't want to worsen relations with Russia while it remains their main weapons supplier, or they need these weaponry for their security concerns (or waging war on others themselves). UA is already almost entirely reliant on western aid in terms of artillery, since they are running out of both Soviet era artillery pieces and shells. Forces, that conducted counteroffensive were, from photo/video evidence, mostly made up of western-supplied vehicles (MRAPs, M113s, YPRs, HMMWVs, Polish T-72s, M777s and NATO SPGs, M270s and HIMARSs, even a lot of trucks were not Ukrainian ones). So the demand is definetly there.
I agree. The logistics argument made sense when the threat of ukraine falling was much more imminent, but they are in a position to build up those logistics and infrastructure now. And russia still has the material advantage, if ukraine doesn't manage to force them to make concession, russia can try and continue to grind down ukraine in a war of attrition which ukraine can only win on the material side if they have very decisive western support.
Though there is still the issue that having various different western tanks would put an unnecessary straing on ukraines logistics and infrastructure, so the support has to be substantial enough in volume, and the US might be the only one to be able to provide that without diminishing their combat readiness in in a significant way. Though the logistically they are the worst option I think, sending a large amount of tanks to ukraine from the US must be a massive undertaking that will take a long time. A program where the US continuously ships tanks to the UK / EU where ukrainian troops then can get training and move on to ukraine with their new equipment might be a good idea. Constant/controlled streams are usually the best thing for logistics and it would allow to continuously grow ukraines capabilities and their required infrastructure / training alongside with it. With mud season coming up and winter afterwards, they might get the perfect chance for that over the next months.
On September 14 2022 14:53 StasisField wrote: Nothing indicates this is the way Putin wanted this conflict to go. Russia's strategy in the first couple months indicates they intended a speedy resolve, hence why Russia did incredibly risky moves like dropping paratroopers at an airport right outside Kiev. This war has cost Russia politically, militarily, and economically. They have been set back decades while NATO has expanded and strengthened. Their oil production is down as Europe is finding other alternatives. Businesses outside of Russia have pulled out. Thousands upon thousands of Russians are dead and thousands more are injured. Turning Ukraine into rubble doesn't advance Russia's political goals. If this is Putin's master plan, then Putin is a fucking moron. A prolonged conflict does not help anyone. This war is objectively a failure for Russia and the only "victory" Russia has on the table at this point is an imperialist land grab and they are now losing that land. This is going so poorly that people are speculating about whether or not Putin has a Swan Lake moment on the horizon.
You are 100% correct the war has cost Russia politically, militarily and economically (more so than I first appreciated) and the outside world (except China and North Korea) have broken ties with the country because of the campaign.
My principle source of information regarding the history and conflict is John J. Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago. He insists 'NATO is not yet whole heartedly involved in the war, if they were, Ukraine would be protected by the NATO Nuclear Umbrella, but America does not have interest in a diplomatic solution to the war and thus America and its allies are leading Ukraine down the primrose path, to even greater destruction.'
And I believe he is correct in this talk from this year; The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer (found on youtube, disabled on external sites).
I am not an expert in this area at all and agree Russia has behaved like a bully.
Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership for as long as there are territorial disputes. This was made entirely clear to everyone. The idea that Ukraine was going to join NATO against Russian interests is a fantasy, the Russian occupations of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine made them ineligible and even had they been eligible NATO would be unlikely to invite them in. You only invite in countries that you’re prepared to die for, and also countries that you’re thinking probably won’t need you to die for them.
There are a series of prerequisites for Ukraine joining that must be met.
The territorial disputes with Russia must be clearly resolved. It looks like this may happen sometime in 2023 with a full restoration of Ukraine’s borders.
Ukraine must look like the kind of place Russia wouldn’t want to start a war with (if Russia starts a war with NATO everyone dies so you don’t want anywhere too attractive to Russia in NATO). Ukraine is looking increasingly unattractive to Russia.
Ukraine must look like it’s military adds value to the deterrence of the alliance. A formal treaty represents an obligation to defend someone in response to their obligation to defend you. There are winners and losers here. Take somewhere small like Greece. If it were attacked without NATO the US could still choose to defend it if it wanted, but it wouldn’t have to. NATO forces the entire might of the US military to defend the Greeks, whether they want to or not. What the US gets in return is a promise that NATO will force the Greeks to defend the US. This is not a fair trade, one promise is worth significantly more than the other. For Ukraine to be worth having in NATO there needs to be some reason to think the Ukrainian army might actually be able to take Russia on.
In short there was absolutely zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO unless Russia invaded them and lost. Have you considered the possibility that Putin might be pushing for NATO expansion to Ukraine? They were happily saying they would go without it before the war but he rejected their assurances, rejected any diplomatic efforts, and seems to be wholly committed to ensuring that they are NATO eligible.
On September 14 2022 17:50 Manit0u wrote: I don't think sending Leopards to Ukraine would be much help. They don't really have the infrastructure for that, not to mention training and support.
Same could be said about PzH2000/M109/Krab/CAESAR, yet here we are. If the war drags on, UA would need this infrastructure anyway, because stocks of Soviet-era weapons over the world which could be aquired for UA are starting to run low (Europe have already given most of what they could, other countries with huge stocks of Soviet/Russian weaponry (Algeria/India/Azerbaijan etc.) won't be giving stuff either because they don't want to worsen relations with Russia while it remains their main weapons supplier, or they need these weaponry for their security concerns (or waging war on others themselves). UA is already almost entirely reliant on western aid in terms of artillery, since they are running out of both Soviet era artillery pieces and shells. Forces, that conducted counteroffensive were, from photo/video evidence, mostly made up of western-supplied vehicles (MRAPs, M113s, YPRs, HMMWVs, Polish T-72s, M777s and NATO SPGs, M270s and HIMARSs, even a lot of trucks were not Ukrainian ones). So the demand is definetly there.
I agree. The logistics argument made sense when the threat of ukraine falling was much more imminent, but they are in a position to build up those logistics and infrastructure now. And russia still has the material advantage, if ukraine doesn't manage to force them to make concession, russia can try and continue to grind down ukraine in a war of attrition which ukraine can only win on the material side if they have very decisive western support.
Though there is still the issue that having various different western tanks would put an unnecessary straing on ukraines logistics and infrastructure, so the support has to be substantial enough in volume, and the US might be the only one to be able to provide that without diminishing their combat readiness in in a significant way. Though the logistically they are the worst option I think, sending a large amount of tanks to ukraine from the US must be a massive undertaking that will take a long time. A program where the US continuously ships tanks to the UK / EU where ukrainian troops then can get training and move on to ukraine with their new equipment might be a good idea. Constant/controlled streams are usually the best thing for logistics and it would allow to continuously grow ukraines capabilities and their required infrastructure / training alongside with it. With mud season coming up and winter afterwards, they might get the perfect chance for that over the next months.
In terms of logistics Leo2 would be the most sensible choice. Operated all over Europe, thousands built, still in production, spare parts available, training could be offered by multiple nations.
On September 14 2022 14:53 StasisField wrote: Nothing indicates this is the way Putin wanted this conflict to go. Russia's strategy in the first couple months indicates they intended a speedy resolve, hence why Russia did incredibly risky moves like dropping paratroopers at an airport right outside Kiev. This war has cost Russia politically, militarily, and economically. They have been set back decades while NATO has expanded and strengthened. Their oil production is down as Europe is finding other alternatives. Businesses outside of Russia have pulled out. Thousands upon thousands of Russians are dead and thousands more are injured. Turning Ukraine into rubble doesn't advance Russia's political goals. If this is Putin's master plan, then Putin is a fucking moron. A prolonged conflict does not help anyone. This war is objectively a failure for Russia and the only "victory" Russia has on the table at this point is an imperialist land grab and they are now losing that land. This is going so poorly that people are speculating about whether or not Putin has a Swan Lake moment on the horizon.
You are 100% correct the war has cost Russia politically, militarily and economically (more so than I first appreciated) and the outside world (except China and North Korea) have broken ties with the country because of the campaign.
My principle source of information regarding the history and conflict is John J. Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago. He insists 'NATO is not yet whole heartedly involved in the war, if they were, Ukraine would be protected by the NATO Nuclear Umbrella, but America does not have interest in a diplomatic solution to the war and thus America and its allies are leading Ukraine down the primrose path, to even greater destruction.'
And I believe he is correct in this talk from this year; The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer (found on youtube, disabled on external sites).
I am not an expert in this area at all and agree Russia has behaved like a bully.
Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership for as long as there are territorial disputes. This was made entirely clear to everyone. The idea that Ukraine was going to join NATO against Russian interests is a fantasy, the Russian occupations of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine made them ineligible and even had they been eligible NATO would be unlikely to invite them in. You only invite in countries that you’re prepared to die for, and also countries that you’re thinking probably won’t need you to die for them.
There are a series of prerequisites for Ukraine joining that must be met.
The territorial disputes with Russia must be clearly resolved. It looks like this may happen sometime in 2023 with a full restoration of Ukraine’s borders.
Ukraine must look like the kind of place Russia wouldn’t want to start a war with (if Russia starts a war with NATO everyone dies so you don’t want anywhere too attractive to Russia in NATO). Ukraine is looking increasingly unattractive to Russia.
Ukraine must look like it’s military adds value to the deterrence of the alliance. A formal treaty represents an obligation to defend someone in response to their obligation to defend you. There are winners and losers here. Take somewhere small like Greece. If it were attacked without NATO the US could still choose to defend it if it wanted, but it wouldn’t have to. NATO forces the entire might of the US military to defend the Greeks, whether they want to or not. What the US gets in return is a promise that NATO will force the Greeks to defend the US. This is not a fair trade, one promise is worth significantly more than the other. For Ukraine to be worth having in NATO there needs to be some reason to think the Ukrainian army might actually be able to take Russia on.
In short there was absolutely zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO unless Russia invaded them and lost. Have you considered the possibility that Putin might be pushing for NATO expansion to Ukraine? They were happily saying they would go without it before the war but he rejected their assurances, rejected any diplomatic efforts, and seems to be wholly committed to ensuring that they are NATO eligible.
This appears to contradict everything else you said. Maybe you meant Zelensky when you said Putin.
Not sure if the issue was resolved already but I remember disagreements between Poland and Germany about potential (allegedly promised) replacements for the Soviet tanks given to Ukraine earlier. Maybe the German government is in the process of clearing things up and making sure they can send operational tanks. Some time ago there was a problem with some other country sending Ukraine outdated stuff, and giving Ukraine broken Leopards would be a PR disaster.
On September 14 2022 17:50 Manit0u wrote: I don't think sending Leopards to Ukraine would be much help. They don't really have the infrastructure for that, not to mention training and support.
Same could be said about PzH2000/M109/Krab/CAESAR, yet here we are. If the war drags on, UA would need this infrastructure anyway, because stocks of Soviet-era weapons over the world which could be aquired for UA are starting to run low (Europe have already given most of what they could, other countries with huge stocks of Soviet/Russian weaponry (Algeria/India/Azerbaijan etc.) won't be giving stuff either because they don't want to worsen relations with Russia while it remains their main weapons supplier, or they need these weaponry for their security concerns (or waging war on others themselves). UA is already almost entirely reliant on western aid in terms of artillery, since they are running out of both Soviet era artillery pieces and shells. Forces, that conducted counteroffensive were, from photo/video evidence, mostly made up of western-supplied vehicles (MRAPs, M113s, YPRs, HMMWVs, Polish T-72s, M777s and NATO SPGs, M270s and HIMARSs, even a lot of trucks were not Ukrainian ones). So the demand is definetly there.
I agree. The logistics argument made sense when the threat of ukraine falling was much more imminent, but they are in a position to build up those logistics and infrastructure now. And russia still has the material advantage, if ukraine doesn't manage to force them to make concession, russia can try and continue to grind down ukraine in a war of attrition which ukraine can only win on the material side if they have very decisive western support.
Though there is still the issue that having various different western tanks would put an unnecessary straing on ukraines logistics and infrastructure, so the support has to be substantial enough in volume, and the US might be the only one to be able to provide that without diminishing their combat readiness in in a significant way. Though the logistically they are the worst option I think, sending a large amount of tanks to ukraine from the US must be a massive undertaking that will take a long time. A program where the US continuously ships tanks to the UK / EU where ukrainian troops then can get training and move on to ukraine with their new equipment might be a good idea. Constant/controlled streams are usually the best thing for logistics and it would allow to continuously grow ukraines capabilities and their required infrastructure / training alongside with it. With mud season coming up and winter afterwards, they might get the perfect chance for that over the next months.
In terms of logistics Leo2 would be the most sensible choice. Operated all over Europe, thousands built, still in production, spare parts available, training could be offered by multiple nations.
Con: Needs a thumbs up from Scholz.
Thing with Leo2 is that most of them are in the active service of many countries. Plus, despite it being very popular tank, numbers built are almost 3 times less than M1 (3600 against 10400), and there are thousands of M1s sitting in storage in the deserts (though there is still question of their readiness levels). Artesimo correctly pointed at issues with the deliveries of them though (and the fact that in this case only US would bear the costs of the delivery). The logical step would be setting up a large training ground and storage base in Poland, where UA and PL (since the latter is inteding to aquire M1s as well) tankers would be training on them, which will work as a transfer hub to Ukraine later. Costs of such deliveries would be steep though, since you also need to bring everythin necessary to maintain and operate the tanks. I also don't think that there are many Western tank types that could be sent to Ukraine en masse. Only M1 and Leo2 exist in sufficient numbers at the moment. IFVs could be more diverse though, and I would probably be more eager for the aquisition of something like M2, were I Ukrainian. UA still has a ton of non-mechanized infantry, and less weight of the vehicle means less issues with transportation and operation in the field (as most of the bridges in UA aren't really suited for 70-ton tanks).
On September 14 2022 14:53 StasisField wrote: Nothing indicates this is the way Putin wanted this conflict to go. Russia's strategy in the first couple months indicates they intended a speedy resolve, hence why Russia did incredibly risky moves like dropping paratroopers at an airport right outside Kiev. This war has cost Russia politically, militarily, and economically. They have been set back decades while NATO has expanded and strengthened. Their oil production is down as Europe is finding other alternatives. Businesses outside of Russia have pulled out. Thousands upon thousands of Russians are dead and thousands more are injured. Turning Ukraine into rubble doesn't advance Russia's political goals. If this is Putin's master plan, then Putin is a fucking moron. A prolonged conflict does not help anyone. This war is objectively a failure for Russia and the only "victory" Russia has on the table at this point is an imperialist land grab and they are now losing that land. This is going so poorly that people are speculating about whether or not Putin has a Swan Lake moment on the horizon.
You are 100% correct the war has cost Russia politically, militarily and economically (more so than I first appreciated) and the outside world (except China and North Korea) have broken ties with the country because of the campaign.
My principle source of information regarding the history and conflict is John J. Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago. He insists 'NATO is not yet whole heartedly involved in the war, if they were, Ukraine would be protected by the NATO Nuclear Umbrella, but America does not have interest in a diplomatic solution to the war and thus America and its allies are leading Ukraine down the primrose path, to even greater destruction.'
And I believe he is correct in this talk from this year; The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer (found on youtube, disabled on external sites).
I am not an expert in this area at all and agree Russia has behaved like a bully.
Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership for as long as there are territorial disputes. This was made entirely clear to everyone. The idea that Ukraine was going to join NATO against Russian interests is a fantasy, the Russian occupations of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine made them ineligible and even had they been eligible NATO would be unlikely to invite them in. You only invite in countries that you’re prepared to die for, and also countries that you’re thinking probably won’t need you to die for them.
There are a series of prerequisites for Ukraine joining that must be met.
The territorial disputes with Russia must be clearly resolved. It looks like this may happen sometime in 2023 with a full restoration of Ukraine’s borders.
Ukraine must look like the kind of place Russia wouldn’t want to start a war with (if Russia starts a war with NATO everyone dies so you don’t want anywhere too attractive to Russia in NATO). Ukraine is looking increasingly unattractive to Russia.
Ukraine must look like it’s military adds value to the deterrence of the alliance. A formal treaty represents an obligation to defend someone in response to their obligation to defend you. There are winners and losers here. Take somewhere small like Greece. If it were attacked without NATO the US could still choose to defend it if it wanted, but it wouldn’t have to. NATO forces the entire might of the US military to defend the Greeks, whether they want to or not. What the US gets in return is a promise that NATO will force the Greeks to defend the US. This is not a fair trade, one promise is worth significantly more than the other. For Ukraine to be worth having in NATO there needs to be some reason to think the Ukrainian army might actually be able to take Russia on.
In short there was absolutely zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO unless Russia invaded them and lost. Have you considered the possibility that Putin might be pushing for NATO expansion to Ukraine? They were happily saying they would go without it before the war but he rejected their assurances, rejected any diplomatic efforts, and seems to be wholly committed to ensuring that they are NATO eligible.
This appears to contradict everything else you said. Maybe you meant Zelensky when you said Putin.
Putin is the one pushing for a final resolution to the decade long territorial disputes. Putin is the one making future conflicts with Ukraine less attractive for Russia. Putin is the one demonstrating the value of Ukraine. No Putin, no NATO expansion.
EPT
